"Our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy and hamstrings our national security. Imported oil accounts for about one-third of our trade deficit, with much of that money going to regimes we would never choose to subsidize. ...And, if all that weren't enough, our dependence on oil is hastening the threat posed by global climate change. Energy production and use in transportation and electricity generation account for more than three-quarters of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."
218259
Our idiot president said it.  He also said, "America is addicted to oil."  I would like to counteract and say "no, oil companies are addicted to money."  The greedy idiot.
215855
You ask a good question. Here in Canada we have enough oil that we could easily do this, but we export it. I'm not too sure why, but I bet it's because other countries pay more for it.
328375
oil not gasoline. according to this blogger, yes\n\nSen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, is demanding that the Commerce Department release detailed reports on which companies are exporting U.S. oil, how much and where it went.\n\nLast year the nation exported 268 million barrels of oil. Shockingly, according to Dept. of Energy figures, that's about equal to the amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2001, the year before our latest war with that country began. It's also about equal to the most optimistic guesses about production volume from ANWR, if drilling is allowed there.\n\nIn other words, if we simply held onto our own oil, the United States would have no oil interest in Iraq at all. And it would also negate any perceived need to disturb an irreplaceable wildlife refuge in the search for oil.\n\nBut the Commerce Department refused to provide the detail Wyden wants, saying it could only be released to a Congressional committee, not an individual representative. The agency also claims federal law forbids disclosure unless a finding is made that withholding the information contradicts national interests. That sounds like hogwash to me.\n\nWyden's request is of significant interest for two more reasons. First, it is likely that if oil drilling is approved in ANWR, much of that oil will be exported to Asia rather than sold in the U.S. Secondly, the more obvious reason is that every motorist and politician who can warm a chair is concerned about the nation's growing dependence on imported oil. It would seem to contradict our economic and political interests to worsen this imbalance by selling off our own supplies.\n\nIn a letter sent Monday to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Wyden demanded release of the information, calling it "directly relevant to the coming Congressional debate on how to address our nation's dependence on imports of oil and other petroleum products."\n\nI'd call that an understatement. But Wyden faces an uphill battle to get a committee to demand the numbers. Though Wyden is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it and all other Congressional committees are controlled by Republicans. And as we've seen, Republicans these days aren't very interested in facts, especially if those facts contradict their agenda.
218205
It is already happening.  It's not a shooting war but an economic one centering on oil.  All the more reason the US needs to wake up and devlop alternate, domestically based energy sources.
552442
The other guy hit the nail on the head with cheap.  In its crude form, oil can carry a lot of energy and is relatively stable.  Spills are critical though.  We are "married" to oil in a sense because we have a network of pipelines through the country.  Some of the other advantages of oil are the number of by products that we get from oil.  piratically the whole interior of your car is made from petro-plastics, as are shopping bags, laptops, etc.  So you get a lot of bang for the buck.
68138
It's timely that you ask this question - I am currently reading the book, "The End of Oil," which addresses this very issue.  I've only just begun the book, but it looks like we have another 30 years before the oil supply will start seeing a sharp decrease.  The fall in the oil supply will coincide with an increase in demand for energy, which spells TROUBLE.  Hopefully within 30 years time our brilliant engineers and scientists will have come up with a solution to the volatile and dangerous nature of hydrogen...
345930
The answer to your second question is bananas, covered in oil.  Bush has already stated that America has to be less dependent upon foreign oil but he didn't go any further.  Any other president would have suggested that the American government would sink billions immediately into wind,solar, nuclear and alternative sources of alcohol based fuels to lessen the dependency.  But since Bush and his buddies are all oil guys he had to figure out who was the most important, his friends or your fuel bills.  Hey his friends need to heat their homes too so he picked them.
597278
It is a real concern, but whenever someone makes a prediction about when a country of the world will reach peak oil output, they do so with what then is considered a researve.  As the cost of a barrel of oil increases, sources for oil that were once not considered a researve then become on because at that cost it is economically viable to recover it.  With the recent spike in oil prices, North America can now clasify the tar sands in Canada and the oil shales in Colorado oil researves, and that being the case, it is estimated that in the US alone, we now have more economically recoverable oil then Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest exporter.  As the price continues to increase, other marginal sources will become economically viable.  Sooner or later, we will reach a point where there simply isn't enough oil available for any price, but that is still a ways off yet.  I believe that before we reach that point, oil will be more expensive then alternate fuel sources.  Through simple economics, I believe that people will begin using these alternate fuels simply because they are less expensive.  I believe that the high cost of oil will spawn invention and inovation into the energy sector, and I believe that has already begun.  We are working on increasing production of biodiesels and ethenol, and there is increased research into fuel cells and electric autos.  I think the future lies in hydrogen burning technology personally.  We already have engines that burn Hydrogen, but we're still working on the fuel tank dilema.  So, for a long answer, I believe that there is and will be time. I'm looking foward to being put out of buisiness.
