‘We are in a hole—and still digging. We have oil at a catastrophic $140 a barrel yet no sign of a bipartisan energy policy assured of passage—let alone the forceful execution needed to expand domestic supplies and restrict domestic consumption. Instead, we have the blame game about greedy speculators, careless consumers, and cowardly politicians, inevitable maybe in an election year but a betrayal of the promise of America,’ Mortimer B. Zuckerman writes.

n the meantime, as gasoline soars over $4 a gallon, the availability of credit for enterprise shrinks, home values collapse, and food and fuel prices skyrocket, afflicting the American consumer with a triple whammy so devastating that the economic stimulus of the $120 billion tax rebate has been wiped out. And where is the wealth going? To enemies of America, to some of the world’s worst leaders, such as the oil autocrats of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.

It’s pathetic that we have had to beg a begrudging Saudi Arabia to pump a few more barrels. Ever since the oil crisis of the 1970s, report after report has warned us about the U.S. addiction to oil. The United States may constitute 4 percent of the world’s population, but we account for around one quarter of worldwide oil consumption—twice the combined rate of the Chinese and the Indians. The core of the problem is parked in U.S. driveways. Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil we burn every day goes to transportation, most of which is used by individual drivers.

The American people are not foolish. Every day we have a lesson in the surging cost of oil; we know that the dream of energy independence is really just a delusion for a country that produces only a third of the oil it uses. Whatever the rhetoric, no combination of solar, wind, ethanol, biodiesel, or anything else will allow us independence in the foreseeable future.

This is something that has to be pointed out time and again. Whenever I hear Americans talk about ‘energy independence,’ I think to myself ‘what do you mean? That’s literally impossible.’ There’s no way for America to become ‘energy independent,’ and the same goes for Europe. The only thing we can hope to accomplish is that we become less dependent on, say, Saudi Arabia.

But politicians being politicians, and wanting to get elected, they stretch the truth a bit and act as if energy independence is attainable. They pretend that they’ve got grand plans to accomplish this independence and they pretend that it’s entirely reasonable to ask this of the government.

However, when you think about what policies you should implement you should always keep your limitations in mind. If you do not, you may spend millions perhaps billions on something that can never succeed. That is foolish.

So, what can be done?

Our politicians—led by the presidential hopefuls—must focus on real solutions, not on scapegoats or the political repetition of the tired nostrums of the past. Sen. John McCain’s Lexington Project was a start. Alas, Congress in its wisdom (a charitable thought) has focused its attention instead on whether speculators are profiting from price hikes. The problem with this convenient thesis is that speculators do not own real oil but are merely buying paper contracts for future delivery. Every barrel they buy they have to sell again before the contract ends either to settle it for cash or to sell it to legitimate consumers. No oil is kept out of the market, and there is no evidence, according to the chief economist of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that the growth in speculation in oil futures has caused prices to rise.

The fundamental fact is that oil prices are set in the world markets. Sharply rising demand has met sluggish growth in production, so there is minimal slack in a market already at the mercy of small disruptions, be they bad weather in the Gulf of Mexico or political clouds over the Persian Gulf or the Nigerian delta. China and India between them account for about 70 percent of the rise in global consumption over the past couple of years, and oil-producing countries themselves account for much of the rest. In these markets, regulations and subsidies hold down prices, and their economies are growing so fast that even steep price rises in fuel are seen as affordable. The clear implication for the United States is that the age-old standoff on whether domestic drilling or conservation is the solution is now irrelevant. We must have both.

Other things:

1. The US should adopt a major increase in fuel efficiency.

2. ‘Oil out of the ground is only a start. For new crude to yield lower gasoline prices, we need to reduce the barriers to building or expanding our refineries. Refineries face multiple regulatory barriers in a world of NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) and the inevitable litigation from the environmental lobbies.’

3. ‘Reallocate resources to concentrate funds on providing the necessary R&D support for energy efficiency.’ This issue isn’t merely related to energy independence, it’s also related to global warming; it is double important, then.

4. Fix the US’ ‘mass transit system for both freight and passengers. When you consider rail in terms of energy, steel wheels on steel rails are some 10 times as efficient as rubber on roads.’ Luckily, we’re doing fairly well in Europe in this regard, but we too could improve our mass transit system. Many people don’t take, say, the train, because the train only goes a couple of times each hour. Something has to be done about that; more rails, more trains.

5. ‘Raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks immediately’ in the United States. Raise them to European levels. Europe should look at technology and think about when to raise our fuel economy standards even more.

6. ‘Substantially increase the gas tax, offsetting it with other tax cuts to induce people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.’

7. ‘Pursue alternative energy technologies within the limits of the market.’

If the United States – and to a lesser degree Europe; lesser, because we’re already doing more – would do all the above, something might actually change. The wonderful part of Zuckerman’s approach to the problem? He’s not pretending that the US can do more than it can.