It's true that dependance on foreign oil is a security risk (as is dependance on foreign anything), but switching to domestic oil (or anything) doesn't really get rid of the problem it just moves it around. It's sort of like, moving from everyone in Oregon drinking water from one well in Massachusetts (where the water tankers could get hijacked along the way) to everyone drinking from one well in Salem (city in Oregon). If someone were to throw poison into that well, it doesn't matter where it is, everyone in Oregon dies. The benefit of locality is preventing the hijacking along the way etc, not in preventing single point of failure dangers.
There are a few potential reasons this is never discussed when politicians discuss energy policy. First is, maybe it's a stroke of genius, i.e. it's one of those things that seems perfectly obvious once someone's pointed it out but it took decades for that first person to notice.
Second is that a lot of very wealthy people have a lot invested in the oil trade and they would not be very pleased about any movements away from that. Not saying I believe in conspiracy theories, but money talks and politicians are far more likely to listen to the big wigs than to you or I, no matter what they say or how well intentioned they may be.
Third is that moving away from the SPoF of oil is going to cost. We've been building up this oil-based world order for generations, even corporate execs aside, we have a lot invested in the current setup (e.g. in factories, power plants, city layouts, etc). To go through and rebuild the infrastructure to abstract away the issue of power sources is going to be spendy. To say nothing of other countries, American citizens are known --if anything-- for their abhorrence of paying taxes, even when it's for the public good. That's part of the reason public transit is an abject failure in this country, to say nothing about the spectre of medical coverage.
Re: Another argument to help support
It's true that dependance on foreign oil is a security risk (as is dependance on foreign anything), but switching to domestic oil (or anything) doesn't really get rid of the problem it just moves it around. It's sort of like, moving from everyone in Oregon drinking water from one well in Massachusetts (where the water tankers could get hijacked along the way) to everyone drinking from one well in Salem (city in Oregon). If someone were to throw poison into that well, it doesn't matter where it is, everyone in Oregon dies. The benefit of locality is preventing the hijacking along the way etc, not in preventing single point of failure dangers.
There are a few potential reasons this is never discussed when politicians discuss energy policy. First is, maybe it's a stroke of genius, i.e. it's one of those things that seems perfectly obvious once someone's pointed it out but it took decades for that first person to notice.
Second is that a lot of very wealthy people have a lot invested in the oil trade and they would not be very pleased about any movements away from that. Not saying I believe in conspiracy theories, but money talks and politicians are far more likely to listen to the big wigs than to you or I, no matter what they say or how well intentioned they may be.
Third is that moving away from the SPoF of oil is going to cost. We've been building up this oil-based world order for generations, even corporate execs aside, we have a lot invested in the current setup (e.g. in factories, power plants, city layouts, etc). To go through and rebuild the infrastructure to abstract away the issue of power sources is going to be spendy. To say nothing of other countries, American citizens are known --if anything-- for their abhorrence of paying taxes, even when it's for the public good. That's part of the reason public transit is an abject failure in this country, to say nothing about the spectre of medical coverage.
(continued)