“Foreign oil” redux
Reading Hillary Clinton’s recent speech (more on that later) reminded me of an old hobbyhorse: As faithful readers will recall, the term "foreign oil" irritates me to no end. Decrying our dependence of foreign oil is just a way of decrying our dependence on oil, period — with the extra macho credibility that comes with jingoistic, xenophobic overtones. For that reason it’s probably politically necessary. But it adds nothing to our substantive understanding of America’s energy situation. For a host of geological, economic, social, and environmental reasons, we could never conceivably produce enough "domestic oil" to satisfy our demand — and anyway, what domestic oil we do produce goes out on the world market like any other oil. The problems that come with dependence on foreign oil and the problems that come with dependence on oil are one in the same. It would make as much sense to decry "liquid oil" or "underground oil."
So if you hear the term "foreign oil" from a politician, assume it’s accompanied by a wink and a nod. If you hear it from a pundit, assume it’s accompanied by confusion.
Update [2005-10-25 14:0:34 by David Roberts]: Oh, the whole point of this post was supposed to be: The term “foreign oil” suggests that domestic oil would be okay, and thus supports the scumbags in Congress who are trying to build new refineries on military bases and neuter environmental protections. It doesn’t matter that in her speech, Clinton says “a few more refineries and drills won’t solve the problem” — the very term she’s using to frame the problem works against that point. Framing, people. Look it up.