Energy independence must be really, really good. That much I can gather from the fawning media coverage of the idea and its support from both political parties. Just what it is, exactly (other than really, really good) is a little harder to figure.

It seems to have something to do with being rid of the rest of the world, or at least rid of any valuable natural resources from the rest of the world. Of course, if that were the simple goal, then the government would tax energy imports, rather than consumption. The last time I checked, all gasoline was still being taxed equally at the pump, regardless of its origins.

Also, if it were just foreign energy that’s bad, we would be very keen on developing our own energy supplies. But that can’t be it, since we won’t drill for gas or oil in Florida or California or Alaska or any other place where it’s currently unutilized. I haven’t seen a lot of nuclear plants built recently either, and coal is definitely bad. I thought wind was good, until someone tried to build windmills offshore Cape Cod.

Perhaps energy independence might be about price, then? I don’t remember it being a big issue back when gas was $0.87 per gallon. But price is something we could really impact, with simple actions like suspending energy taxes and actually using the energy we have here in America. Technically, Cape Cod is part of America, too. But we don’t do much to reduce price, so energy independence must not be about price alone.

Apparently, the energy we want to be independent from is pretty much all energy – except for biofuels and solar. The ideal world for energy independence advocates would be one in which America produces enormous amounts of energy from some solar or plant-based systems. Putting aside economics, thermodynamics, and reality long enough to pretend that this is possible (perhaps we could make alcohol out of manna from heaven?), there’s another problem. If we could do this, the rest of the world would compete for that energy in open markets.

We still wouldn’t be rid of foreign entanglements such as growing Chinese and Indian energy demand. And price shocks in the oil markets would still spill over into the markets for all energy, even some fabulous mannahol. Clearly, to be truly energy independent, we would have to ban the export of our miraculous mannahol. Only then would we be energy independent and free from the outside world.

Of course, if we actually made anything with the energy from all that mannahol and sold that outside the U.S., the demand and price for mannahol would still be determined by nasty foreign markets. Suppose we made some really cheap aluminum or glass or widgets with mannahol power. Well, the whole world would buy that stuff and drive up demand for mannahol until its price would equal oil’s. Then, oil-based widgets would be viable again, and even worse, the good people of Akron would be at the mercy of the mannahol futures markets in some foreign place.

So to be really, truly energy independent, we would have to ban the export of everything that involved energy. Imports would be off the table, too. Otherwise, price competition and “dependence” would result. So energy independence must mean living off plants and sunshine, in a colony isolated from the greater world by a moral belief that it would be dangerous and corrupting to interact with it.

With that definition in mind, I am proud to present the first annual Energy Tribune award for true energy independence to: the Amish.

Yes, the Amish know that outside folk, capitalism, and new-fangled technologies like common energy grids and internal combustion spell trouble. Biofuels can provide all your energy needs – especially if your needs date from 1865 and you have an enormous amount of land per person. Carbon neutral, conservation minded, and fond of recycling everything from clothes to theology, the Amish are models for our future. Truly, these are a people that have long had an almost religious zeal for energy independence.

Of course, there’s not enough land for us all to live like the Amish, but that’s the sort of worldly detail that can’t be allowed to defeat a moral argument, like the inherent goodness of energy independence.