America’s Energy Security Options
AbstractAs US gasoline prices approached $4 a gallon in spring 2011, energy security moved to the forefront of the American political debate. Politicians have been quick to offer silver bullet solutions to lower gas prices and make America more energy secure. Houser and Mohan analyze the various recent policy proposals, from expanded offshore drilling to new vehicle efficiency standards, and compare their effects on US oil imports, US oil demand, gasoline prices, and energy expenditures over the 2011–2035 period. They find that despite recent political rhetoric, when it comes to energy security there is no policy panacea. Current proposals vary widely in the time frame, magnitude, and nature of their impact. Rather than debate whether expanded domestic production, improved efficiency, or development of oil alternatives is the right course to take, the United States needs to start moving down all three roads simultaneously to significantly alter the country’s energy trajectory. An "all of the above" strategy is required, which combines increased domestic production (important in the near term) with long-term investments in energy-efficient vehicles and oil alternatives, whether electric, natural gas, or biofuels. A carbon tax, while still a long shot politically, would deliver further energy security gains and help reduce the US deficit in the process. But even if all proposals currently on the table are adopted, the US will remain dependent on the international oil market for decades to come. Therefore Washington needs a strategy for improving the stability and reliability of that market, something missing from the current policy debate.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Peterson Institute for International Economics in its series Policy Briefs with number PB11-10.
Date of creation: Jun 2011
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- International Monetary Fund, 2007.
"Oil Shocks and External Balances,"
IMF Working Papers
07/110, International Monetary Fund.
- Kilian, Lutz & Rebucci, Alessandro & Spatafora, Nikola, 2007. "Oil Shocks and External Balances," CEPR Discussion Papers 6303, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Lutz Kilian & Alessandro Rebucci & Nikola Spatafora, 2007. "Oil Shocks and External Balances," Working Papers 562, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
- Lutz Kilian, 2009.
"Not All Oil Price Shocks Are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks in the Crude Oil Market,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 1053-69, June.
- Kilian, Lutz, 2006. "Not All Oil Price Shocks Are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks in the Crude Oil Market," CEPR Discussion Papers 5994, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Greene, David L., 2010. "Measuring energy security: Can the United States achieve oil independence?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1614-1621, April.
- Dermot Gately, 2007. "What Oil Export Levels Should We Expect From OPEC?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 151-174.
- James D. Hamilton, 2011. "Historical Oil Shocks," NBER Working Papers 16790, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peterson Institute webmaster).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.