I am perfectly aware that not all oil comes from Saudi Arabia. The fact remains however that the world economy is highly dependent on a commodity over which dangerous and unstable regimes have an undue influence. We are very capable of reducing our exposure to this risk by building large numbers of nuclear, coal, and other power plants in the US.
the rest of the world still would (oil is sold on the world market, not just to the U.S.), and thus would still fund our enemies.
If the US obviously had enough domestic energy assets to limp along without oil imports this would give us tremendous leverage not only over our enemies in the middle east but over Europe and China as well. Oil fields and refineries are big fixed targets. Notice the fit the Saudis threw when Bush mentioned reducing our oil usage in his state of the union address a couple of years ago? They know the score and don't want us to take away their "oil bomb."
maybe it's not that the leaders are out of touch, but rather, that you've overestimated just how much "public rage" there really is over gasoline prices.
People care about things that personally impact them like gas prices, far more than they care about the war in Iraq, ANWAR, and global warming. Unfortunately, the media and politicians within the "beltway bubble" are able to set the agenda in this country with little reference to what the actual man on the street cares about. A prime example of this was the shamnesty debacle. Why do both the President and Congress have historically low approval ratings if they are so in tune with people want?
Some would say there's no "lack of action" at all, given our ongoing attention to security issues in the Middle East.
Iraq is not about oil except in the fantasies of the moonbat left. The action that is needed today is the same that was needed during the oil crisis of the early '70s: More nukes, more coal, more hydro, more anything that is domestic or in friendly countries, more efficiency. Less regulations, taxes, and other roadblocks. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush #1, Clinton, and Bush #2 have all dropped that ball.
Hmm. Well, I guess it varies.
The fact remains however that the world economy is highly dependent on a commodity over which dangerous and unstable regimes have an undue influence.
That's true. And that fact would remain even if we ourselves weren't to use a drop of this commodity from those regimes, which was my point.
We are very capable of reducing our exposure to this risk by building large numbers of nuclear, coal, and other power plants in the US.
Okay, now you're talking more sense: we'd be reducing our exposure to the riskiness of oil prices (due to the unstable-regime factor, etc.). We wouldn't be "reducing our dependence on Arab oil", but reducing exposure to risk of oil's price fluctuations caused (in large part) by those regimes. Correct.
People care about things that personally impact them like gas prices, far more than they care about the war in Iraq, ANWAR, and global warming.
Hmm. I'm not so sure. I see very little "rage" about gas prices (which do affect people) than I see about the Iraq war (which largely isn't affecting most people, and the rage seems to be inversely proportional to the effect anyway). But again, it probably depends where you look/who we're talking about. *shrug*
Unfortunately, the media and politicians within the "beltway bubble" are able to set the agenda in this country with little reference to what the actual man on the street cares about.
See, do you have real hard data that the "actual man on the street" cares as much about gas prices as you're saying he does?
And if so, do you have correlative data showing that this same man on the street is willing to let folks drill in ANWR? (Because if he's not, I really doubt how much "rage" he actually feels)
I don't doubt that most people would answer "Yeah, sure" to a question like Are gas prices too high. That's easy. However, when the rubber meets the road are large numbers of Americans clamoring for us to expand nuclear, open ANWR to drilling etc.? And is the gas-price concern really high on peoples' radar compared to hot-button issues like Iraq? If so, I don't see it. Do you? Where?
A prime example of this was the shamnesty debacle. Why do both the President and Congress have historically low approval ratings if they are so in tune with people want?
I think it's clear they weren't in tune with what the people wanted on that, and realized it.
I still don't think "the people" really want to open ANWR etc. though. (I wish they did!) The (R)s tried this and look at the reaction it got: they were demonized, as usual, for wanting to "rape" "pristine" land.
Iraq is not about oil except in the fantasies of the moonbat left.
I think it's about oil to some extent. I think we don't want terrible, fanatical and/or power-mad people to gain control over such a large proven oil deposit (and the revenues it would generate), and I think that's a big reason we can't afford to take a laissez-faire approach to who rules Iraq. In that sense, it's "about oil".
Of course this is meant in a much different sense than lefties mean, most of whom seem to have a cartoon story in their head according to which when we invade or use military in one of these countries, it's "about oil" because in doing so we can somehow end up "taking" their oil or something.
The action that is needed today is the same that was needed during the oil crisis of the early '70s: More nukes, more coal, more hydro, more anything that is domestic or in friendly countries, more efficiency. Less regulations, taxes, and other roadblocks.
Can't disagree with any of this.
This doesn't make sense economically. We buy from the Middle East because it's the lowest cost oil. How could we be strenghtened by having to use domestically produced oil that costs more than thiers ?
Paying twice as much for the same unit of energy, while the Chinese and rest of the world pay less for the same unit; weakens us, drives even more of our industry overseas, and generally makes us poorer, and thus weaker.
Of course, ours doesn't have to cost more, getting rid of a lot of stupid environmental regulations could help make it cheaper. I read recently that 45% of the cost of natural gas is due to regualtions.