Oil: The real threat to national security

[RedEarth]

Oct. 4, 2004 | As the presidential campaign draws to a close, the two major candidates are sparring over many aspects of American foreign policy -- notably Iraq, the war on terrorism, and America's fraying ties with other major powers. But there is one critical topic that both are refusing to confront frankly: America's growing dependence on imported petroleum.

Rising oil dependency has many serious consequences for the United States. To begin with, it entails a mammoth transfer of national wealth to foreign oil producers: nearly $200 billion per year at current prices. These transfers represent the single largest contribution to our staggering balance-of-payments deficit and are steadily eroding the value of the dollar. Growing dependency also compels us to coddle foreign oil potentates like the royal family of Saudi Arabia -- some of whose members made lavish donations to Islamic charities linked to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Worst of all, our dependence renders us highly vulnerable to oil shocks caused by turmoil and conflict in the major producing areas abroad.

These are not new concerns. The United States has been exposed to the fallout of rising oil dependency for some time. But the severity of the problem has become more pronounced over the past few years. As the United States has deepened its reliance on imported petroleum, the center of gravity of world oil production has shifted inexorably from established producers in the industrialized world to emerging suppliers in the Middle East, Africa, and the Andean region of Latin America -- war zones all. The further we look into the future, therefore, the greater the risk of international oil crises.

Given the high stakes involved, oil dependency should be among the top issues discussed in the campaign. Both major candidates should be offering detailed plans for reducing our reliance on imports and developing alternative sources of energy. And, to be fair, both have made token statements in this direction: Sen. Kerry has called for greater spending on petroleum alternatives, while President Bush has touted his plan to promote energy "independence" by drilling in Alaska and other protected wilderness areas. But neither candidate has been willing to face the fact that American dependence on imported oil will continue to grow unless we adopt far more ambitious plans of conservation and changes in technology.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/10/04/oil_depend...

[phantom power]

1. The "neither candidate is doing enough" angle is counterproductive

It obscures the fact that one candidate intends to move us in the right direction (Kerry), and the other candidate (Bush) has shown that he intends to move us as fast as he can in the *wrong* direction.