John Judis argues in The New Republic that Bush’s cryptic “oil addiction” comment signals that he may be taking the idea of peak oil seriously. Well, possibly: he points to several recent Department of Energy papers which have sided definitively with the Hubbert school of geology. Yet of course Bush won’t do the obvious thing for his long-term political reputation and repudiate oil, making him the biggest turnaround story since Nixon went to China — he’s too deeply in the huffing-glue corporate camp that believes in hooey like “ethanol”:http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/112747/5158. Yet even the _bankers_ (not just the insurance guys anymore) are staking out radical left-wing stances in favor of high gas taxes:
bq. In its analysis of Bush’s State of the Union adress, Deutsche Bank’s North American branch reaches a similar conclusion. Bush, the analysis says, “should talk about making a dependence on oil, as opposed to Middle Eastern oil, a thing of the past. … We should lessen our demand and conserve what is left. By inference that will reduce dependence on the Middle East. There is one simple way of doing this, and that is to raise gasoline taxes in the U.S.”
It’s only a matter of time, and the longer we put it off, the more it will hurt.