IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

America’s Energy Security Options

  • Trevor Houser


    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Shashank Mohan

    (Rhodium Group)

Registered author(s):

    As 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.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Peterson Institute for International Economics in its series Policy Briefs with number PB11-10.

    in new window

    Date of creation: Jun 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb11-10
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1903
    Phone: 202-328-9000
    Fax: 202-659-3225
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Greene, David L., 2010. "Measuring energy security: Can the United States achieve oil independence?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1614-1621, April.
    2. Kilian, Lutz & Rebucci, Alessandro & Spatafora, Nikola, 2009. "Oil shocks and external balances," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 181-194, April.
    3. 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.
    4. James D. Hamilton, 2011. "Historical Oil Shocks," NBER Working Papers 16790, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb11-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peterson Institute webmaster)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.