Reading Hillary Clinton's recent speech (more on that later) reminded me of an old hobbyhorse: As faithful readers will recall, the term "foreign oil" irritates me to no end. Decrying our dependence of foreign oil is just a way of decrying our dependence on oil, period -- with the extra macho credibility that comes with jingoistic, xenophobic overtones. For that reason it's probably politically necessary. But it adds nothing to our substantive understanding of America's energy situation. For a host of geological, economic, social, and environmental reasons, we could never conceivably produce enough "domestic oil" to satisfy our demand -- and anyway, what domestic oil we do produce goes out on the world market like any other oil. The problems that come with dependence on foreign oil and the problems that come with dependence on oil are one in the same. It would make as much sense to decry "liquid oil" or "underground oil."
So if you hear the term "foreign oil" from a politician, assume it's accompanied by a wink and a nod. If you hear it from a pundit, assume it's accompanied by confusion.
Update [2005-10-25 14:0:34 by David Roberts]: Oh, the whole point of this post was supposed to be: The term "foreign oil" suggests that domestic oil would be okay, and thus supports the scumbags in Congress who are trying to build new refineries on military bases and neuter environmental protections. It doesn't matter that in her speech, Clinton says "a few more refineries and drills won't solve the problem" -- the very term she's using to frame the problem works against that point. Framing, people. Look it up.
Comments View as Flat
greenstork Posted 9:01 am
25 Oct 2005
"foreign" oil promotes domestic energy
It seems like the term "foreign" oil is helpoing to frame a push towards energy independence. Now granted, this is a rationalization for building more refineries, drilling the Arctic Refuge, and continuing our reliance on oil, be it foreign or domestic. But, if we can convince the public that we need to reduce our reliance on "foreign" oil by promoting energy independence, that shift in thinking is a step in the right direction, IMO.
If the public is convinced that we need to produce energy domestically, then renewable alternatives will look better each day. You'll get a lot more from the right supporting domestically produced energy and when that becomes the public ideal, then renewable, sustainable energy production will be much easier to promote than it is now.
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:28 am
25 Oct 2005
foreign oil
Look the phrase just reminds us of two things: it's oil, and it comes from foreign lands.
That means "foreign oil" has the environmental impacts we are all well versed in, as well as economic and national security impacts that don't ususally share these pages.
It would be "incomplete" for a national securty type to insist that the only problem with "foreign oil" is in the first word ... just as it would be "incomplete" for an environmentalist to say that the only problem with "foreign oil" is in the second word.
These are all real problems that compete for our attention.
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:30 am
25 Oct 2005
win-win
Oh, and as greenstork says, there is no reason to complain about a term when you can happily announce you have a solution. Green energy sources within the US solve both the "foreign" and the "oil" parts of "foreign oil."
Permalink
wedjr Posted 1:23 am
26 Oct 2005
Framing
Thanks, Dave, for keeping your eye on the ball. I just don't see a pol on either horizon who has bold transformative ideas or compelling frames...yet. The Dems are habitually reactive. Keep the faith. A great articulation of the leadership we need is from the 30 year update to Limits to Growth:
"The necessity of taking the industrial world to its next stage of evolution is not a disaster--it is an amazing opportunity. How to seize the opportunity, how to bring into being a world that is not only sustainable, functional, and equitable but also deeply desirable is a question of leadership and ethics and vision and courage..."
http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/limitstogrowth.pdf
The vision is just hangin there for someone to grab.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:19 am
26 Oct 2005
Foreign does mean something
The fact that the US depends on foreign oil means two things: 1) the US has a much larger trade deficit (which creates a host of problems, not least that eventually the bill will come due on the T-bills we're selling to pay for it), and 2) the US is vulnerable to supply disruptions.
The 2nd is the worst. Because of the lessons of oil dependence in WWII (for Japan and Germany), and of oil-shock induced recessions, the US is determined to control it's suppliers in the Middle East. This has led to 1) the US-led replacement of a freely elected government with a king, in Iran in 1954, which led to the 1979 overthrow, another oil shock, and a xenophobic authoritarian government much worse than the 1954 government; 2) support of a highly authoritarian government in Saudi Arabia, which created a rebellious Osama Bin Laden; 3) support of the Afghan resistance to a Soviet government, which led to chaos in Afghanistan and a Osama Bin Laden/Al Quaeda now well trained in guerilla tactics; 4) the first gulf war to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia 5) posting of troops in Saudia Arabia which led to 9-11; and 6) the invasion of Iraq. We should also include 7) an authoritarian government in Egypt, which breeds radicalism and anger towards the US in the same way.
You can argue about some of the details above, but it's clear that the US would not be involved in the Middle East in anything like this manner if it were not dependent on Middle East oil. So, "foreign" does mean something, if only because the US has always believed that it does.
Permalink