Taking on our oil ‘addiction’

February 1, 2006

It was perhaps the most memorable phrase in the State of the Union, and it’s already been picked up far and wide by a soundbite-starved media: “Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.”

Indeed, whereas health care was supposed to be the big, substantive issue of the SOTU, Bush’s discussion of energy suggests it will be a top administration priority. Well, sort of.

Usually, top domestic policy initiatives in a SOTU suggest the president is looking for new legislation. That’s not quite the case here — the president recently signed what Republicans consider the most sweeping energy legislation in years. Instead, Bush was talking about a new, long-term strategy.

“So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.

“We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.

“Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”

All of this sounds very nice. Unfortunately, the plan is neither new nor bold, and isn’t nearly as ambitious as the president would have us believe.

First, the sum total of Bush’s new investments is, according to the Wall Street Journal today, “about $300 million.” That’s not much. Second, cutting oil imports from the Middle East by 75% over two decades will hardly make a difference.

Since Bush took office, net foreign imports have risen from 53 percent to 60 percent. By focusing on his goal of reducing use of Middle Eastern oil by 75 percent, he singled out the share that is not rising. Oil from the Persian Gulf region now represents 11 percent of U.S. oil consumption, less than when Bush was inaugurated.

It’s also not altogether clear what Bush means by his choice of words.

It was not clear exactly how Mr. Bush was defining his goal. There is a big difference between reducing such imports 75 percent below today’s levels and reducing such imports 75 percent below what they would otherwise be if American supply and demand continued on their present course.

For the first 11 months of 2005, according to the most recent data available, the United States used about 20.6 million barrels of oil a day and imported about 60 percent of that. About 17 percent of petroleum imports came from the Persian Gulf.

By contrast, the United States imported 44.5 percent of its oil in 1995, and about the same share came from the Middle East as it does today.

But some energy analysts said on Tuesday that Mr. Bush’s focus on Middle Eastern oil glossed over a more basic problem: the United States’ dependence on oil in general.

“It doesn’t matter if we don’t buy oil from the Middle East,” said Gal Luft, a co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a research organization in Washington. If the United States does not buy oil from the Middle East, he said, “someone else will, supporting the same regimes.”

We get less than a fifth of our oil from the Middle East. Bush’s new goals are modest to the point of comedy.

Something to keep in mind when the White House plays this issue up over the next couple of months.

Notice the failure to as for sacrifices of the American people.

Nowhere does Bush say, “Stop buying gas-guzzling SUVs so we can get off our addiction to foreign oil.”

Nor does he say: “If I had only started five years ago I could have pushed through a rise in the CAFE standards that would be reaping us benefits today. But I didn’t so I’ll leave that to the next president.”

  • Notice the failure to as for sacrifices of the American people.

    Good point, Lance. The word “conservation” just isn’t in this guy’s vocabulary.

  • The Bush Energy plan for 5 years has been “more drilling, less restrictions on coal”.

    I think of the wasted opportunity after 9/11 to get serious about this. A bold proposal like an increase in the gas tax, phased in over 8-10 years. Why? We phase it in to give Detroit time to adapt their models, give them 2 complete product cycles. We increase the gas tax to influence the market, inducing consumers to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Plus there is the positive aspect of the revenue to fill the gaping hole left by the Bush tax shifts.

  • “America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world…”

    The follow on line (not spoken) “…so we should use more oil from stable parts of the world, like Alaska.”

  • I think the point that might be overlooked here is the definition of “unstable parts of the world.”

    “Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela’s oil output.” http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p17.htm

    Concidering the recent events in South America and the general dislike for Hugo Chavez, maybe Bush is referring to Venezuela and not just the middle east?

  • Bush’s comments about using wood chips, corn stalks and “switch grass” for fuel makes me realize he’s finally found a use for all that brush he’s been clearing at his ranch.

  • First, it doesn’t much matter where we buy our oil, it all goes into a single market from which all countries must purchase their oil. Yes, this is a simpification, but it is largely true.
    Second, beware of the gap between what Bush says and what he does. In Colorado, we are fighting major decreases in funding for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. These are being pushed by the administration. Cosequently, I was surprised to hear the President promote renewable energy only days after reading about the efforts of Udahl and other Democrats to stop the administrations cuts in this research.
    Furthermore, I have had some contact with DOE officials on development of renewable resources and so far all they have created are some really dynamite powerpoint presentations.

