# Should we take hope that President Bush is at least addressing renewable energy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467 "2006-02-21T14:33:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/21 "2006-02-21T19:43:52Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > A lot of these people don’t think there _is_ a “forever”; they think that the oil will last until Jesus comes and whisks them off to Heaven, where they can sit back and watch us sinners suffer. By that same logic, “these people” aren’t going to care about profits from oil anyway, as money is nothing as compared to Our Lord yadda yadda. > [@](#): > > I expect the rest think that the oil will last as long as they live, and don’t care in the slightest if the economy collapses ten seconds after they die. Utter selfishness is a core value of the Republicans. I disagree, but say you’re right; Unless they’re utterly deluded, a selfish person would take steps to make sure any future energy sources were under their control, too. So Bush would still be likely to promote and look into renewable energy if he were a contemptible selfish ass or simply trying to do what he thinks is in the US’s interest, or somewhere in between - which is my point. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/22 "2006-02-21T19:47:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > A lot of these people don’t think there _is_ a “forever”; they think that the oil will last until Jesus comes and whisks them off to Heaven, where they can sit back and watch us sinners suffer. > > I expect the rest think that the oil will last as long as they live, and don’t care in the slightest if the economy collapses ten seconds after they die. Utter selfishness is a core value of the Republicans. i hate making blanket statements like this…but i find myself coming back to say the exact same thing when i sit down and think about it… the corve value, when i look at it, does seem to be “greed” of course, some greed is fine/good, but obviously too much or too little of it is very bad. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/23 "2006-02-21T19:50:55Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > By that same logic, “these people” aren’t going to care about profits from oil anyway, as money is nothing as compared to Our Lord yadda yadda. > > I disagree, but say you’re right; Unless they’re utterly deluded, a selfish person would take steps to make sure any future energy sources were under their control, too. So Bush would still be likely to promote and look into renewable energy if he were a contemptible selfish ass or simply trying to do what he thinks is in the US’s interest, or somewhere in between - which is my point. there’s a difference between selfishness, which seems to have laziness in tow…and ambition and greed. i’d think that a “selfish” person would accumulate goods/wealth, and then sit on it/find a way to keep the flow steady. an ambitious person would tend to look towards gaining more of this wealth, even though they have a bunch to begin with. again, i don’t intend to paint all selfish or all ambitious people with such large brushes. what i’m saying is that with “greed” and “selfishness” seems to come another attribute. i suppose it all comes down to semantics. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/24 "2006-02-21T19:52:32Z")
of course, my previous two posts could be seen as conflicting. if they do, tend to disregard the first of the two. thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/25 "2006-02-21T19:59:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I think the faction of ‘Green Republicans’ is larger than you think…at least with reguards to this particular issue (i.e. breaking our dependence on foreign energy sources). It might not even be a minority, though thats just a WAG on my part. Certainly the friends I have that are Republicans (and most of the Republicans on this board) seem to lean that way…though of course this is by no means a representative sample. 🙂 I think GOP support could definitely materialize. If somehow we find a way to make ethanol a primary source of fuel for the nation’s automobiles many of the crops that would be planted and the income they would generated would be in very Republican mid-west states. > [@](#): > > I don’t know exactly why the president is on this kick to be honest. He could really feel strongly about it (from the perspective of the US under the gun of foreign sources of oil)…in fact, thats my take on it. I have no doubt Bush likes making money but he’s already a wealthy man. I think like any President he is looking to history now, especially since he is in his second term. And I think he does recognize that American dependence on foreign oil isn’t the best situation in the world, and considering how important a strong America is to him I don’t think this is suprising. > [@](#): > > It could be that he’s setting things up to make it a party platform in 2008 for his successor. Wouldn’t be the first time the Republicans stole the Dems thunder, repackaged it in a shinny new box and made it their own. After all the Dems have rather fosilized their own positions on the environment, being at least half the problem I described earlier with entrenching the positions…and the hostility factor. Maybe Bush is sending up some trial balloons for the Republicans, to try and re-orient the troops so to