What would energy independence really mean for American foreign policy? For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have paid lip service to energy independence as a worthy national goal. During the 2008 presidential campaign, energy independence was likened to the space race of the 1950s and 60s. President Obama declared that the U.S. should strive to be energy independent by 2020. Despite the rhetoric, an aggressive strategy for achieving energy independence has yet to be adopted. America’s dependence on foreign oil is one of the most acute foreign policy challenges facing the United States. Energy independence would dramatically reduce the number of our costly overseas engagements enabling us to cut ties with dictators who have held Washington hostage for decades with oil. A fundamental reorientation of American foreign policy would be possible. Just what kind of liberating effect would energy independence have on the U.S. foreign policy? To help explore this alternative future, consider the following scenario:
It is 2025, six years after protonutrium—an affordable, clean and renewable energy source—was discovered in the United States. “Proto,” as it is called, now fuels cars, homes and factories the same way oil and gas once did. Gasoline now costs 25 cents a gallon. Because of its affordability and renewability, petroleum products have been largely replaced by proto. The dramatic expansion of nuclear power throughout the United States which began in 2013 provided a glimpse into a world of energy independence. Realizing the potential profitability in alternative energy sources, private industry invested heavily in innovative research that eventually led to the discovery of proto in 2019 by two young graduate students.
The discovery of proto led to a brief but intense economic downturn where unemployment briefly reached 19% as the financial markets adjusted to the introduction of proto and the phasing out of petroleum energy sources in various economic sectors. However, after the brief downturn, the financial markets grew at unprecedented rates and unemployment dropped to 2.5% nationally. The world descended into a global recession which lasted 12 months. Countries heavily dependent on oil exports experienced the greatest hardship.
The discovery of protoled to a dramatic overhaul of American foreign policy. The United States, no longer forced maintain political bonds with oil-rich states in the Middle East, withdrew militarily from the region. Oil-rich states with single-commodity economies such as Saudi Arabia collapsed amid violent revolution. The United States, tired of fruitless engagements in the Middle East, denied aid to all but a few. The monarchies of the Middle East all collapsed amid violent revolution. Iran emerged as the regional hegemon after testing a nuclear weapon in 2011 and a long-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching the United States in 2014. However, the Persian Revolution of 2017 led by the Iranian opposition saw the establishment of a republic in Iran which led to the subsequent normalization of relations with the United States.
This scenario isn’t too difficult to imagine. In fact, when you think about it, it is rather odd that a viable, alternative source of energy has yet to be discovered. Humans have split the atom and gone to space but haven’t figured out how to supplant petroleum-based energy. Arguments that the oil lobby would never allow such a discovery are unconvincing. The individual(s) or organization(s) that discover a cheaper, renewable source of energy will become extraordinarily wealthy.
This scenario is meant to highlight two major issues: 1) how the discovery of a cheap replacement for petroleum-based energy would impact the U.S. (and global) economy in the near- and long-terms, and 2) the dramatic reorientation that would occur in U.S. foreign policy. Royal Dutch Shell (more commonly known as the “Shell oil company”) uses scenarios to examine the future. These scenarios are interesting and are worth perusing. I generated this scenario to highlight how such a discovery could impact American foreign policy.
What is the likelihood of this scenario actually emerging? Well, I think the science is there. We need to leverage the science we already understand such as nuclear power by building a number of new reactors throughout the United States. Perhaps an alternative energy future won’t even require a new discovery but a more judicious and enterprising use of existing resources and technologies. I think our current domestic policy fails to provide adequate incentives for investors and penalizes innovation and entrepreneurship through excessive taxation. The federal government should take steps to reduce taxes and create incentives–beyond “green tax credits”– for innovation in the area of energy independence. This does not mean additional excessive regulation and subsidization by the federal government. It means slashing the corporate tax rate, particularly for those corporations and taxable organizations that invest heavily in research for alternative fuel sources. It must be shown that alternative energy sources are profitable and can help build wealth.
This administration’s priorities do not include energy independence. They conflate all things “green” with energy independence, which simply isn’t the case. What is more, they seem unable, or unwilling, to understand the strategic implications of their domestic policies and how energy indepdence would benefit the country. Their primary objective, as evidenced by the health care charade and the looming cap and tax bill, is the dramatic expansion of government.
A