by Heather Cooper, McGraw-Hill
Member since:
October 9, 2007

An Answer for the President on Our Country's Oil Dependence

December 20, 2007 02:14 PM EST (Updated: December 20, 2007 02:15 PM EST)
views: 70 | rating: 9.8/10 (10 votes) | comments: 18

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

FROM: COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: Oil Dependence Speech

I know you are considering a speech to the nation on the topic of oil dependence. Before you commit yourself to this publicly, I want to offer several strong notes of caution. I do this as a friend of more than three decades - someone who shares your values, who believes in you, and who above all wants to see you succeed as President.

You are undoubtedly correct that oil dependence is at the root of many of the problems facing our nation. Along with many others, I cheered you when you said this during the campaign.

However, the odds against you achieving anything significant on this issue are high. Others before you have tried and failed. Every President since Richard Nixon has decried our nation's dependence on foreign oil, yet that dependence has climbed steadily for more than three decades.

Last year oil provided more than 96% of the fuel for our cars and trucks. The dominance of oil in our transportation sector is almost complete. There's a reason for this. Oil is a high-energy content, easily transportable liquid. Today there are literally trillions of dollars invested in the global oil infrastructure.

Your powers as President are considerable, but they are notinfinite. Changing anything as deeply entrenched as our nation's dependence on oil will take perseverance, commitment and time.

Calling for an end to oil dependence is a terrific rallying cry. Most Americans support this at the level of rhetoric. You can win political points by echoing these sentiments. But actually taking the steps needed to solve this problem would not be easy. There will be many hurdles in your way.

You'll make enemies. You'll go down some wrong paths. Perhaps most troubling, complete success cannot come during the eight years in which (I hope) you will serve as President.

If you make oil dependence your top priority, you have the potential to change history. I think you sense that. You also have the potential to fail spectacularly, compromising other goals I know you have for your Presidency.

Before you proceed irrevocably down this path, I hope you'll weigh the pros and cons carefully. If I can help as you do so, please let me know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The above is an excerpt from Freedom from Oil by David Sandalow. It is a potential response to the Memo from the President.

 

For more information about David Sandalow andhis book Freedom from Oil, please visitwww.freedomfromoilbook.com.
link to this page
Bookmark this post:
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Buzz
More

Comments: 18

Paul M. Dec 20, 2007, 2:21pm EST
There's little doubt in my mind we could end this problem very quickly--not a minor reduction in 13 years like the Congressional energy bill--if the will to act was there. Instead, because it's more cost effective to maintain the status quo, big corporations will dither around and politicians only make ineffective, symbolic gestures until the sky really starts falling.
Gene L. Dec 20, 2007, 2:39pm EST
The foriegn oil independence should have started in the 1970's after the first "embargo". By now we could have been completely free of those companies and countries that hold us hostage with our need for oil. I am so disappointed in America - all of us who were paying for gas in the 70's - and ashamed that a nation that has always thought of itself as independent is not, and it will probably cost our grandchildren everything.
Ifa R. Dec 20, 2007, 6:10pm EST
In the world that we live, we are all dependent on each other. I don't see the point of having to produce everything nationally to be independent. Ofcourse environmentally speaking, we should try to find energy from a sustainable source.
ELLEN B. Dec 20, 2007, 7:57pm EST
It was very interesting to read this. It appears to me, that as it was for all other President's, who have been approached, with thoughts of care, wishes for success, and plans for a program to end our dependency, this issue has also been put on the back burner. They say it is important, and they will discuss some latest thought or perhaps even a venture, but little is done. Smart people have talked of it for years. Unless it is saving money for a certain sector or reason, you can forget it. It is amazing that money issues, bring about more cooperation than the preservation of ourselve's, our planet, and save the American people for a change. Create less exposure to people's that may harm us, by not having to deal with them, and solve a long overdue bug-a-boo, that has only dragged us down, and maded the smartest and best country in the world at one time, to a position that is ridiculous in it it's way. It is like buying a property, and stand by while all the valuable timber is cut down. Just for instant profit. By now someone should have brought us up to speed, and made us a leader in this necessary move.

The truth is they do not want us free. They do not have enough money put back. Or they do not have their stategy for purchasing a way to secure their monetary gain someway. I enjoy this forum, and look forward to learning about one of our largest enviornmental, and economic issues. Bad enough our Military is over their doing their construction work, while the Katrina victims sit and wait, in our own country, also without food, water, and electricity, and that is just one state by the way, now they all have us buy the throat, alledgedly, over oil, its production, and it's availability. And our men and women are dying in foreign streets. Perhaps we should take lessons from Brazil. Ellen B
Jason P. Dec 21, 2007, 9:21am EST
I'm with Gene on this. The U.S. COULD have done something by now. We SHOULD have started doing something back in the 70's....but we haven't.....and we didn't.

