British Intelligence has learned that Bush has sought to obtain an actual energy policy...

Submitted by kebernet on Wed, 02/01/2006 - 22:56

Tagged:

Politics

WASHINGTON - 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. 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. But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are. The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction." Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Not exactly, though, it turns out. "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

Knight Ridder

Add new comment

Comments

RE: Brittish Intelligence has learned that Bush has sought to o

Submitted by PeeJ (not verified) on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 05:34.

Suprise , suprise. Not a ore promise undoubtably!

RE: Brittish Intelligence has learned that Bush has sought to o

Submitted by PeeJ (not verified) on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 05:36.

That should read core promise. My c is sometimes sticky.

RE: British Intelligence has learned that Bush has sought to ob

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Thu, 02/02/2006 - 09:56.

This entire alternative fuels thing, when they really mean ethanol, is a ruse. Ethanol doesnt reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, its barely net positive when you get great yields and DONT USE CORN. Its not net positive when you use corn (if you take into account everything that goes into producing it, sure you can leave stuff out of the equation and make it look great, but thats where you get back into ruse territory). Bush has a horrible record on energy. Back in 2000 he literally laughed at hybrids and threatened to end the tax credit (now he says we need more of that - flip flopper). Now in 2006 he comes up with the revelation that the states has too much of a dependence on oil? Fucking genius. We could easily start work on wind or solar regions/farms and produce energy. We could also work on better mass transit which people could actually use, light rail, etc. We could put real effort into hydrogen. We could also move closer to work and start riding bikes or walking. There are many things we could do to ACTUALLY reduce our "addiction" to oil, but ethanol isnt one of them. Bush touts ethanol because when he does so it pleases both the petroleum AND agriculture lobbies - its a windfall for industry but just further increases our dependence and wastes tons of money. Its another ruse.