Energy Bill Wouldn't Wean U.S. Off Oil Imports, Analysts Say

Washington Post ^ | 7/26/05 | Justin Blum

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports, a major energy bill that appears headed for passage this week would not significantly reduce the country's need for foreign oil, according to analysts and interest groups.

The United States imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes. Federal officials project that by 2025, the country will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand. At best, analysts say, the energy legislation would slightly slow that rate of growth of dependence.

"We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that," said Ben Lieberman, who follows energy issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "There's a few measures to increase domestic production . . . and that would not do much."....

The energy legislation also calls for money to be spent on research into hydrogen, alternative fuels, efficiency and technology, which supporters said could ultimately help reduce oil consumption. The Senate version of the legislation calls for tax breaks for hybrid vehicles, which supporters said would help reduce oil demand.

Environmentalists cited a provision included in the legislation that they said would result in more oil consumption and greater imports: extension of a provision designed to encourage auto manufacturers to produce vehicles that can run on either gasoline or a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol....

[Williams]

"Interest groups and analysts" indeed. Give me a break. I despise the mental sickness of leftists, that they will devote their energy to preventing anything being done about a problem.

[edcoil]

Energy Bill is yet another loser in the long line of goverment solutions that address no problems, solves nothing and will simply burnder the taxpayer.

I never look to government for leadership - and I am never disappointed.

[Tarpon]

There are benefits to being the first state in the union to hold a primary. All that Iowa corn gets to be turned in to ethanol which costs more in energy to produce than it delivers in return.

Not one drop of oil -- some energy bill

[Just A Nobody]

Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports...

Member of Congress are worthless.

According to the guy filling in for Rush, the "ENERGY" bill is full of pork projects and does little to address our energy problems. It also contains another socialist/communist "government mandate" to use ethanol.

This is getting old. The President needs to veto this crap!

[FlipWilson]

A well written editorial. Too bad it doesn't appear on the editorial page. I stop reading these days whenever I encounter the words "experts", "sources", "analysts" or "some." Those are just catch words to back up the particular writer's opinion.

[Mr. Keys]

Another joke from our govt. which will accomplish nothing.

[Marine_Uncle]

So much is written on our dependancy on foreigh oil and natural gas etc.. Many of us do not take the time to at least get a feel as to who and where the large oil/gas deposits are located. Perhaps the following site may be of use to some to get a better idea as where the US obtains it's oil.
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

[DTogo]

But the emerging package does not do what some analysts said would have the greatest impact on reducing U.S. oil demand and cutting imports: a requirement to increase fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and cars. Under strong pressure from the automobile industry, the House and Senate rejected higher efficiency standards. Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs -- arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency.

Yes, that would certainly have the greatest impact, but so would more non-fossil forms of electricity generation (nuclear!), which could help reduce the need for, and encourage the scrapping of, many old, oil-fired power plants.

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%)

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html#oil

[Recovering_Democrat]

These ANALysts (and/or the "journalists/liberal hacks") are full of it. Bush never promised an energy plan that would make us NON-dependent on foreign sources of energy. The fact of the matter is if we produce MORE energy in this nation, the increased supply should help keep prices down--of course, as any intelligent economist could tell these ANALysts (and/or the "journalists/liberal hacks") if the increase in demand for energy exceeds the increase in supply, prices will continue to rise!

You know, these clowns in the LameStream media will need to realize, someday, their schtick can't fly like it used to...the half-truths and insinuations they used to get away with aren't going to cut it in the new world anymore.

[rockthecasbah]

U.S. energy policy should be market driven, period. Government meddling in the energy market has never worked. Recall Nixon's price controls, Carter's "moral equivalent of war" failed energy plan. The only meddling that worked was when Reagan persuaded the Saudis to open the taps in 1986. That and maybe some marginal effect from the Section 29 tax credits for drilling tight sands.

[OESY]

[Sonny M]

Yes, that would certainly have the greatest impact, but so would more non-fossil forms of electricity generation (nuclear!),

Amen to that.

If we just dumped everything in this bill and only had a bill dedicated to nuclear power, it would be the most successful energy bill in our history and would do more for energy independence and our economy then anything else.

China is already getting into the game with its "pebble reactors", France of all nations is ahead of us, if we could just boost our nuke power plants, alot of these problems would just go away.