All your criticisms of the "geo-greens" like Thomas Friedman are right on.  The language of national security is not the best framework for discussing energy issues.

And yet...

I think you're posing a non-existent choice:
Energy independence, OR
Environmental sustainability

In the current political climate, sustainability is NOT on the table, much as I would like it to be.

The choice is between:
Energy independence, OR
Wars for oil

Energy independence is a MUCH better alternative. Even if ethanol is a dumb solution, it's way better than a festering series of wars in the Middle East and Latin America.  It is very encouraging that hawks and ex-CIA directors see this too.    

Energy independence is a rational response, whether or not one agrees with it.  One can reason with conservatives on these issues, whereas it is not possible to reason with Bush & Co. on their Holy Wars.  

There is at least an agreement that it would be good to pay attention to energy, not to waste, to find alternatives.  We can start out by talking about hybrids, then go on to talk about how much energy would be saved by electrified trains or walkable cities.  

In other words, it's a start.

PS We don't have to worry about oil-producing countries not having a market for their product.  There will always be plenty of buyers for oil.  As David says... it's fungible.

   If sustainability is NOT on the table, then our energy should be towards DEMANDING it BE on the table.

   Working for energy independence is not an ecological issue.

   It frankly smacks of the "roll up the borders and close the doors" isolationist mentality of the 1930's.

    Which in hindsight was not a good policy.

    Given how much of America's economy depends on imports and exports, the idea of any kind of "independence" is misleading.

    It won't happen.

    Building a sustainable global economy is the only solution to our environmental problems.  False ideas like energy independence help keep us from addressing the real problem, and should be discarded.

patrick

" ...we're at war, and lessening our dependency on oil is a necessary part of that war."

Oil, and the wealth and power that comes with it is the cause of oil wars and the resulting terrorism.  The modern history of corporate empire in oil exporting regions, like the middle east, makes this very clear.

The "mustache" is always wrong.  At least he's consistent though.

If some majical way of using oil that did not cause gobal climate disaster were found, oil would still cause oil wars.

There is one way to use oil and not have oil wars.  Instead of paying oil corporations who pay dictators for the oil, we could pay the people of the country the oil is located under directly.  

Send each Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, and so forth... a check every month.  then make the corporations that handle the oil for us accept a reasonable fee for their services.

The people of the oil exporting nations own the oil, we the people of oil importing nations buy it from them directly.  Cut out the middle men.

But of course that would be impossible and oil based energy DOES destroy spaceship earth.  So let's just stop using oil, please?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I see "energy security" as something much deeper and older than the current "war on terror."  If anything, I see the "terror" folks returning to that older theme after being sidetracked for a while.

It's a mental trap to think that Friedman etc. invented energy security.  Get over that, and it becomes a simple question:

Which is better, "energy security" headlines or no headlines at all?

I'll take the headlines, and then hope that we can guide them to sensible solutions.

don't stand in front of this train, try to direct it.

Building a sustainable global economy is the only solution to our environmental problems.  False ideas like energy independence help keep us from addressing the real problem, and should be discarded.

Global economy is pretty much inherently unsustainable if considering non-renewable energy consumption.

Global sustainability would imply a continuous supply of energy, which would have to be standardized, i.e. something like an internal combustion engine that burns oil. Unless we can find a similar energy source to power the oceanic vessels, global economy will collapse sooner or later. This has happened to any imperialist/global culture of its day: Rome, Mongols, and the Brits. There is too much land to cover and too much supplies (read: food) to be delivered without having to resort to taxation and ruination of the local producers.

I don't understand for example, how it can be beneficial to deliver garlic from China to New York State, when we can grow it RIGHT here.

Energy independence is a topic of a different scope: it's not isolationism, it's prudent thinking. Why would we want to outsource something that is absolutely necessary to our survival as a civilization? It's like trying to find oil on Mars, when we have it on Earth.

As far as ruining Nigeria and Bolivia, I have not heard much about how rich the citizens of those countries are... Maybe because they are shit poor unlike the people that keep all the money: few higher echelon government officials and execs from the developed countries, and don't forget the stockholders from... wait for it... the first-world.

