• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • The Shifting Discourse on Oil Independence

    November 14, 2007 By Thomas Renard
    For years, some experts have predicted that the depletion of global oil reserves—and the resulting rising price of oil—would make U.S. dependence on foreign oil economically untenable. Calls to address American energy consumption are nothing new. Yet technology has expanded the industry’s ability to find and extract oil: The National Petroleum Council estimates the total proven reserves at 1.2 trillion barrels—38 years of supply at current rates of consumption. It is likely that another trillion barrels of undiscovered oil exist, as well as 1.5 trillion barrels of “unconventional” reserves of heavy oil, according to the federally chartered advisory committee. As Vijay Vaitheeswaran argues in Foreign Policy magazine, “the world is simply not running out of oil. It is running into it.”

    Recently, then, many advocates of oil independence have shifted from an economic argument, which has become hard to sustain at a time when governments are paying $98 a barrel for oil, to a security argument—although this is not to say that national security was not a concern at all previously. Besides the failure of alarmist predictions, two factors explain the shift from an economic to a security discourse: climate change and terrorism. The growing awareness of the causes and extent of climate change has tarnished the image of fossil fuels. According to a BBC poll, 50 percent of the world population favors higher taxes on fossil fuels.

    Even more than climate change, however, it is the links between oil and terrorism that cause concern among policymakers. At a conference at the Brookings Institution, former CIA director James Woolsey argued that oil revenue often flows to Islamist regimes that finance madrassas, which educate the next generation of terrorists. Oil can be a source terrorism, but it can also be a target. Oil convoys are one of the main concerns of U.S. troops in Iraq, as they are frequently attacked by terrorists. In addition, the oil fields of the Niger Delta are often attacked by rebel groups.

    In his book Freedom from Oil, David Sandalow, an expert on energy policy and climate change, explores what could happen if the next president prioritized oil independence– which he defines as reducing U.S. oil consumption to the point that imports are minimal. [For Sandalow’s response, read comments below.] He believes the transportation complex should be the target of future policies, and that biofuels and plug-in cars are part of the solution. Indeed, as Vaitheeswaran notes, “this year, two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption—and half of global oil consumption—will be sucked up by cars and trucks. Reinventing the car is the only serious way to wean the world off oil.”
    Topics: energy, foreign policy, natural resources, security
    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06338664991427540295 David

      Excellent post, Tom. This is an important topic and I’m glad you’re writing about it.

      I just wanted to correct your quick summary of my book Freedom from Oil, however. I don’t define oil independence as “reducing U.S. oil consumption to the point that imports are minimal.” In fact I have a chapter called “Trapped in the 1970s” in which I argue that the emphasis on imports in our political dialogue concerning oil is overblown. The fundamental issue when it comes to oil is that there are almost no substitutes in the transport sector. More than 96% of the energy in our cars and trucks comes from oil. That fact – far more than the percentage of oil we import – drives the national security, environmental and economic problems typically associated with oil.

      Consider three facts:

      — We haven’t imported a drop of oil from Iran in 25 years. But that doesn’t prevent the Iranians from using their oil card in international negotiations over their nuclear program.

      — The greenhouse gas content of imported and domestic oil is the same.

      — In the summer of 2000, British truckers went on strike over increasing costs for diesel fuel, caused by rising world oil prices. At the time, the UK was energy independent – exporting oil and gas into world markets. That fact didn’t protect truckers from the impact of rising world oil prices. (For this example, I’m indebted to my friend Ron Minsk.)

      Don’t get me wrong — the percentage of oil we import matters with respect to some problems, such as the trade deficit. But oil is a fungible commodity, traded globally. The percentage we import matters much less than the utter dependence of our cars and trucks on this one commodity. More on this point in Freedom from Oil. best, David Sandalow

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14446081650401024573 Thomas Renard

      Excellent comment David, thank you for it. To make it clear, the point of my post was to insist on the new discourse about energy security, more than on energy security itself.
      I agree with you: cars and trucks are the real problem we have to tackle.
      However, as long as cars run on oil, the US will be dependent on foreign oil. And that fact shapes a great deal in foreign policy. America just fought two wars in Iraq, partly for oil.
      Having said that, I recommend everyone to read David’s book “Freedom from oil”.
      I saw you, David, at Brookings Institute, great speech. The transcript is online for those interested…

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Rainforest destruction. Gold mining place in Guyana China’s Growing Environmental Footprint in the Caribbean
    ZingaZingaZingazoomzoom: US cleans up. China runs wild on free rein- A lack of international compliance mechanisms to hold...
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000