Think tank: "Energy independence is folly" ??

The American Thinker blog just ran an article on energy, by the "co-directors of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and senior advisers to the United States Energy Security Council." It's titled "The Folly of Energy Independence."

Let that sink in for a sec. Unless the title is really a disguised question, it's reasonable to conclude that the authors oppose any measures that would produce more energy here at home, since this would at least lead us in the direction of energy independence.

Which, the title tells us, is "folly."

The authors also wrote Turning Oil into Salt: Energy Independence through Fuel Choice (2009).

Wait, didn't they just say energy independence was folly?

Uh...I'm confused. Is it folly or not? We know they're not gonna contradict themselves because they're directors of an institute. Which means they must be really smart and stuff. Well, we'll figure it out eventually.

So let's see what they said in the article itself.

They claim the price of oil has increased five-fold since 2003; that 40 years ago the U.S. spent $4 billion per year on imported oil--amounting to 1.2 percent of the amount we spent on defense; but that by 2006 imported oil was costing $296 billion a year, or half the defense budget; and that in 2008 we spent an amount equal to the entire defense budget on oil imports.

They also note that the fivefold increase in oil prices since 2003 has "contributed to the current economic dislocation."

Okay. So wouldn't you think the recommendation would be to produce more oil (and all other sources of energy) here at home?

Apparently not.

They go on to assert that "a new oil shock—whether caused by war in the Persian Gulf, instability in North Africa or Nigeria, or even anxious investors rushing to buy oil futures to hedge against falling currencies—would sink Western economies." And that "the rising cost of oil is hollowing out the U.S. economy, and no fuel economy standards or new oil discovery will stop this tide."

Sounds like they're leading up to the obvious, logical conclusion of...drill baby drill, right? Uh, no. "What is needed is a new energy paradigm."

Ah. And what might that be, exactly?

As best I can tell, it's to switch to electric cars.

Their reasoning, I gather, is that right now virtually all transportation is oil-powered, so there's no competition from other energy sectors. And for that reason, and the fact that oil is priced by world demand rather than just one nation's, rising oil prices anywhere in the world would result in increased prices here too.

Moreover, the OPEC cartel has had the goal of keeping the price of oil at what it calls a "fair" level. In 2004, this price was $25 per barrel. Two years later it was $50. In 2010 OPEC’s secretary general argued for $90, and by the end of 2011 he adjusted the price to $100.

Wow, sounds like standard public-sector union tactics when the Democrats are running things. No competition and no alternative, so....

Here's their summary:

In light of [the above, trying to keep oil prices at current levels is] a game America can never win. The cartel...will...respond to [any/all] defensive behavior by [oil consumers].... Drill for more oil at home and the cartel can simply reduce production to return to a tight supply-demand relationship; increase fuel efficiency, same response; mandate a small volume of non-petroleum fuels in the market over an extended period, same response. So it doesn’t matter how well we follow the Republicans’ “drill baby, drill” or the Democrats’ conservation and efficiency; we’ll still be on the same treadmill we’ve been on for decades.

Ah, yes, I see: "Resistance is futile. You can't get there from here. Might as well give up now and avoid all the useless bother."

But electric cars...ah, there's the solution! The authors claim they're "clean, cheap to operate, and in many respects outperform gasoline-powered cars."

Say what?

As someone with an engineering degree who's been studying energy consumption in surface transportation for three decades now, I'm curious as to the respects in which the authors believe battery-powered electric vehicles outperform gasoline-powered ones.

But wait, there's more: the authors aren't finished yet. Their real solution is to run cars on methanol made from natural gas. See, there's recently been a bump in natural gas discoveries in the U.S., so future supplies seem assured and prices seem to be stable. Wonderful!

Wait...isn't that really "drill baby drill" again? 'Cause unless I'm mistaken, natural gas doesn't just jump out of the ground by itself. You've gotta' drill for it. A lot.