America Is Not Dependent on Mideast Oil

Many Americans think that their country is indebted to Middle Eastern oil. The term "foreign oil" conjures up Arab sheikhs. And nefarious ones at that. Since the 1973 oil embargo which exacerbated America's gasoline lines (the oil shortage though was mostly the fault of Nixon's price controls), the popular myth in American culture is that the oil monarchs have Americans under a barrel.

oil field HrG1m 19672

Since September 11th the terrorism dimension has been added: oil funds terrorists. This is partially true. Although most Middle Eastern oil and natural gas sales go to fund either the hedonistic lifestyles of Saudi royals or tacky architecture in Dubai, a small percentage - but consequential enough - does go to fund either terrorists directly or the propagation of fanatical Wahhabi ideology which makes an adherer more malleable to terrorist recruitment.

So reducing dependence on "foreign oil" would not only be good environmentally (if the alternative is a clean source) but also reducing financing via indirection by Americans to terrorists.

But a few myths have to be settled first:

1) Energy independence is nonsense. No industrial nation - expect Norway - has been to achieve complete energy independence. And America is not about to. Norway is a tiny Scandinavian nation with massive oil reserves. It is an exception not the rule.

2) America is not dependent on Middle East oil. Only 10% of America's oil consumption comes from the Middle East. You know how tops that? Chavez. The tyrant in Venezuelan is America's third source of oil. Why not call for ending dependence on a radical, anti-American zealot who is fomenting an anti-American bloc in the southern hemisphere?

3) Which leads to the last thing: even if Americans stopped buying oil from the Saudis the loss would soon enough be made up for and then some by the Chinese and Indians. So the problem of ceasing the practice of diverting oil revenue to terrorism is irrelevant to the question of buyer.