I saw another Chevron advertisement in the Economist that I thought was interesting. The ad reads, "There are 193 countries in the world. None of them are energy independent." It then goes on to ask, "So who's holding whom over a barrel?" The ad focuses on how even highly energy-rich nations are dependent on others for energy in some respect. For instance, I never realized that countries like Saudi Arabia import gasoline, despite its abundance of oil. According to the ad, energy independence is therefore an unrealistic goal and energy know-how and investment should cross freely over nations' borders. Chevron's position in the ad is that, "[s]ucceeding in securing energy for everyone doesn't have to come at the expense of anyone." Per the ad, world oil demand will jump up from the 2004 level of 82 million barrels per day to 115 million barrels per day by 2030.

I agree with Chevron's position to some degree in terms of the need for cooperation with respect to coping with global fossil fuel demand. If every nation acts as a renegade with an every country for itself mentality, we will have an increasingly tense situation. Countries will do whatever is necessary to meet their own populations' demands for coal, oil, etc., to the expense of the environment and the needs of other nations. As the Kyoto treaty indicates, there must be global harmony with respect to coping with fossil fuel demands without destroying our environment, as the pollution from uncontrolled fossil fuel burning has global repercussions. In other words, since we can't keep carbon dioxide emissions and other pollution within a country's borders, how can a nation act independently in this type of energy production or procurement?

At the same time, I do see a few flaws with Chevron's position. While I totally agree with the need for cooperation of nations with respect to the use of fossil fuels, I do think that countries should strive to have some self-sufficiency by developing alternative energy sources. Isn't this what Iceland and Brazil are doing currently? Iceland is using hydrogen fuel cells for its vehicles and it is my understanding that by using hydrogen for its energy needs, it could indeed become energy independent. Iceland's strategy may not be something that can be exported or implemented everywhere. After all, Iceland is a relatively small country with a wealth of natural resources like hot springs. Yet, why should Iceland have to work cooperatively with other nations if it can cure its own energy woes in this manner? Isn't it helping the world at large by taking its citizens' energy needs out of the equation? Likewise, isn't Brazil aiding the world by trying to satisfy its fuel needs with sugarcane? If oil rich nations don't need to export oil to Brazil, doesn't this reduce the strain on this supply for other nations?

In my opinion, countries need to work in harmony when fossil fuels are involved, as the environmental effects of using these supplies are felt globally. Yet, with regard to alternative energy sources, every nation may have its own particular niche, whether it be an abundance of wind, water, sun, corn, etc. One size does not fit all nations. Accordingly, if individual countries want to explore renewable sources solely to help their own citizens' energy woes, then so be it. If each country tackled alternative energy projects tailor-made for that nation in light of the renewable resources at hand, pressure on fossil fuels could be alleviated and tensions caused by nations jockeying for these finite resources could be eased.