speak and get them thinking about why this would be a good thing…after having it hammered into them by both sides why it was a bad thing for good Republicans to think in the past. This may not really become an environmental issue, it may even be opposed by environmentalists as massive fields growing corn or whatever would represent an environmental disaster to many people. Especially considering farming does a lot of polluting in its own right. > [@](#): > > I certainly don’t see any other point to Bush doing this…again, its not like he needs too. And by doing so he opens himself up to the kinds of things already being said in this thread. Why exactly would he hassle with it? Not like HE needs strong popularity numbers at this point…or that this is going to get them for him in any case, from either side. So…he feels strongly about it or its a Republican trial balloon. Take your pick. > > -XT I do tend to trust a second term President on policy proposals more than a first termer. I mean, this is his last job he will probably ever have. He may serve on the board of a corporation or something but more than likely this is the last years of Bush’s life as someone who is going to have meaningful effect on the world. I think that’s why many second termers really try to push things they believe perhaps in spite of politics. Or this could just be a political show, it’s hard to tell. The man is a politician. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/26 "2006-02-21T20:15:39Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > A lot of these people don’t think there _is_ a “forever”; they think that the oil will last until Jesus comes and whisks them off to Heaven, where they can sit back and watch us sinners suffer. > > I expect the rest think that the oil will last as long as they live, and don’t care in the slightest if the economy collapses ten seconds after they die. Utter selfishness is a core value of the Republicans. I think your last statement is a little strong. I think it is true that a core ideal of the Republican Party is that “the Business of America is Business” but there are plenty of even conservative Republicans that believe in long-term growth strategies and developing technologies. The “Greed is good”, “Profit now” attitude I think is driven by the Corporate Lobbyist influenced Congress. Is the religious portion of the party really in control of much of the economic policy? I thought they were just driving the social agenda. On preview: **Martin Hyde** : Sure post something rational that I agree with, disabuse my notions about you. I do think most mainstream environmental groups will support Plug in Hybrids running ethanol85 over oil. I am talking about Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Clearwater, etc. They are all pushing for ethanol. Petroleum is definitely one of the major sources of pollution in the developed world. Auto’s that greatly reduce emissions is very desired by the environmental groups I am part of. Jim ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/27 "2006-02-21T20:25:19Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > Should we take hope that President Bush is at least [addressing renewable energy and reduced Oil consumption](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/bush.energy.ap/index.html)? Such actions would be entirely inconsistent with everything he’s done in the last five years, so I wouldn’t bet on it. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/28 "2006-02-21T23:37:27Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Such actions would be entirely inconsistent with everything he’s done in the last five years, so I wouldn’t bet on it. I can’t argue with your point. I can hope however. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/29 "2006-02-22T00:14:32Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > By that same logic, “these people” aren’t going to care about profits from oil anyway, as money is nothing as compared to Our Lord yadda yadda. Many people believe that one’s wealth is a direct reflection of one’s worth in the eyes of God; the two don’t contradict. [QUOTE= Least Original User Name Ever ] i hate making blanket statements like this…but i find myself coming back to say the exact same thing when i sit down and think about it… the corve value, when i look at it, does seem to be “greed” of course, some greed is fine/good, but obviously too much or too little of it is very bad. [/QUOTE] That reminds me of something that the author David Brin has said; one of the qualities of the people presently in charge is _insatiability_. No amount of money is enough, no tax cut is big enough, no amount of power is enough; they cannot be satisfied. > [@What Exit?](#): > > I think your last statement is a little strong. I think it is true that a core ideal of the Republican Party is that “the Business of America is Business” but there are plenty of even conservative Republicans that believe in long-term growth strategies and developing technologies. OK, I’ll narrow my statement a little and say that utter selfishness is a core value of the Republicans who are actually in power. This includes the religious fanatics; that’s just a different form of selfishness. > [@](#): > > I have no doubt Bush likes making money but he’s already a wealthy man. Doesn’t matter. First, he’s largely a puppet anyway, and second, I suspect that he’s the sort who if he had all the money on the planet but your dollar. he’d want that dollar. _Cheney_ certainly would, and Bush does what he’s told. That’s a pretty standard attitude among the Republican leadership. