Let’s look at that link you provided (the 2009 Rand study).  To summarize the summary, the report addresses: U.S. reliance on imported oil; indicates that energy issues have no relevance to terrorism (which is reason for much of our military outlays); links oil issues to global security issues (i.e., our security depends upon global energy security, not just our own), and recommends the following:

1) support international oil markets. 
2) evaluating the policy prohibitions on new oil field development (drill, baby, drill!) 
3) enhance the efficiency of permitting and licensing for new oil field development
4) impose excise taxes on oil to reduce consumption  (already done!)
5) increase R&D to prove energy efficiency and alternate forms of energy development.

So, what’s not to like? It sounds like the “Bush Doctrine”.  

For perspective and with particular relevance to recommendation (4), consider this:  

1) Although the U.S. still imports 40-50% of it total CRUDE oil consumption, about 40% of that comes from Mexico and Canada, so it is not a geopolitical issue. In some cases, crude oil exports are offset by exports, because of geographical issues. Overall, U.S. reliance on imported oil is declining rapidly.

2) There have been huge developments with respect to the amount of recoverable oil in the U.S. Current estimates are that the U.S. See the report below – key takeaway: 1) the U.S. is estimated to have 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil; 2) the U.S. uses only 7 billion barrels per year. Add to that huge deposits of natural gas and methane hydrate. In sum, THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE oil and other fossil fuel consumption.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/01/technically-recoverable-oil/

In fact, the U.S. has now become a net exporter of petroleum products (in $-terms):

http://205.254.135.7/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5290 

In fact, one of the best geopolitical policies the U.S. could adopt is the open up all oil development and crash the world price. This would deny the Middle East and North African countries the ability to fund terrorism as well as stymie Russia’s geopolitical policies against the U.S. It will also help address our huge debts and deficits if we can become dominant energy exporters. 

As far as alternate energy R&D is concerned, no problem! I would love to see more extensive use of natural gas in transportation (cleaner burning) and fusion energy to produce electricity. To think that technologies such as bioethanol, wind and solar can just be spirited out of R&D and turned into profitable and eco-friendly businesses using taxpayer money, however, is “magical” thinking. Sadly, all those billions of taxpayer funds wasted on the Solyndras of the world (I use that as an illustrative example…there is a whole string of such failures) will be sitting in the banks of Democrat cronies instead of being applied to real, productive energy research and development.

Regarding your comment to Earl regarding energy company subsidies…are you serious? Do you really consider writing off  business expenses from revenues to determine taxable profit a government subsidy? Please tell me this isn’t so.

So don’t come over here talking about how I’m “scared” of the light being exposed on oil companies. You and all of the rest of your kind are the cause of all of it, crony capitalism, robber baron corporate towns, and dirty energy to begin with.

That’s the goal. It’s a feature, not a bug.

One thing to remember: It’s impossible to construct a complete defense or criticism on an issue as large as this.  Be comfortable with the partial explanations offered on each side.  You won’t resolve the argument here in one comment thread!  But we’ll all add to our knowledge and especially our understanding of the objections of “the other side”.  It’s educational, and worth hearing directly “from the other side” – for both sides!

I give Paul Scott credit for coming in here and doing a good job explaining his position.  It can’t be fun being the lone defender against many different lines of criticism.