Nate,

I don't find the term "Energy Independence" pleasing at all. It hits me more like finger nails on a blackboard. Above all else, I think most would agree it’s a completely meaningless phrase in that it can mean anything one chooses. Independence from imported oil? Independence from the oil companies? Independent from rising prices? Independent from negative effects of decreasing oil resources? And in what time frame does this independence develop: next month …next year …10 years …50 years? And, equally important, at what price: decreased personal freedoms …decreased domestic growth ...increased unemployment …war?

Let’s assume it means independence from imported oil in the next 10 years. This seems to be a common point of view from many including the politicians. For some reason I find such comments from Sen. McCain even more irritating then from Sen. Obama. Perhaps just because he’s been kicking around the planet longer and should know better. The only approach I’ve seen at TOD or elsewhere that might achieve such independence is a drastic and mandatory increase in consumption taxes on motor fuels. But even under such a plan we likely would still be importing oil though at lower prices. But we would still need those imports and thus would still be dependent.

As far as alternatives fuel sources and other conservation efforts I would be very pleased to see them offered here. But only if they can be developed in the 10 year time frame offered and can be shown they would be accepted today as financially viable with monies readily available to begin immediate implementation. There are certainly many technical approaches out there which could lead to some measure of “independence”. But if they won’t be supported by the public or are not fundable under the current financial system then they are just good ideas with no future.