Want to see where the candidates stand? You can compare them side-by-side in our Voter Guide.
If you missed last week’s debate between Tim Kaine and Hung Cao, you missed some history being made.
I’m pretty sure that never before in Virginia politics has a question about why military recruiting is lagging produced the answer that Cao, the Republican candidate, gave:
“When you’re using a drag queen to recruit for the Navy, that’s not the people we want. What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them, and ask for seconds. Those are young men and women that are going to win wars.”
By contrast, Kaine, the Democratic incumbent, gave a far less colorful answer about how not enough young people know about the career advantages that the military can offer.
That was the exchange that catapulted Virginia’s Senate race into the national chatter-sphere, for a time making “Hung Cao” the second-biggest trending item on X (formerly Twitter) and generating these headlines across the ideological spectrum:
“Trump-Backed MAGA Senate Candidate Hits Drag Queens During Bizarre Cannibalistic Rant,” headlined the left-of-center Daily Beast.
“Virginia GOP Senate candidate Hung Cao rails against drag queens in U.S. military, wants recruits who ‘rip out their own guts,’” headlined the right-of-center New York Post.
Cao’s drag queen comments even earned a mention on “Saturday Night Live,” which may be the first time Virginia politics have made it onto SNL since Ralph Northam’s yearbook scandal.
The actual incident that Cao was referring to: The Navy named as one of its Digital Ambassador Pilot Programs a 2nd-class petty officer who, on the side, performs under the name “Harpy Daniels.” The military newspaper Stars and Stripes reports: “The program was launched to diversify and expand the Navy’s candidate pool amid a recruiting crisis across the military.”
I hate to pass up such a gift from the journalism gods as a campaign debate that involves drag queens and people ripping out their own guts, but there was another exchange in the Kaine-Cao debate that deserves some serious examination: the question of whether the United States is or is not energy independent.
Cao said that the United States needed to become energy independent, which implies that we’re not now.
Kaine said the United States now has such an energy surplus that we’re exporting energy.
Who’s right?
Both are. The catch is they’re talking about two things which sound similar but are actually different.
We may never again have a political debate that involves drag queens, but we often hear politicians talk about energy independence, so let’s drill into what they actually mean here. And yes, the verb “drill” is at the core of the difference.
The U.S. hasn’t been energy independent since 1948
There are two ways to define energy independence. Both are technically accurate, although one might be more accurate than the other. If we define energy independence as exporting more energy than we import, then we’ve been energy independent since 2019 — more on that shortly. The catch is there are different types of energy and they’re not all interchangeable. If you define energy independence as not needing to rely on any foreign country for our energy needs (which is what Cao is talking about), then we haven’t been energy independent since 1948. That year, as post-war industrial production increased, we first started importing more oil than we exported. We’ve been addicted to foreign oil ever since.
All the statistics I’m about to cite come from the U.S. Energy Information Administration unless otherwise noted. They show that almost 37.9% of American energy comes from petroleum, slightly more than the almost 35.9% from natural gas. Coal, nuclear power and renewables each account for just under 9%, with renewables now edging to the head of that list. Note that we’re talking here about total energy needs, not simply electricity generation. Unless you’re driving an electric car, your car is drinking gasoline, so you’re contributing to this category. A chart of how our electricity is generated would look different, but that’s a sub-category of overall energy needs. Here’s a different view of the current energy mix:
Of that petroleum, a lot of it comes from overseas. In 2021, 43% of our petroleum came from foreign countries, according to the website Visual Capitalist. The key term there is “foreign countries,” not overseas. That’s because our single biggest source of petroleum — accounting for 52% of our petroleum imports — is Canada, a completely friendly country unless it involves hockey. Our second biggest source — 10% — is our other next-door neighbor, Mexico.
The notion that we’re beholden to mercurial foreign dictators for our oil is outdated. Nations in the OPEC oil cartel — the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries — once were our main source of oil. Our imports from OPEC also peaked in 1977, the year of President Jimmy Carter’s infamous “malaise” speech. In that speech, he declared: “Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never.” That didn’t happen.
