Energy Independence Mismatch

I am not sure if the editors of the WSJ intended on making Vinod Khosla look like a boy among men, but that surely was the result of placing his hopeful view of our ethanol future directly opposite Dan Yergin's rational discussion of "energy independence".

Khosla's view is admirable for his optimism and "can-doism" but it is little more than a call for massive government intervention in energy markets presumably in order to save ourselves, but more likely to save his investments in ethanol that are not looking so good as the price of oil has fallen from $80 to $50. He wants expanded mandates for bio-fuels because he knows that government mandates, not economics, are the only hope for any near term marketplace acceptance of ethanol. He further admits to the economic illogic in touting a policy feature he euphemistically calls a "relief valve" but which is just another government subsidy. All of this is supposedly necessary because of terrorism. 'No oil, no terrorism' is Khosla's reductive logical foundation for turning our entire energy system on its head. True, the Saudis fund the spread of Wahhabism, and the Iranians fund Islamic extremism, and it would seriously hamper their ability to do so were we to stop buying their oil. This leaves out so many other considerations I don't know where to begin. What about the Chinese, will they not buy the oil we shun? Why punish other developing nations whose economic maturation depends on their energy sectors and that don't fund terrorism? Will the lack of oil revenues really blunt the idealogical fervor of Islamists and can't they find other sources of funds to finance their terror campaigns? Khosla doesn't seem to want to go that deep. He wants the government to pick a winner, his ethanol, and throw money at it. Yergin on the other hand calls for a greater reliance on what has served us well to date - technological innovation, competition, and trade openness.