Managing the Message: All Things Must Now Be Secured

In recent days the phrase "energy security" has popped up with rather alarming regularity. While the phrase is certainly not new, it appears this is the preferred way of talking about American dependence on foreign oil and natural gas. I have no beef with the idea that America should be reevaluating its energy usage, energy generation and (hopefully) the long-term stability of worldwide oil and natural gas reserves. What I am concerned with is that once again we are identifying a rather amorphous goal with a definitely belligerent edge: America's energy sources must be secure, and if we fail somehow to get our slice of the worldwide pie, our nation's very existence will be threatened.

The problem is that this implies not conservation, not adaptation to changing environmental considerations, but a rush to calculate and then control how much oil and natural gas Americans will need for the next say, hundred years. The phrase "energy security" I'm sure is quite deliberately meant to invoke "national security," and to build the impression that if the United States is not actively involved in research, exploration and capture of new sources of energy, the United States will be left out in the cold while the rest of the world marches on to a brilliantly lit future. It's meant to add another worry to the American voter's mind: if we don't secure our energy, we will damage our country.

For another problem, Vladimir Putin seems thrilled to hear the phrase. A recent article by the New Yorker shows a president who is embracing the newer, more martial approach to energy conservation - namely, a man who is confident that his country, sitting atop large reserves of natural gas and oil, is only waiting for the chance to exploit that natural advantage. I realize the list of American allies is not as large as it used to be, but perhaps we should pause when we hear someone like that echoing the White House line. (Though to be fair, the White House was not the first to use the line.)

The United States should be concerned with energy, and it should be one of the top agenda items for any administration or Congress. But instead of such a nebulous - and martial - goal, why not focus attention on what could solve the problem? If America was really concerned with energy security, the same breath that speaks those words would add "energy independence," the rather hackneyed phrase from the last oil crisis. Or what about "environmental security," meaning to make America's natural resources - including our natural gas, oil and coal reserves - work for us in the most environmentally-friendly way. Why aren't our environmental assets considered worthy of security: the swamps and wetlands that are carbon sinks for instance?

What's the alternative to "energy security?" Energy insecurity? When will we know we are now energy secure? "Energy security" enables us to place the problem outside our control. Like national security, it becomes something which is threatened externally, rather than arising from internal policy decisions. We know what the answer is: either the US uses less energy, or it creates more. Period. These are not security problems but behavioral problems, economic problems. Producing energy and changing the environment go hand in hand, from the time we first chopped firewood to burn for light and heat. It's a connection that we have to examine if we are ever going to be secure, not just from foreign threats but from the consequences of our own actions.