And this "energy bill" is pathetic. C'mon, 35mpg?.....by 2020?! Hey, no big rush guys. Now we have Ford BRAGGING about 24mpg for some of their new cars? That's ridiculous. I've got a 35yo hotrod that gets 21! With TWICE the engine, TWICE the weight, HALF the aerodynamics, and virtually NONE of the "modern technology" that's supposed to be so great. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE technology...but what are we really GETTING for it? I had a '79 diesel Rabbit that got better mileage than the NEW Rabbit does. This is PROGRESS?
Aunt Boni H. Dec 21, 2007, 10:42am EST
Make that NINE years. We still have a year to wait before the next president even having the opportunity to do something about it.
farr j. Dec 21, 2007, 11:08am EST
Switching to nuclear power plants such as France did is the only option technically. Most attempts at solar, coal fired plants are not that successful. The unfortunate race with China over production led to their use of coal.If we had been more freindly with China-the global warming problem wouldn't have occurred.Then again,France has alwauys been very insular and proud of using nuclear technology to set themselves above average. Competition between large superpowers sets off huge production demands. Our new cold war may be how we are going to produce new energy resources without setting off trade disputes. Tricky question.
Chris W. Dec 21, 2007, 11:14am EST
This was an insightful bit by Sandalow, including this in his book. One of the great disappointments of the Bush presidency has been the fact that he, when faced by the challenges of addressing this issue, chose to duck it and pretend it would go away. Leaving this challenge to the next President is no longer an option, even if there are clear indications of controversy, partisan bickering, and even a possibility of outright failure. We must do this thing not because it is easy, but because it is essential and unavoidable.
farr j. Dec 21, 2007, 11:14am EST
I would try to make up with China. China I think began using Coal fired plants when they perceived us a a trade competitor. More of our freinds there and their freinds here would help them change their outlook and us our outlook too. we have alot to learn from China.
Rita j. Dec 21, 2007, 12:01pm EST
Great article
J. G. Weddle Dec 21, 2007, 1:18pm EST
Serious research into deep-well geo-thermal steam produced electricity would go a long way toward curbing our appetite for foreign oil, and the problems associated with coal fired electricity production. Cut green house gasses and cut some of our dependency.(weird concept, eh?) If I know about this, then it's a safe bet that the politicians know about it too.(hmmm?)
Jason P. Dec 21, 2007, 1:24pm EST
farr j.: "If we had been more freindly with China-the global warming problem wouldn't have occurred."

That assumes a lot about Chinese culture and mindset. China doesn't respect kindness. They respect strength.

Global warming is, at least in part, a natural cycle that was GOING to happen regardless of man's activities. We may have altered the timeline somewhat but it's a tremendous waste of resources for us to attempt to stop that which is GOING to happen anyway.
The Earth was warmer once. Then it cooled. Then it warmed up again. Then it cooled again. Now it's warming up again......and we (the human race) are going to do WHAT exactly? Deserts are still deserts and rivers still flood. We can't fix/change THAT so what makes any of us think we can change the entire PLANET in so drastic a fashion?
Sandy F. Dec 21, 2007, 4:07pm EST
We have already changed the entire planet in a very drastic fashion, Jason. Denying the truth doesn't make it not true. Unfortunately, none of us will be around when it happens so even the nay sayers know it is the truth. We don't have to sit around like helpless victims making ourselves sick with cancer and other illnesses when we have the solutions at hand and the technology to create even more solutions. But it's like the rubber tire that would last forever. We let Ford buy up that patent and hide it away from public use. We never learn, so of course we will sit around saying if we stopped our distructive ways it wouldn't make any difference until it really won't make any difference. Man is the stupidest animal on the planet and the biggest user, polluter, and denyer as well. tsk tsk tsk
Dave H. Dec 23, 2007, 1:13am EST
Certainly, we need to reduce our dependence on oil, and eventually eliminate it as a source of energy if mankind is to survive for much longer. However, we do not have a shortage of oil in the USA. Most Americans don't even know that the reserves we have struck up in Alaska exceed all of the middle eastern oil reserves. The government, and bill oil won't release it because they are making huge profits off of the increase in prices.
Jason P. Dec 24, 2007, 11:31am EST
Sandy: I agree that we have had an impact on the planet. However, I've not seen any evidence whatsoever that, without doubt, puts the blame for global warming SOLELY on the back of the human race. I HAVE seen evidence that says it's happened several times during Earth's history and that it's happened BEFORE humans came to be. Therefore, I have to conclude that it's part of a natural cycle that the Earth will endure regardless of Man's activities.
The tire that never wears out is right up there with the 200mpg carburettor(s) that get "lost" or their inventors "eliminated". It's happened before and it's happening now.
Did you know that about 10% of the stuff that makes up "gasoline" doesn't burn? Why would it be in there if it's not usable as fuel?
Don't believe me? Try this: put about 1/2 cup of gasoline in a glass container and leave it outside somewhere to evaporate. What will be left behind is about 1/10 of the original volume and it'll be some kind of "goo". Now, try & light that "goo" on fire. If it burns at all, it won't burn completely. That crud that's left behind is getting thrown into the atmosphere and slowly killing us all....not to mention killing the cars we drive. It just so happens that that "crud" also disables the "super efficient" carburettors that have been invented over the years. Weird.....
Quinn (aka Entwife) Blackburn Dec 25, 2007, 5:45pm EST

MySpace Comments - Happy Holidays
MySpace Layouts - Happy Holidays
<font size="2">Free Comments & Graphics</font>
Eddie R. Dec 27, 2007, 12:37am EST
In my lifetime the price per barrel has been as low as fourteen dollars and as high as ninety six dollars. When a product varies by that amount other products are pursued. But, not in this case. Why ? I think its because the start up money and national commitment is an imposible condition.

Only a country like Brazil can do it. They started in the 1970s and have reach a sucessful level of independance.

The press should have found out, by now, the amount of oil reserves in the World. When the citizens of our Country have that knowledge they will force the elected officials to change dirfection. Who is keeping our newspaper men and women quite?????
Mary S. Mar 1, 2008, 12:29pm EST
Brazil did a great thing in the 70's. Then oil was discovered off their coast (surprise), and it almost shut alcohol down, until the poorly advised occupation of Iraq. Now, big U.S. companies are trying other means to take over Brazil's success. It is scary.

David Bloom is a consultant who keeps up on the situation in Brazil. The push to mechanize sugar cane production is a major issue there now. Sugar cane production up to now has been done in a very careful environmentally sensitive way.

I believe David Bloom can be reached by Googling.

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16836, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.