FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Downside of Energy Independence

by MICHAEL BRENNER

There is a current of excitement running through the foreign affairs community sparked by the prospect that the United States will cease being a net energy importer within 25 years. The International Energy Agency’s annual WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2012 projects that by 2035 or so, the country will produce enough oil and natural gas to dispense with most foreign supplies. New extraction techniques rather than discovery of new sources is the deus ex machine that is slated to work this startling turnabout.  Were this seeming potential to be realized, some imagine the United States gaining freedom of action in dealing with the oil rich states of the Middle East as well as troublesome commercial partners elsewhere like Venezuela.  We might choose to ignore them altogether. Moreover, as a net exporter itself, the United States could gain leverage on other parties. That is the happy vision that is tantalizing to global strategists.

How justified is this celebration of a euphoric future?  Is it premature? Should we worry about irrational exuberance?

The liberation of America from the coils of world energy politics thanks to a new-found self sufficiency is a nice theme for a magazine cover story. However, it is a gross over-simplification of the still uncertain, and certainly complex realty hat awaits us. Here are a few prudent considerations to keep in mind before jumping to radical conclusions.

First,  energy experts are not of one mind as to the odds on achieving complete
 independence. There are several variables that must be factored
into the equation,  and predictions about most have wide confidence margins. They are technical:  the relative ease of deep water, hydraulic fracturing, and sand tar extraction technologies on a massive scale. They are economic: can oil produced by using these costly methods compete with lower cost oil from traditional sources if world prices drop? They are environmental. They are political: possible domestic political constraints being the most prominent.

Second, there is no readily definable magic threshold beyond which the balance
of dependency between suppliers states and consumer states, and
thereby reciprocal influence, shifts drastically. That is to say, the energy trade, like most international commerce is symbiotic; it has it sown logic. However, the motivations of governments are not solely economic. There are realpolitik and nationalist sentiments at play as well.

Third, the United States’ relations with major suppliers in the Middle East
and elsewhere are multi-dimensional. They involve a host of national interests. Have we forgotten the “war on terror,” “the war on proliferation,” the democracy promotion project and our national dedication to shaping the world’s affairs according to our own lights? Then there is the open-ended commitment to Israel’s security and well-being.

Fourth, in a world of economic interdependence, it makes no sense to speak of
the United States economy as if it were autarkic. So long as other
major economies remain energy dependent, their vulnerability to supply
disruption is our problem as well.  Economic security in today’s world cannot be achieved within one’s sovereign boundaries, by dint of one’s own efforts alone.  There is no such thing as economic security in one country -whatever its energy situation. And energy is still the most crucial element needed to sustain the global economy.

Economic conditions in one country are heavily dependent on economic performance in other major national economies.  If the European Union, Japan, or China experiences a severe downturn, it quickly  will have serious repercussions on the United States. The precise degree of sensitivity to external developments cannot be calculated.  Some countries, e.g. Germany, have a larger share of their economic activity directly associated with imports and exports than some others, e.g. the United States. For the former it is 44%, for the latter it is 16%. But even the United States is unable to insulate itself from macro economic developments among the largest national economies. The global financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated vividly both the fragility of current interdependence, the weakness of coordinating mechanisms, the flawed abilities of their managers, and the swiftness with which seismic effects race around the globe. So, by implication, energy security for the United States encompasses the energy security of the developed world generally – if the measuring rod is performance and stability of the global macro economy.

The last thing we need is another sudden change in the cyclical pattern of 
euphoria and dread that has marked American thinking about its place in 
the world. The vision of energy independence carries that unfortunate potential.

So save the high fives.

Michael Brenner is a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

Michael Brenner is a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
Paul Street
Donald Trump: Ruling Class President
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Dude, Where’s My War?
Andrew Levine
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
Paul Atwood
Why Does North Korea Want Nukes?
Robert Hunziker
Trump and Global Warming Destroy Rivers
Vijay Prashad
Turkey, After the Referendum
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, the DOJ and Julian Assange
CJ Hopkins
The President Formerly Known as Hitler
Steve Reyna
Replacing Lady Liberty: Trump and the American Way
Lucy Steigerwald
Stop Suggesting Mandatory National Service as a Fix for America’s Problems
Robert Fisk
It is Not Just Assad Who is “Responsible” for the Rise of ISIS
John Laforge
“Strike Two” Against Canadian Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Proposal
Norman Solomon
The Democratic Party’s Anti-Bernie Elites Have a Huge Stake in Blaming Russia
Andrew Stewart
Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders?
Susan Babbitt
Don’t Raise Liberalism From the Dead (If It is Dead, Which It’s Not)
Uri Avnery
Palestine’s Nelson Mandela
Fred Nagel
It’s “Deep State” Time Again
John Feffer
The Hunger President
Stephen Cooper
Nothing is Fair About Alabama’s “Fair Justice Act”
Jack Swallow
Why Science Should Be Political
Chuck Collins
Congrats, Graduates! Here’s Your Diploma and Debt
Aidan O'Brien
While God Blesses America, Prometheus Protects Syria, Russia and North Korea 
Patrick Hiller
Get Real About Preventing War
David Rosen
Fiction, Fake News and Trump’s Sexual Politics
Evan Jones
Macron of France: Chauncey Gardiner for President!
David Macaray
Adventures in Labor Contract Language
Ron Jacobs
The Music Never Stopped
Kim Scipes
Black Subjugation in America
Sean Stinson
MOAB: More Obama and Bush
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail