Energy Leadership – Not Energy Isolationism

By Charles J. Brown

From the Oscars to the president’s State of the Union address, everyone is talking about the need for America to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels. More often than not, the solution proposed is something called energy independence.

But what exactly does that term mean? What are we declaring independence from? And why? Such questions aren’t often asked in the current debate – and even less frequently answered.

Those advocating energy independence usually focus on the need to free the United States from its reliance on foreign oil for roughly 60 percent of its energy needs. That is a laudable and worthwhile goal. But the real question is not what countries our oil comes from, but rather what kind of fuel our energy comes from. If we fail to make that distinction, then what some people call energy independence is in fact nothing more than energy isolationism.

If the U.S. stopped importing oil tomorrow, conflicts over oil wouldn’t end. Billions of people would still struggle to get by without electricity. Global competition for limited resources would still be a major challenge. The rest of the world would remain addicted to oil. And neither our economy nor what passes as our foreign policy these days would be freed from oil’s pernicious influence.

 Ending our dependence on foreign oil will do nothing to stop global warming. For governments whose citizens are living in poverty, economic development – most likely fueled by oil and coal – remains their top priority. If the United States turns inward for its energy solutions, we would do nothing to help these governments avoid the same mistakes we’ve already made. And we would do nothing to prevent either the new greenhouse gas emissions or pollution that such fossil fuel-driven development would generate.

For far too long, the United States has abdicated its leadership on climate change. We need our government to be a shining example for the rest of the world, not only cutting our own emissions but also helping to design international norms that everyone can support. Doing so will make it much more likely that other governments will follow our lead – especially if we share the technologies that will allow their economies to grow without putting either the environment or their own citizens’ health at risk.

Ending our dependence on foreign oil also will do nothing to change the corrosive effect fossil fuels have had on U.S. foreign policy. Our thirst for oil has led us to prop up dictatorships and tolerate conflict. We have turned a blind eye to human rights abuses. We have not hesitated to use military force – or the threat of military force – to protect access to oil and gas reserves. But even if the United States walked away from foreign oil tomorrow, other governments would step in and make the same mistakes. The problems – and America’s responsibility – would not go away.

If you doubt the cost of the world’s fossil fuel habit, look at Darfur. Years ago, Western oil companies pulled out of Sudan in response to outrage over the government’s horrific human rights record. In response, China and Malaysia stepped in, and hard currency has continued to pour into the Sudanese government’s coffers. Sudan has the funds it needs to pursue its genocidal policies and China, reluctant to jeopardize its new source, has used the threat of a Security Council veto to prevent U.N. action to end the genocide.

 The real issue is not whether we can end our dependence on imported oil, but rather whether we can reverse the disastrous global economic, environmental and security consequences of the world’s continued reliance on carbon-producing forms of energy. To do so will require seeking freedom from fossil fuels, not just for the U.S., but for the world.

As the world’s largest consumer of energy, we have both a unique opportunity and a real responsibility to shape the world’s energy future. We should be pushing the world to work together to make the transition to new technologies. We should be calling for new international mechanisms that can help us face the challenge of climate change without leaving the world’s poor behind.

Imagine what would have happened sixty-five years ago if, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had announced that our response would be to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Doing so would have given hope to our enemies, caused our friends to despair and done nothing to make us safer or more secure.

Today, the challenge may not be as immediate or as stark, but the potential damage could be as great. If we pursue a policy of energy isolationism, saving ourselves at the cost of the suffering of others, we will only increase our vulnerability to the very dangers we hope to avoid. Like a child closing his bedroom door to keep the monsters out, we will find that we are alone in the dark, and the monsters are still under the bed.

Let us choose a different path. Let us demonstrate that we can find real solutions to the world’s energy challenges. Let us once again inspire the world not merely with our rhetoric, but with our actions. We are up to this challenge. We have led the world before. We can do it again.