Foreign oil imports, which were at 8.81 million barrels a day in 1977, peaked at 13.71 million barrels a day in 2005 and 2006. Last year they were down to 8.33 million barrels a day, about one big oil tanker less than in Carter’s day. The difference is that in 1977, we relied almost entirely on OPEC oil and now we don’t. In 1977, about 70% of our imported oil came from OPEC countries that were delighted to have us hooked on their output. Last year, only 15% of our oil came from OPEC, so Carter was right in one sense: We’ve never again imported as much oil from OPEC as we did in 1977; we’ve just imported it from elsewhere, primarily now Canada.
That means we now see a network of sometimes controversial pipelines coming down from the Great White North (the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline was part of this, but in all, there are 70 pipelines from Canada coming into the U.S., 31 for oil and 39 for natural gas, according to the Canadian government.)
Regardless, we’re still at the mercy of global oil prices — Canada’s not giving away that oil to us for free — but the oil sheiks don’t have us in the headlock they once did. In 1977, we imported 6.19 million barrels a day from OPEC and only 0.52 million barrels a day from Canada. Last year, we imported 4.37 million barrels a day from Canada and only 1.25 million barrels from OPEC.
The bottom line: We’re not energy independent, in that we still depend on some foreign imports, but we’re not entirely as dependent on OPEC as we once were. The big drop in OPEC dependence came under the presidency of Barack Obama and has continued under the presidencies of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. If you’re thinking this is more politically complicated than you imagined, you’re right. Reality does not fit well into a campaign slogan.
Now let’s make it even more complicated.
The U.S. produces enough oil to meet our own needs
We hear some Republicans talk about “drill, baby, drill.” Let’s set aside the pesky matter of carbon emissions and look solely at supply and demand. If we produce enough oil to meet our own needs, then why do we need to import foreign oil?
The answer involves two subjects that challenged many of us in school: chemistry and economics.
The Nasdaq produced a report two years ago that explained this in easy-to-understand terms. “The U.S. does produce enough oil to meet its own needs, but it is the wrong type of oil,” the report says. Oil is differentiated by its weight and its sulfur content, called its “sweetness.” (Imagine the waiter at a fancy restaurant has just offered to let you sniff the wine to see if its bouquet is pleasing to you.)
“Most of the oil produced in the U.S. fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere is light and sweet, compared to what comes from the Middle East and Russia,” Nasdaq says. “The problem is that for many years, imported oil met most of the U.S.’s energy needs, so a large percentage of the refining capacity here is geared towards dealing with oil that is heavier and less sweet than the kind produced here.”
Yes, we could retrofit those refineries to deal with lighter, sweeter oil, but that’s where the economics come in. That would be expensive. It’s cheaper to simply import foreign oil. “Overseas oil, even after shipping costs, is often cheaper than domestically-produced crude,” the Nasdaq report says. “That is because what oil people call ‘lifting costs,’ the cost of actually getting the oil out of the ground, are so much lower in some other countries. That, in turn, is down to a number of factors. Environmental and other regulations here play a part in that cost differential of course, but, contrary to what some would have you believe, they are far from the be-all and end-all in affecting prices.” Labor costs and land costs make a big difference. We’re importing foreign oil for the same reason we’re buying electronics and other products from China: Foreign workers work a lot cheaper than their American counterparts ever would. Yes, we could produce that oil here, but it would be more expensive than what we’re currently paying. We complain about the price of gas now; would we be more content to pay a higher price for domestically produced oil? We aren’t for other things.
Chanting “drill, baby, drill” is a good slogan but a more complicated reality. It might well make us energy independent — but at a higher cost.
Now for another fun fact: Over the past decade, U.S. oil exports have boomed. In 2013, we exported 0.284 quadrillion BTUs of oil. Last year, we exported 8.53 quadrillion BTUs of oil. These exports started rising in the last years of the Obama administration, surged under Trump, and then have risen even higher under Biden. We now export more oil than we import. It seems as if we already have “drill, baby, drill,” but, for the chemical and economic reasons above, it’s not changing our need for some foreign oil.
The U.S. is now an energy exporter
Through much of the 1950s, the U.S. produced about as much energy as we consumed — some years a little more, some years a little less. Those lines diverged in 1958, and as the decades went by, the gap widened, with our energy consumption being higher than our energy production, which meant we needed to import energy.
