Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles - New York Times

Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles - New York Times

I had a wandering though at the end of a recent post that touched on this subject. (I wonder what abandoning (close to impossible) oil would effect the world economy?)

This isn't just a Bush issue as it's been brought up by "Every administration since the early 1970's" and has been met with obstacles. I have no doubt though that Dems will paint it as such. In fairness, both parties showed a lack of enthusiasm, but Democrats, "said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill,"so I guess they're just obstruct to even the score. Let's not forget to thank them for having our interests at heart.

Democrats will also be difficult to deal with since the president doesn't want an increase in the gasoline tax. "In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a gasoline tax of 46 cents a gallon, up from today's federal tax of 18 cents," to reduce consumption. But Samuel W. Bodman, Energy Secretary said that '"many Americans believe they're already sacrificing by paying the prices they're paying for gasoline and heating oil and natural gas."' Which certainly fits my perspective; I can't exactly run out and buy a new, more fuel efficient vehicle at the moment.

To finish up and bring it back to my post linked at the outset, Lawrence Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, said, '"If the United States was zero-dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but the rest of our allies among consuming nations were just as dependent, then a disruption anywhere is a price increase everywhere."'

Ultimately, the answer to reducing oil consumption or dropping out entirely, boils down to the fact that nothing is ever as simple as soundbytes make it.