Rebutting John Stossel’s Views on the Idiocy of Energy Independence

Stossel commits two fallacies in his arguments that energy independence is not desirable for the United States and even harmful to the cause of free trade. First, he confuses the significant difference between preferring free-trade during times of peace as opposed to times of political conflict and war.
In a peaceful world free-trade is always desirable. However, from time to time political forces come to power that are interested in pushing national chauvinism, ideological expansionism, or intolerant religious subordination. These political forces are only interested in promoting free trade when it serves their purposes as a means to destroy the free enterprise system. In the same way Moslem Fundamentalists are using the First Amendment to hide behind as a means to eventually over throw the United States Constitution with Sharia Law.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and Venezuela are regimes that don’t wish us well and when given the opportunity they have used their oil profits to promote terrorist movements. A complex geopolitical chess game must be played with each of these nations individually. But in none of these cases does the United States benefit from oil dependence. Nor do the internal dissident political forces with in these nations benefit.

Stossel points out that the United States gets most of its oil from Canada. But even if the United States were to receive a hundred percent of its oil from Canada it would still be a major concern for the U.S. because our major allies and trade partners Japan, China, India, and Europe would still be mostly dependent on oil from anti American regimes.

Historian Richard Pipes in his book Communism cites examples where the Soviet Union was on the verge of economic collapse but the West continuously came to its aid with trade deals. If the West had taken advantage of these opportunities in the 1920s perhaps the Soviet Union would have collapsed 50 years earlier and Stalin would have never come to power. Ironically, big business often benefited from such trade deals. In fact Vladimir Lenin once said, “We will sell you the rope to hang you.”

When the Nazis first came to power in the early 1930s Germany was suffering a major depression. Hitler realized that he had to quickly improve the German economy and if this did not happen soon the Nazis would not be able to stay in power. There was serious talk of a worldwide economic boycott against Germany. The Nazis were extremely fearful of such a world wide boycott. The boycott never happened. We don't know for sure but it is possible that a worldwide economic boycott of Germany in the early 30s might have possibly brought the Nazi government to its knees. During World War II the United States was almost completely energy independent and this was a major advantage over both Germany and Japan.

In his book Reagan's War Peter Sweitzer points out that President Ronald Reagan led a covert war against the Soviet Union and put a primary emphasis on hindering the development of a pipeline carrying oil and natural gas from Russia into Europe. If such a pipeline would have been built it is quite possible that the Soviet Union could still be in existence today because billions of dollars in economic aid through trade relations with Western Europe would have been able to keep alive the Evil Empire.

The post Soviet Union Russia is trying to use oil to reinsert Russia's influence. The current conflict in Georgia is in part an attempt to block oil going from the Middle East into Europe through Georgia. Russia is even trying to assert political and military control in the North Pole because it is apparently one of the last places on earth with even more oil than Saudi Arabia.

The second fallacy that Stossel commits is confusing the need for U.S. energy independence with supporting protectionism for American energy companies. If a Japanese company could find oil in the U.S. and distribute it cheaper than any American company then give the Japanese company the job. The same goes with nuclear power plants, wind mills, and solar panels.
Let’s use food production as an analogy. The United States is one of the biggest producers of food in the world. According to Stossel’s logic it would be fine for the United States to become more and more dependent on foreign sources of food. According to Stossel’s logic it would be perfectly acceptable for the United States not to be able to actually feed its entire population so long as we could buy it from other countries like China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Does that make any sense?

There is nothing wrong when jobs in agriculture are outsourced or automated as long as the American consumer benefits. It is also all right for American consumers to prefer to buy cheaper and better foreign crops when available. But, anyone who would seriously argue that it would be desirable for the United States not to be able to feed its own population is on something. The fact is food and energy independence always will be amongst the most basic essentials for any autonomous civilization.

Finally, why is John Stossel hostile to offering a prize to anyone who can invent better energy technology like an improved battery, a more fuel-efficient car, etc? There are historical examples where such a carrot approach has been used successfully. For example the Longitude Prize offered by the British government through an Act of Parliament in 1714 for a practical method of precise determination of a ship's longitude led to John Harrison inventing the marine chronometer. It encourages the new Edison's and Tesla’s to show us their stuff. The consumer doesn't spend a dime until the actual device is demonstrated. It encourages excitement and more importantly creativity.

If Stossel wants to argue that it would be better for private companies and private organizations to offer such a prize fine. But, the fact is that offering such a prize for scientific technological creativity for such an urgent need is perfectly acceptable.

Stossel establishes a false dichotomy. The choice is not between energy independence versus a commitment to free trade. The real choice is being committed to the security of free enterprise, or having the free enterprise system robbed of its vital energy.