Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

Those Squishy Security Terms

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

One of the catch-phrases President Obama didn't use in his much parsed Oval Office speech on Tuesday was energy security. He did, however, make a glancing, split-second reference when discussing the costs associated with a transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy (emphasis added):

And there are some who believe that we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy -"“ because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

Obama's reluctance to mention energy security in his speech strikes me as odd, considering how the term has become a central plank in his Administration's energy policy and also a popular new Democratic talking point, which Michael Levi, an energy expert, notes in this recent Foreign Policy piece:

That two-word phrase -- "energy security" -- is an idea invoked frequently by everyone from oil company executives to green-energy proponents, and one that has taken center stage in the United States since the Gulf spill. Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cited energy security in explaining the need to continue drilling in the outer continental shelf. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman have argued that their new clean energy and climate bill will help the United States achieve energy security. Obama's new National Security Strategy, published last month, invokes energy security no fewer than four times.

That Obama didn't talk about energy security in his Oval Office address perhaps owes to the main point of Levi's FP article, which is reflected in the subhead:

Politicians, oilmen, and green-energy boosters love to invoke the idea of energy security. None of them know what they're talking about.

Levi includes himself in this clueless category. Earlier this week on his own blog at the Council on Foreign Relations, he wrote:

The phrase "energy security" is on my business card, yet whenever anyone uses it, I scratch my head.

I admire this humble tone from an energy scholar. Levi's forthright attitude echoes the refreshing openness that a number of leading environmental security experts exhibited on this site during an excellent thread on the equally squishy climate security term.

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In