Conservatives Don't Believe In Energy Independence. Just Ask 'Em.

In recent posts, I've shown that conservative talk of an "All of the Above" [1] energy policy flies in the face of repeated conservative actions to defeat [2] anything that significantly invests in clean energy and forces Big Oil to compete -- not to mention the declaration at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference by featured speaker and oil lobby representative John Felmy that "Energy Independence Is Not a Possible Option." [3]

Today, conservative media hero John Stossel further conveys [4] the true core conservative belief, in a column titled: "The Idiocy of Energy Independence."

The column is an excellent case of conservative illogic at its finest.

Here's Stossel's main argument:

To be for "energy independence" is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer's floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving "energy independence" would expose us to unnecessary risks -- such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn -- and ethanol -- shortages.

For Stossel, it's risky to be overly dependent on one's own country. But it's not risky to be overly dependent on one source of energy.

Since the global supply of oil is tight and diminishing, the disruption of supply that Stossel worries about is already happening. Natural disasters, military attacks and geopolitical conflicts (Russia, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.) all have all impacted the supply and price of oil, leaving us unsafe.

Sure, it doesn't make sense to have all your eggs in one basket. The clean energy economy would be based on a diverse energy portfolio that includes wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and small hydro. And fossil fuels won't be eliminated from our energy mix in this generation, just reduced.

Stossel also tries to criticize the notion of public investment in clean American energy:

McCain and Obama talk constantly about how much they will "invest" -- with money taken from the taxpayers, of course -- to achieve energy independence. "[W]e can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market," Obama said.

What makes Obama think he's qualified to pick the "best plans"? It's the robust competition of the free market that reveals what's best. Obama's program would preempt the only good method we have for learning which form of energy is best.

Stossel acts like oil thrives in some sort of global free market. There is no such thing.

Many of these countries we "trade" with run nationalized oil companies. Our current government energy policy props up Big Oil with tax breaks and cheap land giveaways. And Big Oil funds politicians to prevent clean energy from getting a foothold in the market and offering us consumers a real energy choice.

We're subsidizing the disease and starving the cure, thanks to conservative policies.

Conservatives like John Stossel are fighting like hell to preserve and extend the status quo that keeps us dependent on increasingly expensive oil. Not surprising, considering Stossel thinks "these oil companies are heroes." [5]

Weak arguments by conservatives are merely showing their fealty to Big Oil, at the expense of our pocketbooks and our planet.