Heh I'm on the complete opposite spectrum as you are.  As soon as the "electron economy" becomes viable then the US will be in fact be energy independent.  

The goal isn't to be 100% independent.  Trading will and should always happen.  The goal is to get the heavyweight oil out of the diplomacy chair so we can actually influence iran et. al.

Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum.

ok, so what else do you suggest I run my car with?  I'm really scratching my head on this one.

But it is a loser in the long run. "Energy independence" reinforces a frame that works against renewables.

What?

The connotation: "it is all the fault of those outsiders, those others who addicted us to their seductive foreign oil."

Ok, I'm sure we are going to argue semantics but as I said earlier trading will always and should always happen.  So I consider this a strawman.  The goal is to get the us 'independent' enough so we can actually put sanctions on countries like Iran when they build nukes.  As of right now our hands are tied.  Countries like Iran know this and use this to their every advantage.  If that's not addiction then I don't know what is.  Sure it may not be "their" fault we are addicted but they are certainly exploiting it.  Ok you may not like that word 'independence' but unless you can come up with a more accurate 2 word buzz phrase it's going to have to do.

Yes you should highlight the lies spread by Exxon but so even imply energy 'independence' is impossible is wrong IMO.  It is not only wrong, but it is entirely -EV in the battle against global warming.

>>Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum.

>ok, so what else do you suggest I run my car with?  I'm really scratching my head on this one.

Note that I referred to the U.S. ("we" rather than you or me individually). There were policies the U.S. could have followed. We (the U.S.) need not have frozen CAFE standards, or refused to plug the SUV loophole when it was exposed. We could have funded development of Hyper-cars which might get 75 miles to the gallon or electric cars which can the equivalent of 100-200 mpg. Similarly we could have funded ultra-light rail system or PRT transit system which are less expensive than buses, less energy intensive, much cheaper and morre convenient to use; that would have moved a fair amount of communter traffic voluntarily out of cars. (A lot of people try mass transit at one time or another, find out it takes them twice as long to get anywhere as in a car, and return to driving. The majority of bus riders take buses by neccesity and not choice. Offer a clean, convenient fast mass transit alternative and I suspect a lot of people would be glad for the chance to read a paper on the way to work.)

>The goal is to get the us 'independent' enough so we can actually put sanctions on countries like Iran when they build nukes.  As of right now our hands are tied.  Countries like Iran know this and use this to their every advantage.

Thanks; this is a perfect illustration of what I was saying. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and are obeying it to the letter. Of course I'm certain that their motive for building a nuclear power plant is to have nuclear capability. For a nation without an intensive technical infrastructure, nuclear power is an expensive and uncertain means of providing electrity. Bomb capacity is the best reason for building a nuclear power plant. OK, so why want that capability? Is it just because the Iranians are crazy evil people who want to start a nuclear war? Consider these as possible motives

 Iran was put on the "Axis of Evil" along with North Korea and Iraq. North Korea had nukes and did not get invaded. Saddam had no nukes, no other weapons of mass destruction, delivered a complete list of what weapons he did have, allowed untrammeled access to weapons inspectors. He was invaded. I take it you are from the "free market" end of the political spectrum. If so, you need to remember that it is not just economic actors who respond to incentives.

 Iran is in the same neighborhood as Pakistan, who has  nuclear weapons and who does not always get along with it. It is next to Iraq, occupied by the U.S. who has declared it any enemy. It is within bombing distance by Israel, a nuclear power and one possesed of tremedous conventional capability.

 Iran has a legal right (even though its intentions are not good) under the non-proliferation treaty to build exactly what it is building. Meanwhile the  U.S. has not only not objected to Pakistan becomeing  nuclear power, but has help India, which is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to increase nuclear capabilities.

In addition the whole idea behind the non-proliferation treaty is that no new nation would become a nuclear weapons power, in  return for which the existing nuclear nations would phase out their nuclear weapons programs. Under Clinton, the U.S. reduced its nuclear arsenal a bit - not a great deal. Under Bush, we are reversing this - making plants to upgrade our entire arsenal, replacing all nuclear warheads and delivery systems with better ones. Why on earth would Iran want to make an agreement with a nation like us that does not honor its end of international bargains?

Right after 911 we had an opportunity. Iran wanted to improve relations with the U.S. It offered to put resources into helping to find Osama (not that it had much to offer in that directio), to open up free trade and friendly relations with the U.S., and yes to restrict its nuclear program . The U.S. spurned that offer, refused to even talk to Iran.

The U.S. does not need to end its addiction to foreign oil. It needs to end its addiction to fossil fuels  (including both domestic and foreign oil).  Even more, it needs to end its addiction to bullying.

Don't be fooled, there are ways to gain total energy independence, and totally green at that.

Nuclear is not the path, coal and oil are fatal, while wind and solar are great for hippies in the bush.

Yep, run your car, power cities, even export power to underdeveloped countries.

If you harness the Earth's spin and store the energy you can unlock the Holy Grail.

It is an easy task.....
but I will not go further, except to say, maybe your actions have already killed the future.

Good luck.

Ok we are starting to wander all over the place. I will try to keep this simple.

You said:

Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum.

And I asked: so what do we run our cars off of?  You went on to talk about mass transit.  I'm a big proponent of mass transit but you have a VERY LONG way to go to prove mass transit will get us off of oil, let alone foreign oil.

  Ontop of that somebody did hit us over the head and forced us to buy petroleum.  In the 1920's GM, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum  broke the law and did just that.  Granted there is much more to it than just that but I think that begins to illustrate my point.

Thanks; this is a perfect illustration of what I was saying. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty, and are obeying it to the letter.

Oh really.  So according to you I "scapegoat foreigners for our problems" and and suffer "xenophobia"?  You obviously haven't read my blog or website.

Let me ask you one question.  Do you think Iran should be allowed to have a nuke?

Right after 911 we had an opportunity. Iran wanted to improve relations with the U.S. It offered to put resources into helping to find Osama (not that it had much to offer in that directio), to open up free trade and friendly relations with the U.S., and yes to restrict its nuclear program . The U.S. spurned that offer, refused to even talk to Iran.

Link me please.  I'd like to read more about this.

Of course we gaining energy independence is a fantasy and in fact a dumb policy, but the fact that our foreign policy has run off the rails in the ME actually helps with moving to clean coal at home and meaningful climate change policy (either directly or through gas taxes) - so I'm really not too concerned if people give independence more hype than it deserves.  I'm happy enough that politicians and others are starting to see the oil addition as a bad habit that we need to kick, even if the primary motivator is to lower defense costs and our counterproductive war on terror.

Here's a better frame.  

Distributed generation and storage.  That means home, local, regional, and nationally independent units of the grid assembled from the basic building block of homes and busniesses that contribute energy to the grid and help store it.

That means dollars given away to hostile nations in return for oil is a thing of the past.  Those dollars will go to revive the US manufacturing base instead.  Jobs making all these renewable energy systems.

And we don't blame others for our mess, we export our renewable technology, we compete and cooperate on a global scale.  Instead of oil wars, good old fashioned (friendly and fair)capitalist competition.

But you are right a lot of coal projects, like the coal to fuel plant in Montana, use the "energy independence" bandwagon to get goping, then greenwash the CO2 problem.  In the Montana project boopsters say they will pump it under ground.  Problematic, expensive, and industry self (not) regulated of course.  Who will look for gas seeping out?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog