Energy Policy and Its National Security Implications

Here is another note to our terrific new intern, Louis de Saint Phalle, who just asked me during a phone call if I had any other ideas to guide his research and writing on the national security implications of energy policy.

Louis, sorry, but I don’t have too many additional thoughts on the matter.  I think the most interesting thing would be for you to select and then support (or reject) a basic thesis on the subject, perhaps: The American people are being systematically lied to about the viability of their country’s de facto energy policy (i.e., fossil fuels), the only real winners from which are the fossil fuels companies themselves.

Then, you can pull apart some of the terrible consequences of the status quo re: energy security:

• Empowering terrorism and states hostile to US interests

• The opportunity costs of not pushing hard to lead the defining industry in the 21^st Century

• Risks of outages/shortages from a variety of causes

• Cost of repairing damages from extreme weather events

• Other costs, e.g., lung disease and other healthcare issues (estimated at $500 billion in 2012)

• Human casualties and the financial costs of war, e.g., the $4 – $5 trillion price tag on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if we could have spent this elsewhere, even in debt reduction, it could have had fantastic results)

• International scorn.  How does the rest of the world really perceive us?  Exactly why does that matter?