Not much closer to quenching U.S. thirst for foreign oil

The nation’s need for a comprehensive energy policy has been among the most persuasive talking points of the George W. Bush era. But if you thought that having such an energy policy would mean depending less on foreign oil, think again. We currently import 58 percent of our oil. The legislation nearing final passage in Congress would only slow the increase of our dependence, currently projected to rise to 68 percent by 2025. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example, could reduce oil imports by a mere 4 percent. Especially with so much instability in some of the nations of the world that sit atop oil reserves, is this the best our leaders can do?
Posted by Rhonda Holman

7 Comments

  1. Nathan
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Actually Rhonda,

    If you were to look at the energy policy, drilling in Alaska was only one small part of Bush’s plan.

    Perhaps it is the only thing you know about simply becuase that is all the liberals attack and make such a fuss about.

    I suppose if you read your own biased news for a long enough time you start to even believe it yourself Rhonda.

  2. Emily
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    So where is Bush’s alternative fuel program? Being so dependent on OIL is the problem, too.

  3. Anon
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Bush can’t cut our need for oil. His oil rich cronies won’t let him hurt their bottom line.

  4. Joe Williams
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Oil? This energy plan is another farm program.

  5. brown
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Congress had a chance to do one meaningful thing in this energy bill, requiring that vehicles get better fuel economy. Unfortunately, this was left out. Do you think Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or BP had anyting to do with this? It was a payback. We have the very best Congress that money can buy.

  6. J R
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Is anyone surprised? bush is an oily…..er I meant oil man. cheney is a greedy…..er I meant greasy oil man as well. cheney even allowed oil executives to help delineate this “administrations” energy policy.Remember Enron? Is Ken Lay in jail yet?This “administration” is of by and for the interests of big oil. This is to the exclusion of everything else, and is the driving force behind all of their endeavors from the environment to foreign policy. To expect any sort of alternative energy solutions or indeed anything that is not in the interests of big oil from these “men” is equivalent to asking a fish to advocate against the water in which it swims.

  7. brown
    Posted July 29, 2005 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    Well said, JR.