No one expected a real policy statement anyway

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on February 2, 2006 - 12:22pm.
on Economics
THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH'S CALL TO REDUCE MIDDLE EAST IMPORTS: On Tuesday, President Bush announced a "great goal": "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." But that isn't as great as it sounds. Consider that foreign imports currently make up about 65 percent of our total oil consumption, but imports from the Middle East constitute just 17 percent of total imports, about 11 percent of total oil use. In other words, President Bush's goal amounts to reducing oil consumption by just 8.25 percent over 19 years. Moreover, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said yesterday that when President Bush pledged to reduce imports from the Middle East, "he didn't mean it literally." Bodman told journalists that Bush's promise "was purely an example," acknowledging that "oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms" meaning "it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth." Indeed, according to the administration's own statistics, Bush's proposals would be highly unlikely to displace crude oil from the Middle East "because the region has the lowest costs for producing oil in the world and U.S. companies would continue to seek the cheapest source of energy." Says Energy Department analyst Anthony Radich, "Barring some (government) policy that explicitly discourages oil imports, even if we do find cheaper ways to produce cellulose ethanol, the imports from the Middle East are among the last to go."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Quaker in a Basement on February 2, 2006 - 2:24pm.
In other words, President Bush's goal amounts to reducing oil consumption by just 8.25 percent over 19 years.


Yeah, that sounds like a small number, but if you add in the projected growth of the population and economy over that same time period, that's a pretty challenging goal. What seems strange to me is that the goal, as described, doesn't include higher fuel economy standards for automakers.
Submitted by Temple3 on February 2, 2006 - 2:51pm.

It's great that you raised this again. This is what prompted my question about Canada yesterday. I think one of the more interesting things is the role the US played in East Timor given Indonesian claims for oil off the coast of that island. The massacre was actually good for US business - which brings me to another point... Can any nations other than Israel and the UK count on military support from the US "just for being who they are." Bushy laid it out this week. It seems like the perfect signal to send to nations or satellites that might wish to overextend the US military. A little coordination and it would be a wrap.

Post new comment

*
*
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

*