There has been a lot of commentary in the media recently that refers to the United States as “addicted to oil.” Most people take this to be a particularly descriptive metaphor but not one that has any factual relation to U.S. oil policy. But it does raise an interesting question: Is the United States in fact addicted to oil?

Image Credit: Dora Pete

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) provides a definition of substance dependence that includes seven criteria. A patient needs to meet only three of the seven to be considered dependent or addicted. Let’s apply those criteria to the United States.

1. Tolerance: You can use more and more of the substance over time.

“With small fluctuations, U.S. oil usage has climbed steadily for the past 50 years. From 5.6 million barrels per day (Mb/d) in 1949 (6% supplied by imports) to 13.8 Mb/d in 1970 (23% from imports) and 20 Mb/d in 2004 (60% from imports), America’s unrelenting thirst for petroleum has driven the consumer end of the market for a hundred years. And by late 2005, consumption had climbed to 20.5 Mb/d, fueled by net imports of 13.2 Mb/d - more than 64% of the total.”

Clearly, the United States has developed a tolerance for oil. The amount we used to use just won’t do it anymore, so we need to use more and more to get the same industrial and transportation effects that we had before.

2. Withdrawal: When you stop using, you experience strong negative symptoms, including irritability, anxiety, the shakes or nausea.

In 1973, OPEC, with Syria and Egypt, began an oil embargo against the United States because of U.S. support of Israel in the ongoing Yom Kippur war. The price of oil quadrupled, the cost of a gallon of gas went from $0.38 to $0.55 (No, not 55 cents a gallon! How did anyone survive?), and the stock market crashed. Inflation followed throughout the 1970s. There were waiting lines to fill up at gas stations, and many stations didn’t have supplies of gasoline at all.

To fit the definition precisely, there must be irritability or anxiety, which there certainly was (and probably some nausea, too). Under the broad definition of strong negative symptoms when usage stops, the oil embargo of 1973 certainly qualifies as an experience of oil withdrawal.

3. Difficulty Controlling Use: Sometimes you use more for longer than you would like.

The events of the ’70s led to U.S. car companies producing smaller, more efficient models with smaller engines. As a quick tour through a car dealership will show, the effects didn’t last. As of 2006, the two best-selling American automobiles were the Ford F-Series and the Chevy Silverado pickup trucks. Not exactly gas-sippers.

4. Negative consequences: You continue to use even though there are negative consequences to your mood, self-esteem, health, job, or family.

The United States emitted 16.3 percent more greenhouse gases in 2005 than it did in 1990 (). We are second in the world behind China with a yearly emission of 5,800 megatons. Of that total, 20 percent can be attributed to automobiles. There are other negative impacts of oil use, as well. Energy from fossil fuels and pollution from car exhaust lead to smog in cities and a lower quality of air. Drilling for oil disrupts the natural environment wherever it occurs.

Oil obviously has negative consequences for our health.

5. Significant time or emotional energy spent: You spend a significant amount of time or thought obtaining, using, concealing, planning or recovering from your use.

The United States exports $700 billion a year to finance its energy needs. We spend more than $200,000 per minute on foreign oil — $13 million per hour. Much of that money goes to oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf, and some of it finds its way into the hands of terrorists.

The United States has been entangled in the Middle East for several decades now, and much of our involvement can be traced back to our need for oil.

In 1953, Iran’s Premier Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by a CIA/MI6 covert action known as Operation Ajax. The goal was to prevent Mossadegh from nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian oil company which later became British Petroleum.

Our support for the Shah in Iran led to the hostage crisis in the 1979-81. We have intervened militarily in Beirut in 1983, Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq from 2003 to the present. And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

America has spent time, energy, money, and soldier’s lives in its pursuit of oil. Without oil, we would have no need to be so deeply involved in such a volatile and violent region. This more than satisfies criterion five.

6. Put off or neglected activities: You have given up or reduced social, recreational, work, or household activities because of your use.

As mentioned above, we export $700 billion to pay for energy. The cost of the oil and Oedipal complex-driven Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion. High gas prices strain household budgets and act as a drag on the economy.

Meanwhile, there are 47 million people without health insurance, the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling, the financial system required a $700 billion bailout, and the government is facing a $500 billion deficit.

There are plenty of social or work activities we have neglected as a result of our addiction.

7. Desire to cut down: You have repeatedly thought about cutting down or controlling your use, or you have made unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control your use.

Alternative energy only accounts for 7 percent of our yearly output, with another 8 percent coming from nuclear. After the embargo of 1973, Americans reduced consumption, but it didn’t last. There has been a lot of talk in the media and the presidential campaigns about how to reduce our oil consumption, but petroleum still accounts for 39 percent of our energy usage. Of the oil we use, 69 percent is consumed by transportation.

Time and again the United States has tried to reduce consumption or find alternative fuels, but cars still run on gasoline, and gasoline still comes from oil. It looks like America satisfies criteria seven as well.

The DSM-IV demands that a person meet three of the seven criteria to be considered dependent upon a substance. The United States meets all seven. When it comes to addiction, we score 100 percent.

Does that mean we win?

According to the official definition, America is addicted to oil. Our addiction is not just a figure of speech; it is a reality.

Showing that we are truly addicted to oil brings up another important point. When someone is an addict, you can’t solve the problem by finding different places to score the drug. Going to a different neighborhood to get heroin does not cure dependency, it only exacerbates it.

Similarly, drilling for more oil does not solve our addiction. Even if we drill offshore, or in ANWR, or in every national park and backyard of America, it will not break our addiction to oil, nor will it spare us from the devastating consequences of our behavior outlined above.

There’s not enough oil there to reduce the price or replace Saudi Arabia, and every dollar spent on drilling is a dollar not invested in solar, wind, tide, biofuel, hydrogen, or any other alternative.

The only way for an addict to break the cycle of addiction is to get off the drug. Hybrid technology may act as a methadone to our petro-dope, but it is not a solution. The only answer is to break our addiction to oil as soon as possible.

The United States must find the energy policy equivalent of going into oil rehab. It’s time for the United States to get clean.