SOTU: Dependence on Foreign Oil Has Increased Under Bush
SOTU: Dependence on Foreign Oil Has Increased Under Bush
Bush said: “Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.”
FACT — BUSH HAS INCREASED DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL: Sixty-six percent of oil consumed in the United States comes from foreign sources, up from 58 percent in 2000. Americans now spend $200,000 a minute on foreign oil and more than $25 billion annually goes to Persian Gulf states for oil imports. [Energy Information Administration, 1/06; American Progress, 2004]
FACT– BUSH ENERGY BILL WILL NOT REDUCE RELIANCE ON FOREIGN OIL: The energy bill signed and supported by President Bush “rejected a Senate provision that required reduction of oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2015.” Under the bill, “our need for imported oil will continue to grow for as long as models are able to project.” [U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, 7/05]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
17 Responses to “SOTU: Dependence on Foreign Oil Has Increased Under Bush”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Coming from him, this means absolutely nothing.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:44 pmoil is very affordable if you own Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, the problem is bribing enough ‘allies’ to own them without causing WWIII. If the issue is oil from stable regions, why not invest in biofuels? Ahhhh…..BigOilBoys!
January 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pmAs soon as we attack Iran for their oil,
January 31st, 2006 at 10:05 pmwe wont have to worry. We will have plenty.
Just like all of the oil we got from Iraq to
pay for the illegal war there. Right?
Dubya and his father are associated with the OIL CARTELS, so do NOT expect them to look for alternative energy!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:09 pmSo let’s See…Addicted to Foreign Oil. Sure George.
And NOW the USA is going to switch to ethanol from Twigs and Grass from the Heartland. Hmmm.
That’s Odd though… Seeing as how the USA just invaded
and occupied the richest OIL reserves on earth…
… using GI’s from that very same heartland…. Hmmm
One Citizen MUST wonder… China? India? Who? Where? When?
What? Is going to happen to all of that Not-So-Foreign-Oil… now that Iraq was colonized like the 51st state?
… Protected with Our Very Own National Guard and Reserves.
This is odd, odd indeed. One of the Latest Republican Meta-Cons… getting a roll-out in “The State of the Union Address.”
Send Your Boys and Girls to Die for Mid East Oil… for Cheney and Exxon and Enron…Yet don’t expect any of it at
home…
Instead, pay the price of New Technology innovations… and Let Cheney and Exxon and Enron own the World’s Oil… and FUEL their ongoing Industrial Revolution of China and India.
Cleary, The State of the Union is One UNDER SIEGE… One of Immense CONs against the Citizenry.
God Bless our Over-Deployed and Under-Supplied Troops. Bring the Home NOW. The Nation NEEDS its National Guard.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:01 amBush is the poster child for the phrase “arrogantly ignorant”. If he wasn’t an oil crony, he would have made reducing demand for oil a priority 6 years ago when he was elected. It’s a bit late now since he’s a lame duck.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:26 am[…] Bush talking about our dependance on foreign oil is like a drug dealer saying we have a drug problem in this country. […]
February 1st, 2006 at 3:10 pm[…] To begin with, Bush has brought up our oil dependence before, but we’ve only seen our dependence on oil increase consistently during his presidency. Furthermore, he essentially proposed that we quench the thirst for oil with substitutes, but don’t worry about the thirst, never once mentioning raising fuel efficiency standards. While he did point out fuel alternatives such as ethanol, he overlooked the environmental impact of increasing emissions despite the fuel being used. […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 am[…] To begin with, Bush has brought up our oil dependence before, but we’ve only seen our dependence on oil increase consistently during his presidency. Furthermore, he essentially proposed that we quench the thirst for oil with substitutes, but don’t worry about the thirst, never once mentioning raising fuel efficiency standards. While he did point out fuel alternatives such as ethanol, he overlooked the environmental impact of increasing emissions despite the fuel being used. […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 amHey, what happened to hydrogen?
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:52 amWe have gone to war in the MidEast to “protect our sources of oil.” It is not believable that we have done this to “promote democracy.”
Who has benefitted and who has lost? The price of oil has gone up and international oil companies like Exxon are making record profits. Our “defense industries” must be licking their chops over the profits they will be making to equip our military to intervene all over the globe to put down insurgencies.
On the other hand, the American taxpayer is having to pay billions of dollars which we can’t afford, but will just be added to our budget deficit. Worse still, of course, is that we are losing the lives abroad of our soldiers who are being assured that they are saving America from terrorist attacks at home.
It seems that we are trying to lead the rest of the world where it doesn’t want to go, and when the world doesn’t follow we just “go it alone.” Perhaps it is time stopped acting like “Big Shots” and started doing more listening.
Incidentally, if it is true that oil companies and other powerful financial interests have been listened to too much by our government, maybe we it is time to listen a little bit less to them.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:07 amQuestion: You say the e-mail address will not be published, but here I am, the day after Feb. 6 when I submitted my comment, and I see that my name and address is already filled in.
How did this happen, I wonder?
Tom Tull
February 7th, 2006 at 3:35 pmIf we went into Iraq to secure our oil interests what is going to happen to central America and South America? With the growing support that both Chavez and Morales are receiving, how long will it be before the president tries to get our troops into those countries?
May 8th, 2006 at 1:17 pmIt’s all a joke. No government official cares that the top 5 oil companies in the world made a combined record profit of 116 billion dollars in the first quarter of this year. They don’t care that over the last 8 years gas prices have gone up almost 2 dollars a gallon, and they don’t care that we the people are screaming our heads off for our government to do something about the problem. Why? Because they are making money. millions of dollars change hands everyday just for a vote in the Senate and
June 26th, 2006 at 2:04 amHouse of Rep. Which I might add is mostly made up of Republican’s. That is the biggest problem in America. We vote for the best liar and this is what we get. Crapped on and put in the poor house. The only place in this country I ahve seen any politician try and do a darn thing is in Missouri. They passed a law mandateing ethanyl fuel in there gas. Why can’t we as a nation do the same thing? Money, and that is the bottom line. They win and we lose. We can all talk till we are blue in the face, but American pliticians follow the golden rule. “He who has the gold, makes the rule!’
George Bush pays lip service to our dependance on foreign oil by proposing soulutions he saw in the movie series “back to the future” Sure George, we can run our cars on lawn clippings and magical hydrogen bubbles. He knows damn well he can line his pockets for another 20 years or so before any of that pie in the sky ever materializes. Meanwhile any practical or viable soulutions get derailed, ignored and sabotaged and the largest subsidies ever granted to any one industry (oil and gas) get passed in the republican energy bill. Bush suports energy independence like Rep. Foley sponsors child protection laws. But hey, Nobody died!
October 12th, 2006 at 2:03 amyou’re such a democrat
November 28th, 2006 at 7:56 amwhy must we always blame bush?
November 28th, 2006 at 7:57 am