Out of Gas

Speaking at the Democratic convention this summer, John Kerry took a memorable dig at the president. “We value an America that controls its own destiny because it’s finally and forever independent of Mideast oil . . . I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation—not the Saudi royal family.” I was on the floor of the FleetCenter and heard as the line was greeted first by silence—had he really gone there?—and then by loud cheers of approval. The attack has since become a regular refrain on the Kerry stump.

But isn’t this line of attack unfair? After all, Bush has been raising the call for national energy independence since long before Kerry’s convention pot shot. Indeed, the president has declared his intention to make America less dependent on foreign oil in all three of his State of the Union addresses. So is Bush for real?

Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly, the answer is no. Turns out the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has already done the legwork on this one. In a report released in February the EIA found that the administration-backed energy bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, HR 6, would make only a “negligible” contribution toward national energy independence.

EIA’s findings seem pretty solid—even Secretary of Energy (and Bush appointee) Spencer Abraham was unwilling to go to bat on this one, telling Congress in April that he did “not dispute the EIA analyses.”

That’s it? Haven’t we come to expect a little more creativity from this administration when it comes to producing “objective” scientific reports? Not to worry—Abraham is probably still just bitter about being sidelined during Cheney’s backroom love-fest with all those energy industry reps back in 2001.

Of course, it’s only fair to cut the Bush administration a little slack on this one. Formulating a serious proposal to make America energy independent anytime in the foreseeable future is no easy task. The fact is that there is a finite and rapidly diminishing quantity of oil in the earth, and the United States simply doesn’t have much of it—about 3 percent, to be exact—even counting the Arctic. As our energy consumption continues to increase, we will be forced to import ever-greater quantities of oil. And as domestic reserves dry up these imports will comprise an ever-greater proportion of total consumption.

The only way out of this mess is both to make a serious effort to curb demand and to make a real investment in alternative sources of energy. Since HR 6 does neither—it basically just ups subsidies for oil suppliers—the EIA’s findings should come as little surprise. Kerry’s energy proposal, by contrast, mandates both. Whether he would have the political conviction to see them through is another matter.

But if most politicians’ time horizons don’t extend past the next election cycle, world markets offer a more farsighted view. Unfortunately the view isn’t pretty. The price of oil continues to climb as we deplete our diminishing world reserves at an ever-accelerating rate.

While American consumers have started to take notice, we still aren’t internalizing the full cost of our dirty little habit. That’s because our government subsidizes the oil companies big time—a topic certainly on the agenda during Cheney’s backroom meetings in 2001—which helps keep the price of gas down at the pump. Whether it’s gas prices or tax dollars, American consumers have to pay the piper either way. The problem is that most people don’t make the connection; whereas higher gas prices would lower demand and increase support for alternative energies and more fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing government subsidies does neither. It’s no accident that no major American car company marketed a hybrid until Ford introduced one this summer.

When short-term shocks do threaten to raise prices noticeably, people have a way of getting pissed, and the administration is usually quick to take action. Only four months ago the President refused to tap into the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves, arguing that doing so “would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror.” But Bush changed his mind after Hurricane Ivan disrupted oil imports. It was probably the right policy move on the merits, but let’s not fool ourselves about the administration’s motives—all that “war on terror” rhetoric doesn’t stand a chance if Floridians start having sticker shock at the pump weeks before the election.

The Columbia Journalism Review recently noted that neither candidate has been particularly eager to confront the hard facts of energy policy this election season. No surprise there. But at least one thing’s for sure: Until we get serious about energy independence, American foreign policy in the Middle East will continue to be hamstrung at a time we can least afford it.

Sasha Post ’05 is a social studies concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.