For three decades, the rich world has talked about curbing its addiction to imported oil. But, despite the anxious rhetoric, the oil-supply problem has become worse and energy security more complex. Notwithstanding politicians' repeated calls for energy independence, over the past 30 years the US, for example, has doubled its dependence on imported oil, which now accounts for nearly two-thirds of its oil needs.
Threats to cut oil supplies in order to change a country's foreign policy have a long history, particularly where the Middle East is concerned. Arab members of OPEC called for an embargo at the time of the 1967 Six-Day War, but it had little effect because the US was then largely self-sufficient.
But by the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the Arab oil embargo had a greater effect, owing to growing US demand for imported oil. The embargo drove up prices and unleashed a period of inflation and stagnation worldwide. It also demonstrated that oil is a fungible commodity. Even though the embargo was aimed at the US and the Netherlands, market forces shifted oil among consumers. In the long term, all consuming countries suffered shortages of supply and the same price shock. Oil embargos turned out to be a blunt instrument that hurt many besides the targeted countries.
In the aftermath of the oil price shocks, energy security policy has had four components. By liberalizing energy prices, governments allowed markets to encourage conservation and new supply. In addition, governments introduced modest subsidies and regulations to encourage conservation and renewable energy sources. Some governments began to store oil in strategic petroleum reserves that could be used to for short periods in a crisis. Rich countries also helped to create the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), which coordinates policies (including strategic reserves) among consumer countries.
Such policies still make sense. They would probably not be adequate, however, to deal with a prolonged disruption of supplies. The world is not running out of oil, but two-thirds of oil reserves are located in the politically unstable Persian Gulf region.
The US imports only a small portion of its oil from the Persian Gulf. Its largest supplier is Canada. But the lesson of 1973 is that a disruption of Gulf oil supplies would raise prices and damage both rich and poor economies, regardless of how secure their own sources of supply might be.
Moreover, new dimensions of the problem of energy security have emerged in the last few years. One is the great increase in energy demand from the rapidly growing economies of Asia, particularly China.
China appears to believe that it can secure its energy imports by locking up oil contracts with pariah states like Sudan. However, while this mercantilist approach creates foreign policy problems over issues like Darfur, it will not protect China in a time of supply disruption. It would be far better to bring China (and India) into the IEA, and encourage normal Chinese participation in world markets.
Another new dimension of the energy problem is the manner in which high prices and increased reserves have transferred power to energy producing countries. State-owned companies now control far more oil and gas reserves than do the traditional private energy companies once known as the seven sisters. Many of these state-owned companies in countries like Russia and Venezuela are not responding merely to market forces, but are using their newfound pricing power for political purposes.
Finally, the energy security problem has been complicated by the problem of global climate change. As the science has become increasingly clear, climate change is now a major political issue at the global and national levels.
Rising sea levels, drought in Africa, and increasingly turbulent storms all pose a new threat that must be taken seriously. So measures to deal with energy security must address the demand side even more than the supply side.
Measures that some legislators favor, such as transforming coal into liquids, increase secure supplies, but they imply more carbon dioxide emissions than imported oil does. They should be avoided until technologies for clear coal or carbon capture are perfected. On the other hand, reducing demand through improved energy efficiency and conservation measures are beneficial for both the security of supplies and the global climate.
But it is not enough for the US and EU countries to improve their energy efficiency unless other countries do so as well. China and India can pursue security of supply by using their large coal resources, but unless they also have access to improved coal technology, the burdens they impose on the atmosphere will be large.
This year, China will surpass the US in emissions of greenhouse gases. It builds nearly two new coal-fired electricity plants each week. In such a world, energy security can no longer be summed up as greater energy independence. Instead, we must find better ways to cope with energy interdependence.
Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
RSS