When talking about energy, facts should matter. Alas, when it comes to promoting the myth of “energy independence” politicians and political operatives on both the Left and the Right are not interested in facts or reality. Their only interest is in playing to the crowd and in trying to stir emotional responses.

That’s a somewhat painful conclusion. For the past two years, and particularly since the publication of my book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence,”which came out in April 2008, I have been hoping that my book would lead to a more reasoned discussion of energy policy, particularly when it comes to energy imports. Boy, was I naïve to hope for that.

My naivete was made clear a couple days ago when I read a blog posting by Joe Romm, the vituperative Democratic political operative who writes about climate change. On January 4, Romm posted an item that included part of a transcript from Meet the Press in which historian Doris Kearns Goodwin lamented the fact that in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush had not “call for an independent – a Manhattan Project for independence from Middle Eastern oil.”

Romm praised Goodwin’s insight and went on to declare that “there is a bipartisan realization that the key to energy independence is the climate and clean energy jobs bill.” Of course, Romm ignores the fact that any effort at “energy independence” would mean huge increases in oil and gas drilling in the US, but nevertheless, he continued, lauding the position paper put forward last month by three members of the US Senate: Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). That paper, called a “Framework for Climate Action and Energy Independence in the US Senate,” starts with this line: “Carbon pollution is altering the earth’s climate.”

From there, the document contains a list of action items, the first of which is “better jobs, cleaner air.” The second is “securing energy independence.” The position paper says “We find ourselves more dependent on foreign oil today than any other time in our nation’s history, and that is unacceptable. Every day, we spend nearly $1 billion to sustain our addiction to foreign energy sources – and we ship Americans’ hard earned dollars overseas, some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations.”

I’ve written an entire book about the delusion of energy independence, so I could write for days about the flaccid reasoning contained in those two sentences. But let’s focus on just two words from those two sentences: “addiction” and “some.”

Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman claim that we have an “addiction” to foreign energy. Given that claim, please try this exercise: whenever you hear someone say “we are addicted to oil” or that we have an addiction to foreign energy, try substituting the word “prosperity” for “oil” or “foreign energy.” The simple truth is that we are not addicted to energy, we are addicted to prosperity. There is an almost perfect correlation between energy use and wealth creation. And yet, the three senators are using the same canard that we have been hearing for years: that we somehow have an addiction (which, of course, smacks of being dangerous and dirty) to using energy. But they might as well say that we are addicted to prosperity and living well.

Now for the word “some.” That word has become the cornerstone of nearly all of the arguments put forward over the past few years regarding oil imports. That reasoning goes like this: because we purchase oil from foreign countries “some” of our petrodollars may be going to people we wouldn’t invite over for tea and cookies. So exactly how much is “some”? Is it $1 million? $1,000? $10? No one knows. But that hasn’t prevented the indictment of all energy imports as being dangerous because “some” of the money might end up in the hands of someone, somewhere, who doesn’t like the US.

Regarding foreign oil, it’s worth noting that the senators do not bother to explain how the oil that comes from such notoriously belligerent terrorist havens as Canada and Mexico – which together provide nearly 30% of US oil imports – poses a threat to American security. Nor do they mention that in 2007, when you count crude oil and all other oil products, the US imported oil from 90 different countries while it exported oil and oil products to customers in 73 countries. There is no more global, more integrated market than the global market in oil and oil products. And yet the senators somehow believe that the US can somehow miraculously excise itself from that market.

A few more points:

The willingness of Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman to parrot the oil-causes-terrorism line provides unfortunate evidence that the misinformation campaign launched by an influential group of neoconservatives back in 2004 is still resonating on Capital Hill. On September 27, 2004 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, a group of leading neoconservatives released the “Set America Free” manifesto which said that the US can “no longer afford” to “postpone urgent action on national energy independence.”

The featured speakers at the 2004 event included three of the main neoconservative advocates for the Second Iraq War: Frank Gaffney, the head of a think tank called the Center for Security Policy, R. James Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Ariel Cohen, an energy analyst from the conservative Heritage Foundation. The meeting was engineered by another neocon, Gal Luft, a former lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense Forces and one of the originators of the oil-causes-terrorism meme. In March 2003, Luft gave a speech in York, Pennsylvania, during which he declared that “America’s dependence on foreign oil is helping to feed billions to the beast that is trying to destroy us.”

Alas, Luft and his cohorts are still at it. And their rhetoric has become even further divorced from reality. Last year, Luft and his fellow traveler, Anne Korin, published a book called Turning Oil Into Salt: Energy Independence Through Fuel Choice. The blurb for the book says “salt once determined the course of world affairs. Technology – canning and refrigeration – stripped salt of its strategic status turning it into just another commodity, something to be bought and sold that no longer has geopolitical importance. Turning Oil into Salt describes how we can do the same to oil.”

Alas, while Luft and Korin are talking about various condiments, the importance of oil to the global transportation market has only continued to grow. No other fuel source can come close to matching oil when it comes to volumetric or gravimetric energy density. And those two characteristics are essential determinants in our choice of transportation fuels. The simplistic solution advocated by Korin and Luft – making all US-made automobiles capable of burning ethanol or methanol — defies belief. Producing ethanol from corn or other biomass requires vast swaths of land and the fuel that it produces is inferior to gasoline: ethanol is corrosive, hydrophilic, and contains just two-thirds of the heat content of gasoline. Ethanol-blended gasoline has already caused enormous damage and yet Luft and Korin continue to claim that alcohol fuels are a key part of the solution.

In January 2009, Toyota announced that it was recalling 214,570 Lexus vehicles. The reason for the recall: The company found that “ethanol fuels with a low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails.” Numerous reports have documented the ill effects that ethanol-blended gasoline is having on engines in lawn mowers, weed whackers, boats, and other equipment. Lawyers in Florida have sued a group of oil companies for damage allegedly done to boat fuel tanks and engines from ethanol-blended fuel. They are claiming that consumers should be warned about the risk of using the fuel in their boats. And all of these problems ignore corn ethanol’s lousy record on food prices, water quality, and greenhouse gases.

But for energy posers like Luft and Korin, as well as ideologues like Romm, and politicians on Capitol Hill, the facts don’t matter. Their only interest is self-promotion and an empty-headed political agenda that appeals to as many people as possible. And the frequent use of a happy-sounding phrase — “energy independence” — serves that agenda perfectly.