Kevin’s point seems to be that the policy purpose of “energy independence” is materially reduced vulnerability to supply shocks caused by (foreign) factors beyond our control. That sounds reasonable to me. Then the question is whether vulnerability is a linear or nonlinenar function of oil imports from presumptively suspect foreign sources.

My sense is that vulnerability is highly nonlinear; that, say, reducing oil imports from 55% to 27.5% would have little practical effect on U.S. vulnerability. I doubt that U.S. policy makers could politically withstand even a 5% or 10% loss of supply. Call it the Hanging Hockey Stick Model.

Diversity in energy supply is also a desirable policy goal precisely because it reduces vulnerability (among other things). Environmental policies that force utilities to burn natural gas in lieu of coal for air quality reasons, and forbid nuclear generation for perhaps theological reasons, undermine supply diversity and increase vulnerability.

PM reduction, CO2 reduction, and genuine energy independence are achievable without significant compromise in the electricity sector, but only from nuclear power (but at the cost of reduced diversity!). I am not sure where all the cooling water is going to come from, but compared to overcoming the environmentalists’ veto that’s a minor technical problem that markets can solve. For environmentalists, supporting nuclear power requires an admission of theological error.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_15.pdf

(There are obviously other considerations that shape international trade, such as geopolitics.) And of course such decisions (including the status quo) should be made in full light of opportunity costs.

Still, Kevin’s definition is valuable–i.e., genuine energy independence consists of that level of fuel importation from a specific foreign source (e.g., Iran, Venezuela) (a) that we are prepared to do without and possibly (b) that we are willing to CREDIBLY THREATEN to do without–in the service of some other policy objective. “Doing without” is meant as shorthand for bearing the opportunity cost of pursuing that other objective.

You suggest (and I agree) that the levels of (a) and (b) are likely to be considerably closer to 0% than 55%. That means “energy independence” is a chimerical goal that ought not be advertised as the plausible result of a policy grossly incapable of achieving it. That makes it a dubious horse to pull the cart of carbon reduction–unless, of course, what is being proposed is that oil be eliminated in transportation.

Reducing dependence on foreign oil from what, 55% to even 35%?, only marginally ameliorates vulnerability to supply controls and I’m not sure in any way ameliorates vulnerability to (however indirectly) oil-funded terrorism or oil-funded nuclear weapon building. In other words, to achieve what I think are the true goals of most who clamor for “reducing dependence on foreign oil” would require moving much closer to the 0% side of foreign petrochemical share than a marginal dip from the current ~55%. Which would of course require a massive reorganization of our energy supply infrastructure.

If a reduction in imported oil is what you want — either for energy “independence” or to reduce PM emissions — then the current state of affairs is ideal: High world oil prices caused primarily by economic growth. An energy policy that penalizes economic growth will cause oil prices to fall and retard all those welcome investments in energy efficiency.

Looking for an alternative means of “framing” the issue (e.g., energy “independence” instead of global climate change) sounds like a marketing ploy, and probably an unsuucessful one. Energy “independence” has been popular among elites for decades. It gave us economic and environmental marvels such as ethanol subsidies (to permit an increase in supply) and now mandates (to force an unwilling increase in demand). Indeed, ethanol subsidies were born during an earlier (but equally unsuccessful) crusade for energy “independence”.

My preferred plan for energy “independence” is to use up my adversaries’ oil first. Paraphrasing then-California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa’s quip about the Panama Canal, we should steal it fair and square.

If the primary national need is to decrease dependence on foreign oil, a rational policy is to increase energy generation from coal which would be a disaster for the other goals.

Phrasing and order do make a difference, but your rephrasing is not implication free with respect to agenda either. It can easily be used by those who are only concerned with increasing US production of oil and other fossil fuels and have no concern with increasing efficiency, decreasing particulates and limiting climate change. To do so it would have to carry the disclaimer that decreasing dependence on foreign oil must be done without negative consequences for the other goals.