I am not sure Republicans can say sustainable.  I think that the Democrats have taken this issue.  While registered as a republican I am finding the party doing things for the wrong reasons and thus exercising poor judgement.

The real issue is republican or democrat and the choice we make for President.  Why not Gore.  I think he should re-think his decision to not consider the presidency.

   Dear Atreyger,

      We exist in an age of a global economy.  It is not going to go away.  To say it is unsustainable, you must say in what term it is so (in terms of years).  In the near term, it is our future.

      There are two different "crises" people are confusing.  One is Global Warming.  The other is so-called "Peak oil".

       I don't usually get involved in Peak Oil discussions.  But, let me say, that historically, the "we have no more resources" folks have been proven wrong again and again.  There are many places where oil exploration has barely begun, there are places where previously it was too expensive (and now it is not), and places where the technology would not take us before (and takes us now).  Oil and it's derivatives will be around for at least another fifty years.  Worrying beyond that time is pointless, since we cannot imagine what technologies will exist by then.

       Global Warming is another matter.  It is happening now, and decisions made now will impact the near and far future, regardless of the future technological developments.

       "This has happened to any imperialist/global culture of its day: Rome, Mongols, and the Brits. There is too much land to cover and too much supplies (read: food) to be delivered without having to resort to taxation and ruination of the local producers." The past is not the present or the future.  We live in a different age.  There is also a difference between an empire enforced by arms and occupation, and a series of linked global locally run nations.  This statement is confusing apples and oranges.

    Why is it beneficial to deliver garlic from Benin to New York?  Because it provides a source of capital for the people of Benin which allows them to raise their standard of living and end poverty.  If this is not a concern, then it is not beneficial.

    Americans can talk about local all they want, but I notice they do so on computers manufactured "distantly".  It is a bit hypocritcal to say that America wants to keep "clean" agriculture local, but doesn't care about "dirty" manufacturing.

    One of the problems with the "local" agriculture idea, is that the POOREST nations have nothing else to sell except surplus food, they see no other way out of poverty.  So, all of the protectionist agricultural measures in the developed world, keep them locked into poverty.

    The local argument is fine, but then use only  energy produced locally, and computers, and clothing and cars and television, etc.

    Since this will never happen, one is left with an arguement that in serving to do a "good" thing (protect American farmers), also has a "bad" consequence (leaves the poorest nations in poverty).

    I don't understand the Nigeria and Bolivia comments, I never said anything about that.

    Energy independence is not related to sustainability and is not an environmental issue.  It should not be presented as one.  It does nothing towards slowing down global warming.

patrick

Bart,
You really did a good job with your argument. That's pretty much my point.

As far as agricultural production, the countries that are in deep poverty could easily be self-sustaining with their food production, and have quite a diverse variety of fruit and foods to sell to the rest of the world possibly at much higher prices than garlic.

However, the largest exports in the world today are: soy, corn, rice, bananas, coffee, and cocoa. There may be some distant others (I'm really only thinking developing countries to developed countries), but in reality this is just a poor choice, driven by large agricultural production, which is in turn driven by short-sighted large global banking operations.

This is in turn further miring the poor nations in a cycle of debt and ramped up production of foods that are not easy to grow in a monocultural setting (when factoring in worker health and possible eradication of the majority of crop due to a blight), while never allowing them to pay the debt back. We only need to consider the huge diversity of fruits and vegetables that we could have from these countries that cannot be had elsewhere, and most likely at higher prices than the mass-produced crap that we get (see Folger's coffee).

As far as garlic, well, if I am going to pay the same price at the farmer's market for a braid of garlic as I would for a similar amount of Chinese grown garlic, I will choose locally grown. The reason being is the artificially lowered prices that do not include externalities of fossil fuel use and climate change. Also I can actually talk to the farmer who grew it and have a social experience, and keep the money in a sector that is struggling in the US: small-ish farmers. Also doesn't China already provide us with nearly everything else that we have?