That gap started to narrow during the Obama years, although he really had little to nothing to do with it: His administration simply coincided with the development of natural gas in the Appalachians, principally Pennsylvania. That production surged to the point that in 2019 — under Trump — our energy production topped our consumption for the first time since 1958. The gap has now widened further. In 2023, U.S. energy consumption was 93.59 quadrillion BTUs, but we produced 102.82 quadrillion BTUs of energy.
This is what Kaine was referring to.
Here’s how all these trend lines fit together:
I’m surprised Republicans haven’t made more of this. They could legitimately claim that under Trump, the U.S. became energy independent — if you’re OK defining independence as simply production topping consumption. Trump didn’t really have much to do with this, just as Obama didn’t have much to do with the initial growth of natural gas, but that’s hardly mattered before in politics. For some reason, Republicans are more interested in pushing for more drilling instead of declaring victory on energy independence and claiming the credit. If you want to blame the influence of Big Oil, here’s where you can do so.
Here’s where we also need to point out that any Democrat seriously running for president — Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024 — can’t oppose fracking. That position might be popular with the Democratic base, but it’s likely politically poison in Pennsylvania, a state Democrats must win under our current politics. I noticed that Kaine said in the debate that he supports natural gas. Not all Democrats do — yet it’s that natural gas production that is giving them the talking point that we’re now energy exporters rather than energy importers.
Of course, the real argument is more like this: Democrats would like to see petroleum phased out as a fossil fuel that’s bad for the environment (and some would like to see natural gas phased out as well). Republicans aren’t nearly so concerned about carbon emissions and the effect they’re having on global climate, so they’re perfectly fine with drilling for more of both. Democrats would also like to see us become less dependent on petroleum by adopting electric vehicles. However, unless we simultaneously change the way we produce that electricity, we may not really be changing our dependence on fossil fuels. If you live in Appalachian Power territory and buy an electric car, you’re giving up gasoline and trading it for coal power because Appalachian still relies primarily on coal. Driving a coal-powered car doesn’t sound very environmentally friendly, but indirectly that’s what electric car owners in Appalachian territory have. An electric car in Dominion Energy territory is more green because more than one-third of its energy comes from non-carbon fuels, primarily nuclear. How many miles per proton are you getting? (Disclosure: Dominion is one of our donors but donors have no say in news decisions; see our policy.)
Could we become energy independent without relying on oil? Or any fossil fuels?
In theory, sure. It would just mean we’d need to develop a) more nuclear power and b) more renewables. You’ll notice that both of those are controversial. It’s also been very hard and very expensive to build nuclear plants since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. And here in Virginia, we’re also seeing pushback against the development of solar energy in Southside. Many counties simply don’t want it; their objections have very little to do with the ideologies of energy and a lot more to do with the idea that solar panels muck up the scenery.
Democrats have been split on nuclear power (although Biden has been a supporter), which means they rely a lot more on renewables replacing oil — but I have to wonder how practical that is, not from an engineering standpoint, but from a political standpoint given the opposition to solar energy in many rural counties. Meanwhile, I’m always fascinated (and perplexed) when Republicans mock renewables (as Trump often does).
Four states currently get the majority of their energy from renewables, according to the website Choose Energy. Of those, three are decidedly Republican states. Iowa produces almost 65% of its power from wind, South Dakota 60%, Kansas about 54%. (The fourth state is California, which produces almost 51% from solar and 9.5% from wind.) In Nebraska, another ruby-red state on our political map, a plurality of the energy is produced by wind — 37%. Wind is also a plurality in Colorado and New Mexico, but those are Democratic states and my point here is that some very red states are also very green states. Now, it’s easier to rely on wind out on the plains than it is in some other places. Still, my point is that where wind works, it seems to work very well and those places are pretty Republican — so maybe Republicans shouldn’t make so much fun of wind energy. (That also means electric car drivers in those states are the most green of all; they’re mostly burning wind, not oil).
If you think this is a long and complicated column, with some points favoring Democrats, some Republicans, well, you’re right. Energy policy is a lot more complicated than the easy slogans that candidates can recite in a debate.
The latest early voting trends
I had a column last week looking at the unusual trends so far in Virginia’s early voting. I’ll be updating those stats this Friday in West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter. I’ll also tell you who readers are searching for most in our Voter Guide. Last week it was Cameron Craddock Howe, an independent candidate for the Ward I seat on Lynchburg City Council.
You can sign up for any of our free newsletters below:
