Mideast Oil Reduction Not Meant Literally

Submitted by Laura Miller on

"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally," Knight-Ridder's Kevin Hall reports. "What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025." In his State of the Union address, Bush spelled it out: "America is addicted to oil." Why did Bush call to "break this addication" to Middle East oil when he didn't really mean it? "[O]ne administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands," Hall writes, adding, "The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble."

Main Source: 
Knight Ridder, February 1, 2006
Topics: 
Iraq
U.S. Government

Comments

badgersouth replied on

After I read this posting, I did not know whether to laugh or cry so I did both.

I laughed because the Administration’s attempts to clarify what the President said and why he said bring to mind the saga of Humpty Dumpty.

I cried because the President of the United States is nothing more than a puppet on a string held by the Saudi Royal family.

John Hartz

Diane Farsetta replied on

From [http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34954/story.htm a Reuters story]:

"Realistically, it is simply not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today," [[Exxon Mobil]] Senior Vice President Stuart McGill said, referring to what he called the "misperception" that the United States can achieve energy independence. ...

"Americans depend upon imports to fill the gap," McGill said. "No combination of conservation measures, alternative energy sources and technological advances could realistically and economically provide a way to completely replace those imports in the short or medium term."

A. Ramon replied on

I am baffled by the president (among others) who claim that alternative fuels could ever replace mideast oil imports. Here are two things that make me question this logic.

1. Oil products are used for a whole lot more than automobile fuel. In his tough talk about oil bush fails to mention how his solutions are going to help us manufacture plastic products. Most of our modern consumer society depends on petroleum as a key ingredient in almost everything.

2. Will we ever have enough land to support the massive crops that would be needed to support a biofuel future? It just doesn't seem to make sense. There are millions of cars burning fuel every day - how long do biofuel crops take to grow? Aren't we already using all available land and caging in wildlife? It would be interesting to see a scientific assesment of his promises - they just doesn't seem to add up.

Visit Peak Oil News for the latest articles relating to world oil production and supply concerns. Biodiesel Fuel News is a good place to keep up to date on developments in biofuel and alternative fuels.