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/30 "2006-02-22T14:54:42Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > …snip… > > > [@What Exit?](#): > > > > I think your last statement is a little strong. I think it is true that a core ideal of the Republican Party is that “the Business of America is Business” but there are plenty of even conservative Republicans that believe in long-term growth strategies and developing technologies. > > OK, I’ll narrow my statement a little and say that utter selfishness is a core value of the Republicans who are actually in power. This includes the religious fanatics; that’s just a different form of selfishness. > …snip… Unfortunately I agree with your revised post. As the Leadership is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, DeLay & etc, greedy and corrupt are words that collectively describe them. Jim ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/31 "2006-02-22T15:34:55Z")
As with NCLB – it’s all bullshit or worse unless he’s willing to pony up the federal funds to pay for it. Which would require rolling back his tax cuts. You can’t have your cake and eat it. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/32 "2006-02-22T18:48:56Z")
I am going to hope that he and the corporate energy-biz mavens he rubs elbows with think there are big future $$$$ to be made in a forthcoming post-oil era. If greed is the horse that gets us there, I’m all for riding it. Oh, and if my bus gets hijacked some morning, I’d rather that they put someone at the wheel who can steer and has a destination in mind, even if it’s part of a nefarious plot. Evil wicked schemers at the wheel = immensely preferable to “don’t look now but nobody’s driving the damn bus” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/33 "2006-02-22T19:47:23Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Evil wicked schemers at the wheel = immensely preferable to “don’t look now but nobody’s driving the damn bus” So, you’d vote for Lex Luthor over Bush ? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/34 "2006-02-22T20:12:45Z")
Bush at least is cognizant that there is a problem – but he still appears totally confused about what the problem **is.** Oil is only part of it. From James Howard Kunstler’s “Clusterfuck Nation” column – 2/6/06 – [http://www.kunstler.com/mags\_diary16.html:](http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary16.html:) > [@](#): > > By now, President Bush’s wildly irresponsible remarks on energy in his state of the union speech may have already vanished down the memory hole, but the damage will linger on. “America is addicted to oil,” Mr. Bush began, failing to mention that underlying this addiction was a living arrangement that required people to drive their cars incessantly. A clueless public will continue to believe that “the best way to break this addiction is through technology. . .” and that “we must also change how we power our automobiles.” > Mr. Bush recommended ethanol. As one wag put it after the speech: “America’s heroin is oil, and ethanol will be our methadone.” The expectation will still be that everybody must drive incessantly. > It is hard to believe that Mr. Bush does not know the truth of the situation, or that some of the clever people around him who run his brain do not know it, namely that ethanol and all other bio-fuels are net energy losers, that they require more energy to grow and process them than they produce in the end, and that the energy “inputs” required to do this are none other than oil and natural gas, the same fuels we already run engines on. > The president also said that “breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal, to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” > In point of fact, our oil imports from anywhere on the planet will be reduced by more than 75 percent because by that time worldwide oil depletion will be advanced to its terminal stage, and nobody will have any oil left to export – assuming that the industrial nations have not ravaged each other by then in a war to control the diminishing supply of oil. > The key to the stupidity evinced by Mr. Bush’s speech is the assumption that we ought to keep living the way we do in America, that we can keep running the interstate highway system, WalMart, and Walt Disney World on some other basis besides fossil fuels. The public probably wishes that this were so, but it isn’t a service to pander to their wishes instead of addressing the mandates of reality. And reality is telling us something very different. Reality is saying that the life of incessant motoring is a suicidal fiasco, and if we don’t learn to inhabit the terrain of North America differently, a lot of us are going die, either in war, or by starvation when oil-and-gas-based farming craps out, or in civil violence proceeding from failed economic expectations. > I hate to keep harping on this, but Mr. Bush could have announced a major effort to restore the American railroad system. It would have been a major political coup. It would have a huge impact on our oil use. The public would benefit from it tremendously. And it would have put thousands of people to work on something really meaningful. Unlike trips to Mars and experiments in cold fusion, railroads are something we already know how to do, and the tracks are lying out there waiting to be fixed. But the reigning delusions of Hollywood and Las Vegas prevent us from thinking realistically about these things. We’re only into wishing for grand slam home runs and five-hundred-million-dollar lottery jackpots. Anything less than that makes us feel like losers. