This article is confusing. I don't understand the gist of it, where it's coming from and where it's going. And what does: "the economic and environmental hassles and costs we may have avoided--by being energy dependent" mean. What economic and environmental hassles? While it may not be possible for the U.S. to become "energy independent," it certainly wouldn't hurt to raise that as a goal. We could start by looking at what we can do, cutting our use through conservation, different lighting, monitoring usage, insulation, education to help people on the local level, and then examine where the majority of our energy usage is and work on that. This article vague and scattered, and if there is a point to be made, it wasn't..