What new energy landscape means to USA: Our view

• Free enterprise has a way of solving problems that is beyond the capabilities of government.
• It%27s time for both government and society as a whole to step back and see what works and what doesn%27t.
• Most important gains could come from radical shifts that are as unanticipated as was North America%27s emergence as an oil and gas powerhouse.

When Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto unveiled a plan recently to allow private investment in his nation's energy production, it received relatively little notice. But it is a very big deal. Mexican oil has been the province of a government controlled-monopoly since the industry was nationalized in 1938.

Adding private sector know-how could easily increase production by 25% or more in a decade as new drilling technologies are brought to bear. This would add to an equally positive and unanticipated development: the vast increase in oil and gas production in the USA and Canada.

The global energy landscape is changing at a stunning pace. North America is close to energy independence, which once seemed unattainable. Better yet, the U.S., long dependent on supplies from potentially hostile nations, will attain self-sufficiency in 20 years, according to a study by BP.

There are many lessons from all this. The first, and most obvious, is never to assume that the status quo is a permanent state. If oil-rich countries in the Persian Gulf are not viewing these developments with alarm, they are delusional. And if manufacturers in Asia and elsewhere don't see how cheap energy will fuel industrial growth here, they should. After years of decline, it's already happening — another big surprise.

A second conclusion is that free enterprise has a way of solving problems that is beyond the capabilities of government. The surge in domestic oil and gas production — spurred on by such new techniques as hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") did not come about as the result of government energy polices, but largely in spite of them. And Mexico's recent shift is an acknowledgment that public ownership of the oil industry does little but stifle growth and deny government much needed revenues.

The most important conclusion is that these developments provide a learning opportunity. It's time for both government and society as a whole to step back and see what works and what doesn't.

In the four decades since the Arab oil embargo caused gasoline rationing here, U.S. energy polices have been — charitably speaking — a mixed bag. While conservation measures and programs such as requiring electric utilities to buy power from alternative energy sources have been a success, the same could not be said of grand schemes to mandate synthetic fuels in the 1970s, onerous and politically motivated ethanol policies of recent years, or the numerous tax breaks handed out to reward energy companies for their lobbying. Such handouts are the inevitable result of betting on technologies that look silly in hindsight.

Recent developments in North American energy production even suggest ways to attack the complex threat of global warming. If government is serious about climate change — and it should be — two approaches stand out as most productive. One is to invest in basic research to find means to cope with warming that do not exist now. The other is to tax pollutants and then let the market adjust and innovators innovate.

In the end, the most important gains could come from radical shifts that are as unanticipated as was North America's emergence as an oil and gas powerhouse.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.