I was surprised and pleased to read this in the Washington Post today. The editorial is signed by Corp. P. X. Kelley, a retired general, a former commandant of the Marines, and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan, and Frederic Smith, Chairman and President of FedEx. (Together, they co-chair the Energy Security Leadership Council, a project of Securing America’s Future Energy).

The editorial opens with this provocative question:

Could a mere 4 percent shortfall in daily oil supply propel the price of a barrel to more than $120 in a matter of days? That’s what some oil market experts are saying, and if they’re correct, we face the very real possibility of an oil shock wave that could send our economy reeling. Such a rapid rise in fuel costs would have profound effects that could severely threaten the foundation of America’s economic prosperity.

But what struck me most was that here were two people I think we might safely assume are Republicans saying this, about the need for government intervention in the marketplace:

– Pure market economics will never solve this problem. Markets do not account for the hidden and indirect costs of oil dependence. Businesses focused on the highest return on investment are not always in a position to implement new solutions, many of which depend on technologies and fuels that cannot currently compete with the marginal cost of producing a barrel of oil. Most important of all, the marketplace alone will not act preemptively to mitigate the enormous damage that would be inflicted by a sudden, serious and sustained price increase.

– Government leadership is absolutely necessary.

It is. And I’m thrilled to see this group take the lead in pushing for greater fuel economy standards:

The most substantial, rapid and cost-effective gains are almost certain to be achieved by making our transportation system more fuel-efficient.

One of the phrases politicians who don’t know what they’re talking about say these days re oil is, “we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” As Kelley and Smith (and many others on their side) argue,

…oil is a fungible global commodity, which means that events affecting supply or demand anywhere will affect oil consumers everywhere. A country’s exposure to world price shocks is thus a function of the amount of oil it consumes and is not significantly affected by the ratio of domestic to imported petroleum.

In other words, there’s no such thing as “foreign” oil or “domestic” oil, in reality.

I had the great fortune of catching a presentation of the “Oil Shockwave” forum the group Securing American’s Energy Future puts on from time to time. They have several current and former politicians and intelligence officials pretend to be President and Cabinet as they receive a series of news items, and have to choose what to do. Should they release strategic oil reserves to counter a specific threat? The term “reserves” is nearly a misnomer, as they could only supply our energy needs for a very few weeks if we had to rely solely on that. Should we drill in ANWAR? That’s only a year’s worth of oil.

The part that was most upsetting, to me, was the debate over building new nuclear power plants. That seemed so short sighted as to be ridiculous. There are other technologies that, given that amount of money, could grow and flourish, that do not have any risk of polluting portions of the planet for thousands of years. But there are a lot of people, primarily on the right, who think if oil is out, then nuclear is the only other viable option. We can all play a role in changing that perception, by learning more ourselves and educating others.

I hope to see energy options discussed here with some frequency, as it is the sword of Damocles hanging over our civilization. The Democratic party alone cannot solve this one. Solving our energy needs for the next century and beyond will need cooperation from a vast majority of politicians, business leaders, and world leaders. We can lead, but we can’t make this a partisan issue, or we’ll all lose much more than a political battle.

So cheers. A toast to two likely Republicans who are, nonetheless, talking in a useful way about what needs to be done about one of the most important issues of our times. I’ll drink to that.