CHAPEL HILL - The war between Georgia and Russia is partly caused by an oil pipeline that runs through Georgia from the Caspian Sea. Americans can do something about this war, not by sending troops to Georgia, but by convincing Russia and everybody else that pipelines won't be important in the future.

Production of oil in the Caspian area has been important for more than 2,000 years. Early people living in what is now Azerbaijan dug shallow pits, filtered oil out of the sand and traded it as far away as Rome.

The world's first modern oil well was drilled at Baku, Azerbaijan, in 1848 (11 years before the first well in North America). Hitler lost his war when he sent his armies toward Baku. They had to go through Stalingrad (now named Volgograd) and were destroyed there.

No one knows how much oil can ultimately be produced from Azerbaijan and other Caspian countries, but some geologists think the potential is as high as in the Arabian Gulf. The problem is getting the oil out of the Caspian basin to the rest of the world. There are only three practical routes.

One route is south across Iran, but America won't permit it.

A second pipeline is the shortest and the one most used. It runs from Baku to Georgia and then branches to Georgian ports on the Black Sea or to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean.

The third route out of the Caspian basin is north from Baku to join the well-developed system of pipelines in Russia. That's the one Russia wants. It would be the only route available if the Russians succeed in closing the pipeline through Georgia.

Actually the Chinese suggested a fourth route a few years ago. It would reach a Chinese port by crossing about 3,000 miles of Asia, including at least three mountain ranges and who knows how many insurrections. No one has mentioned it recently.

We can affect the war in Georgia by convincing the world that we will not forever be dependent on imported oil. We now import almost two-thirds of the oil we consume and are dependent on such countries as Saudi Arabia, where women have no rights, and Venezuela, where everyone has one right -- to vote for Hugo Chavez.

Politicians have proposed several really silly ideas to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Offshore drilling even at maximum production would yield only a drop in the bucket (oops -- I mean barrel). Lowering the speed limit for cars would produce only trivial savings. More production of ethanol from corn would be a disaster because the amount we produce now is already contributing to the rise in world food prices.

Only three solutions to our oil problem are feasible.

* One short-term fix is to produce biofuels from nonedible crops. It may require government subsidies to become immediately important.

* A second short-term remedy is to use nuclear power to charge batteries, or to extract hydrogen from water and then burn the hydrogen like gasoline. This won't work until we develop better batteries and better ways to use hydrogen. More research is needed on both processes.

* The long-term solution is to use solar power. All of the energy used by Americans for any purpose can be supplied by the sunlight that falls on only a very small part of the country. Replacing oil, however, requires the same technologies that we would use for nuclear energy.

So Americans have a decision to make. Do we invest in the public and private research that can ultimately lead to energy independence, or do we merely say that we want independence?

Just saying that we want it hasn't worked yet, and we are hurting not only ourselves but also small countries like Georgia that are caught in the cross-fire between great powers.

(Before his retirement, John J.W. Rogers was the William R. Kenan Jr. professor of geology at UNC-Chapel Hill. He can be reached at jjwr@mac.com.)

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.