Just some observations ...

... about the initial impact of energy independence.

Now make no mistake, I agree on the need for energy independence. I think we all here see it as a vital national security issue (versus a "belief" in man's ability to affect the climate of a planet in catastrophic ways, what a joke). And I think we all agree here that it must be done in a way that enhances the US economy, not handicaps it - such as cap and trade, or severely limiting domestic recovery efforts of fossil fuels of all stripes (oil, coal, etc). Come to think of it that seems to be Obama's new strategy - close GITMO and decide what to do with her terrorists AFTERWARDS. Curtail oil/coal production severely, and discover some new source AFTTERWARDS ... but I digress.

The observation of my post is that while US energy independence would be a huge step forward on a myriad of levels, including the eventual (Iran and the Saudis will take a year or more to blow through their billions) choking off of terrorists via the regimes that support them, whomever is the US president, British PM, Spanish PM et al, must all be prepared for the initial pangs of increased violence that will fill the vacuum left by their only export no longer being in demand. In other words the various petroleum based regimes that support terror will undoubtedly undergo even greater poverty, upheaval and violence before it shakes out into some sort of "new order" within their nation. And the West, especially the US, is sure to catch some of that flak as hate is directed more and more at us by the radical leaders that emerge. And you may say, well they're doing that now, and that's true. My point is that when they under go this "Great Depression on steroids" the friendly ears to this radicalism will swell exponentially, and we need to be prepared.

The sad truth is that the various sheiks and Near East regimes have not spent their petro dollars to create an economic infrastructure that can live on past a sudden evaporation in the demand for their chief (only) product. Thus whatever economic stability - pick your petro country: Arabia, Iran, even Egypt - enjoy currently, will not survive. And in any sudden economic crisis the potential for violence is readily available. A "post oil" world, combined with the Islamic tendencies towards violence, and the large populations of peoples that will turn to their religion as a refuge from unprecedented poverty, even for them, is something the US should readily plan for. The side effects of a devastating loss in petro dollars will not fade quietly into the night.

Again, energy independence would be without question a monumental enhancement of our national security, one which I strongly advocate, but no one should be surprised at the increase in terror activity as the initial results of a post-petro world hit the Middle East. We would have to careful not to allow a dozen Saddams or Ahmedenajad's to emerge in those states currently labeled as "friendly"- Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Pakistan etc, etc.

And come to think of it, as I now text here with an "at work" Jambo during the last portion of this post's composition, it occurs to me that neither Russia nor China could allow us the strategic advantage of being energy independent. They would almost certainly go after domestic supplies in an unprecedented way which at best will be the final death knell in the Mid East petro based economies; and at worse, knowing the Ruskies, they'll invade Persia or another petro-enemy of ours (surely not an ally like Kuwait) in order to ensure their own inexpensive flow.

Like I said . . . just some observations of the side effects. It's all academic anyway. The fastest conversion to anything resembling "energy independence" would be the aggressive recovery of domestic and oceanic oil, oil shale, coal, nuclear plants, and increased refineries. This will NEVER happen under an Obama administration or a Pelosi/Reid congress, NEVER. Some hydrogen maybe, but not of any significance. Natural gas still makes the greenies queasy and is no where in the new President's agenda because environmental fascists dominate the political fortunes of the Democrat Party, while simultaneously the GOP is too lilly livered to oppose the new "chic green" among the electorate . . . Al Gore equates the "non believers" (that very term should be a red flag) to Holocaust deniers and those that think the moon landing was staged. I heard him say so. THIS is the level of control the green movement has in 2009. Gore can trivialize the Holocaust and describe the those whom don't buy into man made global warming as conspiracy nuts and everyone just nods along. So unless some whiz kid out there invents some renewable energy source that's not on the radar right now or a conservative tidal wave sweeps into congress and the White House over the next 4 years (both seem unlikely as of now) this is all, in the truest sense of the expression, a pipe dream.