215057
you're probably refering to the middle east.  I am not a subscriber to most theories on why american troops are there.  I don't think bush did it for the money; he did it as an economic attack on china.  China's growing economy and mass of people makes it  a huge threat to the american way of life, both economically and physically.  Their mass growth is highly dependant on oil, more so than our economy is.  Doubling, or tripling the cost of oil is a very effective assault on a massive country's growth while only lightly affecting america's economy.  That is, how many people do you know who have stopped driving?  An extremely low number of people have even reduced the amount they drive...  Prices of construction, shipping, and other things we take for granted have risen only very slightly.  Using oil is very basic in the technological chain, but to a county still essentially developing it's value is 10 times what it is to a fully developed country.  It has so much to do with politics and so little to do with oil...\n\nWhy we don't switch.  While it is a good point that the oild companies profit from not switching, it's so much more complicated than being a conspiracy of big oil companies against the country.  The cost of converting to an alternative fuel source would be large, incredibly large.  Keeping away from everything else that uses oil, big parts of idustry, and sticking only to transportation.  Every single car, truck, bus, bulldozer, some planes, in america would have to be replaced.  Ok, not too bad, could be done in 15-25 years.  But every person would have to accept the change and people in general don't like change.  Also, every single fueling station would have to change over, which is in the range of trillions of dollars in cost.  The technology must be established, accepted, and actually implemented.  On top of that, the entire country would have to agree as to which particular energy source we switch to; that's very difficult in it's own right.  This is a subject which can barely have the surface scratched on yahoo'o format.  It deserves, and has received, thousands of articles much longer than I care to write and much more technical than I can even pretend to understand without studying them in detail.  It's not a simple thing for a country which is entirely dependant on oil to just up and switch to something else.
572749
There is no agreement on how much oil there is. Therefore, 'peak oil' is a meaningless concept.  Besides, the US media is only interested in attacking their political opponents.  They couldn't care less about facts.
39208
#4.  I think we need to do something about our dependence on oil period (not Canola or oils of that nature).  It's wrecking the planet and it's not going to be around forever.
15492
They say "No blood for oil".\n\nIn the west we have become totally dependent on oil.  Not just to take our sweethearts on dates, but to survive. Take a typical city of 3-4 million.  How do you get thousands of tons of food in daily?  With a horse & cart?  Switch to electric vehicles?  They have to be re-charged from fuel-fired power stations.  The math is the same.\n\nOil IS our blood.  We just haven't felt the desperation yet.  Check a 70's video "3 days of the Condor"
233382
You are right.  Because we have comparatively lower costs for oil, and because all these taxes are something which seem hidden and don't hit us all at once in our paychecks, and because we have a good quality of life overall compared to most other countries, we are not a nation that values or sees the need to conserve, reduce, reuse, and recycle.  \n\nAnd you are right again: one side has better x; the other side has better y.  Overall I think Americans need to be more globally aware, realize that oil is a finite natural resource and that when it runs out, it runs out.  I believe if people really cared about the environment and about the quality of life for generations to come, they'd change their behavior.  But humans are pleasure-seeking animals, and a change of behavior is hard to do if we don't see a need or any scarcity.  \n\nThanks for the question.  There are many sides, many facets to this.\n\nCheers, K
149808
I couldn't understand what is it exactly what you are asking. But i will do my best to give and honest answer that might shed some light on you.\n\nThe idea of a negative effect of the trade deficit has been discussed thoroughly by economists and it seems like we haven't got a proper answer yet. Is it good or bad? we don't know yet. WE know deficit and surpluses are favorable and unfavorable.\n\nAn expanding U.S. economy fuels demand by American consumers and producers to buy more imports as well as domestically produced goods and services.\nRising U.S. domestic output, in turn, attracts the foreign investment that finances an expanding U.S. current account deficit. \nIn contrast, slowing U.S. domestic demand not only depresses U.S. output and employment growth — but also lessens demand for imports and the inflow of foreign investment. \n\nIn addition to the uncertain causality, the evidence also does not address the question of how persistent and rising current account deficits may affect the U.S. economy in the long run.\nThe "sustainability" of the U.S. current account deficit has been much debated among the experts. But whatever negative impact the deficit may have in the long run, there is no evidence that it poses a drag on the U.S. economy in the short run. \n\nWhy does all this matter? The answer is simple. Misperceptions about the U.S. trade deficit and the economy can tempt U.S. policymakers to "do something" about the deficit to show that they are concerned.\n\nFrom my point of view i would say that a trade deficit (just as a fiscal deficit) is a tool used by a country to do some economic policy.\n\noh, and that "natural market consequence" that you are looking for might be the exchange rates. A fall in the exchange rates will cause foreigners to buy more of our goods and us to buy less foreign goods.
592623
We are going in debt by the trillions, this will eventually be paid by tax payers, your kids, your grandkids and maybe even your great grand kids will be paying this debt. No the oil company' are just pocketing the money. Record profits tell the tale.
108567
No, but maintaining the security of the oil supply has been a priority for every administration since cars, trucks and planes became essential to our economy. It would be very foolish not to have this concern, or to allow hostile powers to control too much of the world's oil supply. \n\nThis sort of question is usually asked in reference to the allegation that the current war in Iraq is due to an intention by this administration to control oil. There are several things wrong with this theory. \n1. other countries have high interests in oil supply as well, but they are not involved in the war. For example: prior to this war, the primary customer for Iraqi oil was France. \n2. The US need for oil now is about the same as it has been for some time. This war would have occurred in the 1970s if oil is all it is about. \n3. Controlling oil is an exceptionally simplistic view of the reasons the war occurred. It paints the war in very negative terms having to do with money and greed and corporations, which are reasons much easier to attack than if the war is about more complex issues such as safety, democracy, international politics, etc... \n4. A much more likely reason for the war is that the entire middle east has significant problems which have been spilling out onto other parts of the world for many years. It took a major spillover like 9/11 to push the US to the point where they felt they had to do something.
52097
Germany and France still owe us from the World Wars...\nIf we were to take/require their oil as payment, one could make the arguement that the US invaded Iraq not for safety (potential for WMDs) and not for their freedom...\nwe have to pay them for their oil or we have stolen it from them