To those who think of President Bush as an anti-environmental ex-oil man, the most surprising statement in last night’s State of the Union address was no doubt his admission that America is “addicted to oil”—words that could as easily have come from a radical environmentalist. But for observers of peak oil debates over the last year, the President’s comments were just the latest indication of how seriously at least some government and business elites are beginning to take the threat of an imminent energy crisis.
Unlike global warming, peak oil cuts across the political spectrum. As Kenneth Deffeyes said at Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s recent peak oil conference, “this is a historic occasion in that a conservative congressman, an independent banker, an Ivy League Democrat and a radical social critic are telling you that we have arrived at the same answer.”
Peak oil believers now include everyone from far-out conspiracy theorist Michael Ruppert (who believes that the Bush administration either engineered or let the 9/11 attacks happen as a pretext to conduct never-ending oil resource wars) to former CIA director James Woolsey. Chevron has begun an ad campaign to express its concern for the future supplies of oil. And last year, the Department of Energy was concerned enough about the issue to commission a report on it from energy expert Robert L. Hirsch. There is no question that President Bush himself knows about the peak oil debate: Matthew Simmons claims to have spoken to him about it personally.
Early commentary on President Bush’s address has described it as far less ambitious than in previous years. But looked at in the context of energy, the speech could be seen as setting the first true agenda for the energy-depletion era: a new focus on technology, especially alternative energy, a new initiative to improve math and science education, and—more ominously—more justifications for continued resource wars in the guise of building democracy.
For their part, Democrats have so far shown more willingness to pander to voter frustrations over high gas prices than to address the deep, systemic and critical nature of our oil dependency. Whatever discussions political and business elites are engaged in, the American public remains woefully ignorant about the true nature of our situation. This ignorance is probably best expressed in the widely held belief that low gas prices are an entitlement—a belief that Democrats in particular have exploited with calls for a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Such a tax might be worth considering if its revenues were spent funding alternative energy or public transit. But giving oil money back to voters as a rebate would be, in effect, subsidizing their oil use—the last thing we need. Politicians may find that capitalizing on energy resentment will help them win elections, but soaking the oil companies isn’t going to put more oil in the ground any more than going to war with Iran will.
The political ground on energy is likely to shift quickly in the next few years. If Democrats want to play a constructive role in securing our energy future, it’s time for them to begin pushing for serious reforms rather than playing safe political games. Specifically, they must demand that President Bush match his rhetoric and fully fund any legitimate effort to reduce dependence on oil. The disastrous alternative is to allow the neo-cons to set the agenda.
Recent Comments