海角大神

Meaningless Buzzword

I work on energy policy for a national security think tank, so I am often asked to talk about energy security. Last week, I participated in a conference in which we were asked to comment on 鈥淯.S. Energy Security: How Do We Get There?鈥� As I listened to the presenters at the conference, I realized that how you viewed the problem of 鈥楨nergy Security鈥� depends on how you identify it. We all seem to have determined that energy security is a problem, but we each had different understandings of what the term 鈥榚nergy security鈥� actually means! Of course, that means there were very different prescriptions for how to 鈥榮olve鈥� the problems of 鈥榚nergy security.鈥�

In the absence of a definition, everyone defines energy security differently 鈥揵oth speakers and listeners. It is something like the late Margaret Thatcher said about the politics of consensus:聽鈥渋t is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.鈥�聽Along those lines, I believe that 鈥榚nergy security鈥� has devolved into simply a buzzword: a phrase that everyone favors, but defines differently. Pundits, politicians, lobbyists, industry, and campaigners from across the political spectrum cry 鈥榚nergy security鈥� because it polls better than their preferred policies. I have done it as well. Listeners, then, are misled because, really, who could actually be against 鈥榚nergy security?鈥� It is like being against mom, America, and apple pie.

As the Years Roll On

API uses 鈥榚nergy security鈥� to argue that we need to open more land to drilling. Proponents of Keystone XL argue that we need a new pipeline from Canada because of 鈥榚nergy security.鈥� Environmentalists argue 鈥榚nergy security鈥� to tell us why we need to build more windmills and solar power.聽

We all once agreed what energy security meant: in 1973 and 1979, oil price spikes caused by OPEC embargoes led to oil price controls and lines at the gas pump. Going even further back, amateur historians know that the lack of oil was crippling for the German war machine in the Second World War and that the Royal Navy had to protect its access to oil in Persia. So, we think that energy security means the ability to win wars and prevent shortages of energy.

However, the truth is that America and the world largely solved these problems of 鈥榚nergy security鈥� in the 1970s and 1980s by diversifying the world鈥檚 sources of oil, creating deep and liquid financial markets, and creating Strategic Petroleum Reserves in all OECD countries. Meanwhile, our rhetoric and vocabulary about energy security has not changed since then. Our energy debates are stuck in the shortages of the 1970s and the optimistic growth and low prices of 1980s. But 鈥� the problems of 2013 are not the problems of 30 or 40 years ago!

Retire the Outdated Term

It is time to retire the term 鈥榚nergy security.鈥� I am going to stop using it, and I am calling for other pundits to do so as well. Instead, we should all be more precise about what we are actually concerned with.

Are you afraid that dependence on foreign oil makes it more likely that we鈥檙e funding terrorism? Then you should be arguing to get off oil completely, because 鈥� in a fungible market any consumption drives up prices.

Are you worried that the prices of gasoline or electricity are too high, and that price spikes are harming our pocketbooks? Don鈥檛 cry 鈥榚nergy security鈥� 鈥� instead talk about energy affordability.

Have you read your history books closely and are worried that our military won鈥檛 have access to energy, like Winston Churchill was around the turn of the last century when the Royal Navy switched from (British-produced) coal to petroleum from oil fields of Persia? Don鈥檛 be 鈥� unlike the world of the early 20th Century, there is no conceivable scenario in which the U.S. military is unable to access the oil it needs to fight and win America鈥檚 wars.

Do you think that we need more clean energy production from wind and solar? Don鈥檛 say we need it for 鈥榚nergy security鈥� 鈥� be truthful and say we need more wind and solar because they are cleaner, with fewer polluting emissions.

Conclusion: Be Specific About the Real Issue

We have talked about the concept of 鈥榚nergy security鈥� so much that it no longer means anything. All of us writers should retire the term: it has become what George Orwell聽called聽a 鈥渄ying metaphor鈥� 鈥� a term which has鈥渓ost all evocative power and [is] merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.鈥�

More importantly, we should call-out politicians and policymakers when they talk about energy security: we should ask them what they鈥檙e hiding 鈥� and what they鈥檙e really worried about.

There are some very important questions about energy today 鈥� but we are doing a disservice to always talk about them in the context of 鈥榚nergy security.鈥� Instead, let鈥檚 have real arguments about energy affordability, the effects of energy imports on trade deficits or geopolitics, or the pollution that producing and burning energy creates.

We should argue about how the military uses energy 鈥� but we should not let history cloud our views about it: we are not going to have to drive through Stalingrad to access that energy. Viewing everything through a prism of 鈥榚nergy security鈥� has given us an obscured conversation about energy. Let鈥檚 talk about the real problems and get away from the buzzwords.

Source:聽Why I鈥檓 Done Talking About Energy Security