Energy Alarmism: The Myths That Make Americans Worry about Oil

April 06, 2007

Fears about the United States' "energy security" are overblown explain Eugene Gholz and Daryl Press. In a new paper, Gholz and Press shed light on the true nature of the oil market, dispelling the falsehoods underpinning current U.S. foreign policy.

Eugene Gholz is assistant professor of public affairs at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Daryl G. Press is associate professor of government at Dartmouth University. They are both members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.


Executive Summary

Many Americans have lost confidence in their country's "energy security" over the past several years. Because the United States is a net oil importer, and a substantial one at that, concerns about energy security naturally raise foreign policy questions. Some foreign policy analysts fear that dwindling global oil reserves are increasingly concentrated in politically unstable regions, and they call for increased U.S. efforts to stabilize--or, alternatively, democratize--the politically tumultuous oil-producing regions. Others allege that China is pursuing a strategy to "lock up" the world's remaining oil supplies through long-term purchase agreements and aggressive diplomacy, so they counsel that the United States outmaneuver Beijing in the "geopolitics of oil." Finally, many analysts suggest that even the "normal" political disruptions that occasionally occur in oil-producing regions (e.g., occasional wars and revolutions) hurt Americans by disrupting supply and creating price spikes. U.S. military forces, those analysts claim, are needed to enhance peace and stability in crucial oil-producing regions, particularly the Persian Gulf.

Each of those fears about oil supplies is exaggerated, and none should be a focus of U.S. foreign or military policy. "Peak oil" predictions about the impending decline in global rates of oil production are based on scant evidence and dubious models of how the oil market responds to scarcity. In fact, even though oil supplies will increasingly come from unstable regions, investment to reduce the costs of finding and extracting oil is a better response to that political instability than trying to fix the political problems of faraway countries. Furthermore, Chinese efforts to lock up supplies with long-term contracts will at worst be economically neutral for the United States and may even be advantageous. The main danger stemming from China's energy policy is that current U.S. fears may become a self-fulfilling prophecy of Sino-U.S. conflict. Finally, political instability in the Persian Gulf poses surprisingly few energy security dangers, and U.S. military presence there actually exacerbates problems rather than helps to solve them.

Our overarching message is simply that market forces, modified by the cartel behavior of OPEC, determine most of the key factors that affect oil supply and prices. The United States does not need to be militarily active or confrontational to allow the oil market to function, to allow oil to get to consumers, or to ensure access in coming decades.

To read the full paper, visit the Cato web site:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8161

Posted by coalition at April 6, 2007 10:42 AM

<< To Russia with Realism | Main | 'Your Iraq Plan?' Is a Pointless Question >>

Comments

Email to a friend

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Coalition Events

Coalition Newsletter

Sign-up for the Free Coalition Newsletter and be notified when we publish new statements and important information.

>> Sign-up Online

Coalition Statements

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy is a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values.

>> The Perils of Empire
>> The Perils of Occupation
>> Ending the Israeli-Palestinian Stalemate

Featured Articles

A Dangerous Idea for Redeployment
Losing Mythic Authority
The Risks of Staying vs. Leaving Iraq
'Your Iraq Plan?' Is a Pointless Question
Energy Alarmism: The Myths That Make Americans Worry about Oil
To Russia with Realism
Spinned Surge
Rescinding the Bush Doctrine
U.S. Can Endure an 'Unfavorable Outcome' in the Iraq War
Budgeting for Empire