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/35 "2006-02-22T20:56:38Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > I’m watching his speech in Golden CO right now. He certainly seems enthused. I with he’d stop pronouncing turbines like “turbans”. Be glad he’s not talking about “organisms” and “chasms”. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/36 "2006-02-22T21:34:21Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > I with he’d stop pronouncing turbines like “turbans”. That’s an acceptable pronunciation, **Patty.** Personally, I prefer it to the alternative (rhymes with “concubine”). ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/37 "2006-02-22T21:50:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Yes, I expect if there is a push for solar energy that Bush will sell exclusive US rights to the sun to Halliburton for $1.95. But you never know, like the blind spider that finds the occasional fly, Bush may actually do something good. My, my. Your objectivity is most refreshing. Fact is, John Walton, one of _the_Sam Walton’s boys, thru his True North LLC, is providing a very large percentage of the funding for photovoltaic solar cells. Between 1999 and mid-2002, he ponied up $58 million (of $80 million total) for this [Perrysburg, Ohio](http://www.electricityforum.com/news/feb03/ohiosolar.html) research and production facility. [www.firstsolar.com](http://www.firstsolar.com) gets only about $1 million annually from the U.S. Energy Dept. This facility, already billed as the largest of its type in the world, is currently undergoing another expansion. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/38 "2006-02-23T02:06:51Z")
Too lazy (ok…drunk) to do a search, but haven’t we already discussed/dissected _ad nauseum_ the fact that ethanol production consumes more energy than it yields? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/39 "2006-02-23T02:15:40Z")
> [@bizzwire](#): > > Too lazy (ok…drunk) to do a search, but haven’t we already discussed/dissected _ad nauseum_ the fact that ethanol production consumes more energy than it yields? No longer true. Ethanol is just now breaking even. It was true until recently. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467/40 "2006-02-23T03:04:07Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > No longer true. Ethanol is just now breaking even. It was true until recently. > > Jim Furthermore, ther are some developments on the horizon that could actually make ethanol look pretty good. For example, genetically engineered plants that produce an enzyme at the end of their lifecycle that begins the process of breaking down the plant using sunlight as an energy source, in essence making the plants an even better solar collector. I’ve been down on ethanol for a long time because the pro-ethanol industry made grandiose claims to hide the fact that they were basically using it to get farm subsidies. But reality is starting to catch up to the claims, and there may be something to this. And I’d like to address the comment above to the effect that whenever Bush says something, a flunky comes out a couple of days later to deny it. The example in question was Bush claiming that the U.S. would cut the need for imported oil by 75% by 2025. The next day, someone came out and said that imported oil wouldn’t really be cut, and everyone took that as an example of the Bush administration essentially lying. But here’s the deal. Let’s say the U.S. imports 20% of its oil from the middle east. So saying you want to cut that by 75% is essentially saying you’re going to cut oil consumption overall by 15%. Fine and good. But even if your oil consumption is 15% less, you STILL would import as much oil as you can from the middle east, for the simple reason that it’s the cheapest way to get oil. In fact, the total percentage of oil imported from the middle east could go UP, because even though you’re using 15% less oil, you’re still importing as much of the cheap stuff as you can get your hands on. As an example, if the U.S. cut oil consumption by 8)%, then it might import 100% of its oil from the middle east, because it can now meet all its oil needs by using the cheapest source. The important factor, though, is that if you use 15% less oil, then if you had to, for security reasons say, or if OPEC created a total embargo, you _could_ get all your energy elsewhere and pay what you’re paying today in overall energy costs. So it makes you more secure. In reality, the oil market is a lot more complex than this. Oil is sold at a single price for the same grade, no matter whether it cost $5/bbl or $30/bbl to produce. But the intricacies of the market are such that the U.S. buys its oil from a whole range of producers, as does everyone else. That won’t change even if you cut your oil consumption in half. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-take-hope-that-president-bush-is-at-least-addressing-renewable-energy/345467.md?page=3)