"America is addicted to oil."

That's right. And who has been funding the political party that put our Glorious Leader into power? The people supplying the drug we're addicted to. Should we add "Drug Pusher" to the growing list of titles for the First Imbecile?

Excellent roundup, and I felt the same way about the speech even though I've heard lots of how stupid does Bush sound etc. from the typical parties. Where do we go from here though in terms of energy concerns? Ethanol seems viable for transportation but what about heating of homes which for a large part of the country means oil.

What remains to be seen is if Bush follows through with his plans. This is not the first time he has called for alternative fuel development in his State of the Union address. While the perfect alternative may not exist right now, all it takes is a little money and research. If oil companies can squeeze oil out of every rock and ocean floor on the planet, we can figure out how to make wind/solar/ethanol/hydrogen viable.

And I should clarify: I wasn't overwhelmed by the speech, and it didn't do much to change my overall opinions of Bush. But at this point, a speech that doesn't directly lead to a war or the dissolution of civil rights is a victory in my book. And that says a lot.

Haha, fair enough. One small factual error -- it was Nigeria, not Niger, that supposedly supplied the yellow cake uranium.

And I agree, the phrase should be the Republican addiction the oil. I'm sure an 'alternative' energy will come as soon as they can figure a way to exploit it into profitability like oil.

Yes, that is one point I will concede to rabid free-market capitalists. Once alternative energy becomes as profitable as oil, corporations will come up with a solution much faster than the government. (Of course, with oil corporations continuing to report record profits, that probably won't happen anytime soon).

But I think it was Niger that supposedly supplied the yellowcake, unless we are thinking of different events: http://www.ablogistan.com/archives/2005/10/what_wilson_did.html

I actually remember learning about ethanol and peanut oil engines being developed in the 1930's to 1950's but never saw the light of day. And I agree, I think we will probably be driving automobiles that will run on different fuels sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. However, we will still have to refill them for 30 dollars every week to a Shell or Exxon-Mobile.

And you are right about Niger -- I got confused by the word 'Nigerian'. If a person from Niger is a Nigerian, what is a person from Nigeria?

Nuclear energy is the key to the hydrogen economy. I'd invest in that industry right now if I wasn't flat out broke.

Since we all seem to agree that corporate profits will be the force that drives the switch to an alternative fuel, here is my next thought: How much power does the consumer have?

In the past, I have advocated for socially responsible investing and "following your dollar", but I am not as convinced of their effectiveness as I once was. But, corporations do make decisions based on market signals and consumer trends. If you make an effort to purchase the most environmentally friendly vehicles, or, as 80 suggested, invest in alternative energy markets, how much difference can you make? It will obviously be a small impact, but is it smaller or greater than the influence of one vote?

I don't know honestly, I almost feel like if you're buying an automobile right now -- any automobile, including hybrids -- you're making a 'bad choice'. And I think the rise of hybrids was obviously out of necessity from gas prices, not from consumer choice per se. I think corporate trends are controlling consumer trends, so I think it's more of a 'choose from various companies that will provide essentially the same thing' rather than 'choose between competing energy sources/choices'.

I mean apart from bicycling or using your own two feet, what is environmentally friendly anymore?

In a way, then, it's a lot like voting: You may not have the choice you want, but you have to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils and hope that makes a difference.

And as far as Bush's State of the Union address... I'm less impressed now that I've seen the footnotes: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

I think this provides a good source of information on the 'clarification':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

The New York Times article is very good as well that is linked in the column -- these promises are made a lot, and they usually ring hollow.

"Every administration since the early 1970's has struggled with the issue of rising oil imports and the right mix of policies to deal with them," said Daniel Yergin, the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and the founder of a consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Some people would just say, 'It's world trade, we sell Boeings and we buy oil.' But since oil is intertwined with geopolitics, people worry about vulnerability and whether oil is a drag on our foreign policy."

Oil is a huge political/diplomatic issue -- it keeps much of the Middle East at least SOMEWHAT stable. The Middle East is for the most part DEPRIVED in social structures -- education, government, to basic infastructure. Ironically, Iraq had the highest amount of college graduates and PHD's per capita under Hussein. That is a pretty good indication of things. I think at times we fail to factor in that oil is a contributor to a lot of weatlh abroad, and this is wealth that leads to a lot of political power. What would happen to the OPEC nations suddenly had the rug pulled from under them if the West converted to a new form of fuel?