Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


They would actually just sell to China instead.

But at what price? In order for us to become less dependent
on foreign oil, we either have to use less oil or increase out
supplies. The first lessens demand and thus lowers the price, the second
increases supply and thus lowers the price.
Of course we have been talking about lowering our dependence
on foreign oil since at least the 70's with no change (at least for the
better) so I think we are probably arguing a moot point in real life.

Well, in the 70s we did have that little oil embargo and folks in the US
did start looking at conservation and alternate energy. Problem is that
the OPEC folks figured out the embargo was bad for their profits and
started shipping cheap oil again, and the US consumers promptly forgot
all about conservation and alternate energy.

Today, many of those alternate energy technologies have greatly improved
and should we have another oil embargo type event the US consumer may
actually implement some alternates and cause a lasting effect on demand.
The ultimate problem is the short attention span and memory of the US
consumer. They forget all about oil embargoes, 9/11 and other problem
events and the reasons they should look at doing things a bit
differently. Even worse, in this age of the Internet and instant
propaganda the failing memory of the US consumer makes it very easy for
the propagandists to manipulate the uninformed public opinion.