You’re Gonna Have to Face It, You’re Addicted to Oil

(My apologies to the late Robert Palmer)


I was recently watching a political policy analysis program on the topic of rising fuel prices. One particularly astute “analyst” stated with such insightful authority that America is “addicted to oil.” She expressed whole-hearted agreement with President Obama’s proposal to eliminate federal subsidies to oil companies and redirect them to renewable energy research. This is just wrong on many levels.

The “addicted to oil” mantra springs up from the left every time oil rises above $100 per barrel as predictably as “radical,” “mean-spirited,” and “extreme” appear when serious entitlement reform is proposed. According to the American Heritage Science Dictionary © 2002, addiction is, “a physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol.” For the past hundred years, and for the foreseeable future, America’s and the World’s economy has been, and will be, dependent on fossil fuels, oil in particular. In its current form, the World’s economy cannot survive without these fuels. My apologies to the ultra-environmental left, but that is just an “inconvenient truth.” To say that Americans are addicted to oil is like saying we are addicted to oxygen. In our current physiological form we are as dependent on oxygen to survive as our economy, in its current form, is dependent on oil.

Therefore, can oil really be called a “habit-forming” substance? That would imply that the substance (oil) formed the habit (driving, manufacturing). Did the early pioneers of modern transportation and industry say, “Hey, what can we make that can run on all this oil we’ve got?” Of course not, they invented, developed, and improved upon devices and processes that could use a new, readily available and relatively inexpensive energy source. Clearly, the substance did not form the habit.

The habitual behavior associated with an addiction is generally viewed as negative, hence the desire to intervene on behalf of sufferers. Addicts become increasingly consumed with a desire to obtain ever greater amounts of the drug to the detriment of their health, relationships, jobs, and lives in general. Is our current “addiction” to the “habit-forming substance” of oil really negative? Many people might reflexively answer with a resounding yes. However, measuring the nation’s expanding productivity and higher standard of living enjoyed over the past hundred years clearly shows that the country and the people are far better off thanks to fossil fuels.

Granted, just as our economy transitioned from being fueled by wood and whale oil to coal, oil and nuclear, it may someday transition to alternative, renewable energy sources. Will we then be accused of being addicted to wind, solar, and bio-fuels? This transition, just as the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels, should be left to the free market not government intervention. I agree with the esteemed “analyst” in one respect, President Obama should eliminate the subsidies to oil companies (and all other subsidies, for that matter), but he should not then transfer those subsidies to “green” energy. While he’s at it, the President should also reduce regulations and other impediments to oil, natural gas, and nuclear development. Alternative energy sources should compete with fossil fuels and nuclear in a free and open market. When they become reliable, plentiful, and cost effective they will replace fossil fuels as naturally as coal replaced wood and oil replaced whale oil.