A friend recently passed on a chain letter urging independence from Middle Eastern oil. It’s a seductive idea. Here’s the gist: “Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends.”

The letter goes on to list companies that import Middle Eastern oil.

Shell - 205,742,000 barrels

Chevron/Texaco - 144,332,000 barrels

Exxon/Mobil - 130,082,000 barrels

Marathon/Speedway - 117,740,000 barrels

Amoco - 62,231,000 barrels

Here are some that do not: Sunoco, Conoco, Sinclair, BP/Phillips, Hess, and Arco. He urges us to patronize them.

The letter concludes by urging the recipient to send it on. “If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next eight days!”

Alas, there is no easy solution to our problems of energy dependence. This proposal is predicated on a fundamental error, not understanding that oil is a fungible commodity; it moves around when entering the world market. I’m not referring to its viscosity but rather its tradability. Many types of crude oils are interchangeable and refiners substitute among them.

This substitutability of oil wrecks the proposal for eliminating revenue to Middle Eastern producers. If we had a law against importing, say Saudi oil, and switched to a basket of other suppliers, the Saudi oil would go, perhaps indirectly, to these suppliers.

We import about 60 percent of our consumption, a quarter comes from the Middle East. There are only two ways to eliminate Middle Eastern revenue from this demand; either prohibit imports or eliminate consumption. Neither option is possible for a long, long time. Buying from Sunoco, Conoco, or any firm that claims not to buy Middle Eastern crude, might make us feel good, but it would have no serious effect on Middle Eastern producers.

The blunt reality is that all developed nations, especially the U.S. and Canada, have become fundamentally dependent on cheap oil. Our residential, business, and recreational lives are predicated on it. If the policy goal is to reduce demand, a large fuel tax is the most effective means.

Consider this mental experiment. Assume the administration elected next November imposes a $3 per gallon tax on fuel with a 20 percent increase each year for 4 years. In four years, the tax would be over $6/gallon. At current prices this would make gas and diesel about $10/gallon in 2013! (It’s now $7.50 in Iceland.)

The behavior of vehicle producers and fuel consumers would rapidly change. Even if politically sustainable, a most unlikely prospect, adjustments would take years. And of course the poor would suffer most. Who buys hybrids such as the Prius? It’s not those who must conserve for reasons of poverty.

Five years ago, Arnold Kling, an economist I greatly admire, addressed the topic of the chain letter: “I am conditioned by experience to expect proposals supposedly aimed at those problems to turn out to be ineffectual.... But the worst refuge of scoundrels, in my opinion, is the line that ‘we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil in order to fight terrorism.’ When I hear that, my baloney-sandwich detector really starts vibrating. I am ready to reject whatever is on offer, whether it be oil drilling in Alaska, regulations on SUV's, or some new synthetic fuels program.”

The blunt fact is that regardless of what we want, or what politicians recurrently promise, for the foreseeable future we are locked in a petroleum based economy and society. This is a real problem on multiple dimensions. There are no easy answers; buying petroleum products from companies that don’t import from the Middle East isn’t one.

Adjusting to reality won’t be easy and there are no cost-free solutions. We will see many promises and prospects offered by politicians, other opportunists, and sincere but naïve others. Arnold’s phrase, “I am conditioned by experience...” warns us to be careful in accepting proposals for energy independence.