To Jerome A Paris et al:
The phrase "Energy security" hurts our ability to draw attention to the very real threat of global warming. Energy security is a self-defeating frame.
Here's why: our opponents find it incredibly easy to turn this language to their advantage. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska (not known as a skilled persuader outside of Fairbanks) illustrates the point today in his piggish demand for drilling ANWR.
"America needs this American oil," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. He called opposition to pumping the refuge's oil "ostrich-like" and said it "ill-serves our nation this time of energy crisis."
"American dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security. We now rely on unstable and unfriendly regimes to meet our energy needs. ..."
http://stevens.senate.gov/...
The trouble is, Democrats are giving Republicans like Stevens this language and the argument every time we talk about "energy security" rather than what we really mean--the disaster that will be brought about by global warming.
Think of it from their point of view: if the problem is really "energy security" then Steven's argument is logical. Sure, tapping more of our domestic energy supply may be a drop in the bucket if you're well-informed about energy issues--but no more so than other alternatives like wind and solar at this point.
Of course, unlike wind and solar, tapping our domestic supply both destroys our environment in places like ANWR AND contributes to global warming. It's a double-whammy, and our half-assed frame "energy security" is giving them the political cover they need to push this through.
Besides, what we need are international agreements to prevent global warming. Not muddied, geopolitical distractions that give people like Stevens the language they need to convince the public to support drilling in ANWR.