  • Y’all are thinking too much. Rethugs finally realized that stealing the oil is harder than they thought. We’ve been bombing apartment complexes in Iraq for almost 3 years straight, and the people still refuse to just sit down and hand it over. Hmmm…what to do…

  • #6 wins the best comment prize!

    Seeing as this has been a ideal of mine for some years now, I must support it.

    1. I have to disagree with the point the last article makes, that Bush focused on Middle Eastern oil in his speech. I’m only going off of information CB has provided us about the SOTU speech but it doesn’t sound like he’s focusing on it at all, rather that the point he makes is in regard to oil in general, and that the point about Middle Eastern oil is a nice side-effect. If Bush were to focus on cutting us off of Middle Eastern oil, he would instead be talking about funding oil exploration, and deals with Russia and other non-ME oil exporters.

    Even so, if less than a fifth of our oil imports is middle eastern, that is still no small number. If our oil imports from the middle east were to stop cold tomorrow, or even next year on a planned schedule, our economy would crash. Hard.

    Even if someone else (ie China or India) buys undemocratic arab oil in our place, freeing ourselves from it still frees us to influence them to change, Saudi Arabia in particular. We’ve done notoriously poorly when it comes to democratizing the middle east. Progress has been slow, and even then only in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine (which I’m sure we’re regretting,) nowhere else that I can recall. Certainly not Syria, Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

    As progressives, I thought reducing our dependence on oil has been a goal of ours for years. Even if a chance comes from as unlikely a President as Bush, we should take it and run with it. Is his proposal too small and meager? Dems should ride the momentum of post-SOTU Republican support and draft something bigger and bolder TODAY and sign on as many Bush supporters as we can. If we can actually get agreement on something from the other side, we shouldn’t switch to disagreement just to maintain the opposition to the GOP. Take the opportunity of right-wing support for a traditional left-wing goal and make it happen!

  • I’m with Ryan. Moving to sustainable fuel is obvious. It should have been a major initiative since the 70’s. I know everyone likes to jump Bush’s shit, and I know his programs have a tendancy to cost more and do less than he proposes, but this is still the right thing to do. Give him some support on this issue and save the opposition for bad policy.

  • Seeing that a lot of our oil comes from Canada, maybe it isn’t such a far fetched notion that certain folks in power might invade Canada…

  • #11 – I don’t trust him (hardly a novel notion when it comes to the Regal Moron). When Bush came into office we received 58% of our oil from abroad. Last year we received 66%. Who’s kidding whom?

  • “#12. Seeing that a lot of our oil comes from Canada, maybe it isn’t such a far fetched notion that certain folks in power might invade Canada…”

    As a Canadian who listened to the SOTU speech, I am fairly certain that Dick Cheney has no need to draw up plans for an invasion of my country. After all, my own government signed away its energy reserves to the U.S. under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We are obliged to continue supplying the U.S. with its customary share of our energy even as our gas production is in decline.

    What Canada does have lots of is heavy oil in Alberta, which requires lots of natural gas to extract and convert to usable form. But we only have about eight years of gas left, barring huge new fields, due to our practice of shipping 60% of what we extract to U.S. markets. After that. America will have one less “stable” country to satisfy its large, SUV-driven appetite.

    Bush’s issue-framing, as usual, is phony. The issue is not which country energy comes from. The issue is that there’s a finite amount for everybody. We have one earth, and we are fast using up its stores of hydrocarbons. And new technology, Bush’s other solution, cannot change geology.

    President Bush in his SOTU speech admitted that America is addicted to oil. It was like the first step of a 12-step addiction recovery — admitting you have a problem. Unfortunately, addicts do not recover by buying their drugs in safer neighborhoods, or switching to “cleaner” drugs with fewer side effects. They have to use less and eventually none. Until Bush figures that out, I hold out no hope for his total recovery.

    • Comments are closed.