Daily Kos

The Best Way To Break This Addiction

by Mother Mags

Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:27:12 PM PDT

Tonight former oil man Bush said America is, duh, "addicted to oil" (which Wolfy later called "strong words"). Then Bush said, "The best way to break this addiction is through technology." More of the same. Did he say, "The best way to break this addiction is by driving fewer fucking miles?" Nope. Did he say, "The best way to break this addiction is by building communities that don't require nearly everyone to hop in a car, just to get a quart of milk?" Right. Did he say, "The best way to break this addiction is by buying less plastic crap at Wal-Mart?" Hardly. Did he say, "The best way to break this addiction is by investing in more mass transit?" Shit, no. Did he say, "The best way to break this addiction is to grow your own food, or buy local, so you don't have to have lettuce trucked 3,000 miles for that salad?" Nix.
Truth is, he can't afford to upset automakers, oil companies, developers, manufacturers, agri-business, and others who constitute his "base," let alone the media that this corporatism sustains. Don't worry, he's saying to the base: we'll invent something (like Kennedy's moon pledge) that'll keep feeding you. In George's world "technology" in the form of Tom Swift hydrogen cars will allow us to keep doin' what we're doin'. Keep on truckin'. Get real, get your head outta that Saudi sand. As many diaries have argued, peak oil is passed, and no whiz-bang alternative technology is going to be ready in time, if ever, to substitute for our oil-obsessed lifestyle.

"The best way to break this addiction," George, is to downsize, live local, and buy and use less stuff. Guess that wouldn't have received a standing ovation, though.

Tags: SOTU, oil, transportation (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 16 comments

  •  The sooner the world runs out of oil... (none / 0)

    the better.  

    by Bravo on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:30:17 PM PDT

    •  Maybe the oil could hold out... (none / 1)

      ...at least through this winter. I mean, all those Yankees up North and in the Midwest, they need heat and all.

      Otherwise, I think that we're more-or-less in agreement...

      by luckydog on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:46:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Impact (none / 0)

        The arguments about depletion are soft landing v. hard. Running out sooner means a harder landing.

        But if you've got any ideas for a soft landing, I'll listen.

        by grayscale on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 09:57:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point about hard v. soft. (none / 1)

          What can make the difference is addressing both supply and demand. Bush only talks about supply - hot to get more energy, whether drilling in ANWR (if only those pesky environmentalists would get outta the way) or discovering alternative sources, to serve the same demand, i.e, to support the same consumerist, commodity-driven ethic that's gotten us (and our planet) into this mess. You hear next to nothing from him about decreasing demand, about using less (and we all know why). But unless we combine new resources with decreased demand, I think we're in for that hard landing. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any of these schemes substituting for the cheap oil binge we've been on since the happy motoring days of Ike's Interstate.    

          "One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native land of hope." Wallace Stegner

          by Mother Mags on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 10:48:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suspect that... (none / 1)

            ...if Bush concerns himself over any soft landings at all, it would have to do with the landings that are provided by golden parachutes. And of course, Bush's landings usually involve banners alleging "Mission Accomplished".

            When it comes to landings, there's a world o' difference between a Bush landing and a stellar performance...

            by luckydog on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:44:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'll probably get flamed (none / 0)

            for this, but I'm becoming partial to nukes as the only alternative to an oil-based economy. Unfortunately, we should have recognized in the 1970s, when the U.S. hit peak, that we needed to get started on these technologies in order to be prepared for the world oil peak a couple of decades down the road. Now, I think it might be too late for full-scale nuke substitution, although anything would help lessen the impact.

            But, I do think the U.S. has a lot of room for scaling back consumption and contraction in petroleum use without huge lifestyle impacts, but it won't be enough, in the long run.

            I belong to a Yahoo group called Know Nukes, where I have learned some great stuff about nukes in the post Peak Oil age. Lots of experts checking in there, if you are interested in this topic.

            by grayscale on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:07:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Gasoline (none / 0)

    $5.00 gasoline might be a good thing. Something I've been repeating lately...

    by moodyx on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:35:46 PM PDT

  •  Psssht (none / 0)

    Since when was conservation a value???

    by hartboy on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:45:06 PM PDT

  •  Bush has a LOT of balls (none / 0)

    Talking about ADDICTION!!!

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:49:04 PM PDT

Permalink | 16 comments