Just look at our actions outside of the Persian Gulf. There are far more dangerous WMD in North Korea, but no American troops are there. There are atomic weapons in Pakistan, now headed by a friendly, unelected ruler presiding over a resentful people (much like the Shah of Iran a few decades ago), and yet we just announced a sale of more fighter jets to this nation that could one day turn on us (again like Iran). As for bringing freedom to an oppressed people, the world is filled with oppressed people. They are dying in the Sudan, in central Africa, North Korea, Burma, all over the world, but outside of the Persian Gulf, we do not act. We can debate about whether our actions in Iraq are helping the situation or only making it worse, but it is clear that we are bearing enormous military costs in an area where there is oil that we do not expend anywhere else. This is not a coincidence. If our enemies succeed in shutting down that supply, we will expend even more, much more.

What about terrorists? It is no coincidence that the terrorists we find ourselves at war with are those with a connection to the oil capital of the world. There are terrorists all around the globe. They represent different forces in local battles. We have seen terrible carnage in Rwanda and its neighboring countries. Terrorists attack civilians in Algeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Spain, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. If we think Al Qaida is the only terrorist group capable of unspeakable cruelty, think back to that Russian school and the Chechnyan terrorists. Still, most of them don't bother us in America. It is only those with a connection to what is otherwise useless (to us) land in the Persian Gulf that wreak havoc on our lives. Our need for that oil leaves us no choice but to get involved in these struggles which otherwise have nothing to do with us. But what if we didn't need their oil, had no vital interest in their lands to protect? Suddenly Lovins estimate of $180 billion to achieve energy independence, even twice that, seems cheap indeed.

So who has an interest in maintaining the status quo? There are two primary interests, the oil companies and the automobile manufacturers. The oil companies' reaction is natural. A plan that greatly reduces, and eventually eliminates, the need for oil is not going to please an organization whose existence in based on supplying the substance. However, the public need here is overwhelming, and the fact is, this change is going to come anyway. It is a question of when, not if. Worldwide oil supplies are scheduled to run out sometime later this century. Long before, shortages and accompanying escalating prices will tear apart our economy and standard of living. Fights among dependent nations for the shrinking oil supply may lead to new wars among old friends. It is an ugly scenario. The question is whether we will undertake the transition while it can still be accomplished with a minimum of disruption, or wait until chaos, depression, and conflicts force us to deal with the problem under the worst conditions. That is the only choice we have.