Obama: No more gas from Middle East in 10 years

Sen. Barack Obama, Thursday night in Denver:

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."

If you're wondering what that means exactly, this chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows the sources of oil used by the United States. The EIA also says:

"The United States consumes about 21 million barrels (882 million gallons) of petroleum products each day, almost half in the form of gasoline used in over 210 million motor vehicles traveling over 7 billion miles per day."

Another breakdown by the EIA, shows that the U.S. is importing about 2.1 million barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf each day. So, if Obama is elected, the U.S. has a decade to find a lot of that oil somewhere else, reduce its oil use and/or find other ways to power our cars -- presumably without doing too much harm to our environment.

(Correction: an earlier version of this post said the U.S. was using about 3.8 million barrels of oil per day from the Persian Gulf.)

Obama, in his speech, attacked Sen. John McCain for perpetuating the nation's oil addiction. McCain, too, has called for reducing the nation's dependency on foreign oil and has called for increased drilling here, as well as pushing for cleaner cars and alternative fuels.

Obama also said this last night:

"Now is the time to end this addiction and to understand that drilling is a stopgap measure, not a long-term solution, not even close.

"As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies retool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.

"I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.

"And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."

McCain, obviously, gets his turn next week at the Republican convention. Just to make things more interesting, he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate this morning and it's fair to say that Alaska knows a thing or two about oil.

Do you think America can really end its addiction to Middle East oil, Bottleneckers? What do you think the next decade will look like when it comes to use of cars? Will auto manufacturers get serious about fuel efficiency? Will we all be riding scooters and bikes? Hit the comment board please.

Related: transcript of Obama's speech, Obama's website on energy, McCain's website on energy.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[David]

I am a skeptic. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but I think it will be difficult to achieve because too many Americans are fat, lazy, and addicted to the automobile.

When I walked up to my kids' school to meet them and walk them home, I was just amazed at the massive fleet of large SUVs lined up with engines and air conditioners running, all waiting to haul one or at best two kids a few blocks to their home. I brought a hat and water for each of my kids, and we walked. I bet twenty kids get a ride for each one that walks. I can't get my wife to walk up to the school, so she's no better than all the other moms and dads burning gas to go a block or two.

[Antonio Pacheco]

While I was greatly encouraged by this portion of Obama's speech, I was left entirely unimpressed by his remarks. While I am an ardent supporter of Barack Obama and his candidacy, I feel that his goals for "energy independence" are someone misguided and illinformed, especially because the proposals he mentions are also stopgap measures that will neither make our world a better place nor eliminate human-caused environmental destruction and climate change.

The real solution to the environmental, social, economic, and energy issues we face today is to completely reevaluate and change our patterns of consumption and movement. Hybrid cars and biodiesel are absolutely not the answer. Instead, we need to look towards the sort of modes of transportation advocated on this very blog, that is, those that involve lots of people moving quickly, easily, and seamlessly about the urban fabric.

I personally do not consider clean coal any better than dirty coal or electric cars superior to gasoline-powered ones. That is because our automobile culture has impacted more than the price of oil and levels of CO2 in the atmopshere. It has impacted our built environment, social make up, and economic patterns in ways that are difficult to comprehend and grasped only slightly by even the most astute members of our society.

While Barack's proposals are infinitely superior to those John McCain is making, they are not enough in any way. I want more. Barack needs to push for fewer cars and suburbs, not simply stopgap measures.

[Michael]

They said we couldn't go to the moon in 1960. It took us 9 years. I'm glad someone finally said this on the national stage.

[Gary Kavanagh]

Perhaps it could be talk, but if he is serious I think it is possible. Combination of fuel efficiency standards with reduction in vehicle miles traveled by expanding capacity for public transit especially in dense regions could go a long way.

In California alone we use more gasoline then all of China combined. [http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/amazing-stat-ca.html] So reducing oil dependency here should be a significant priority. 10 years may seem like a small time frame, but we need bold actions and high goals. What happened to being able to put a man on the moon in a decade? We need to stop talking about ideas like a subway to the sea in LA and actually make things happen.

[Jose]

I also don't think there will be a significant shift in private transportation patterns. We may (and I mean may) be driving more efficient vehicles, and there may be more opportunities for those so inclined to use alternative transportation, but history shows us that the US public will work around the price spikes and once the initial shocks wear off go merrily on their way. We cycled from behemoth cars to small cars to minivans to behemoth trucks, and will probably do so again.

The biggest reason that I feel this way is that there is no will in this country to make the investments that would allow us to shift our patterns on a large scale. Even for all the work the MTA has in planning, it is a band aid on the changes that would need to be made in LA to really realign the city. Infrastructure on the scale of what is in place in New York. I don't think that a system even on the order of the Washington DC metro would make a real sustainable difference in LA. The carnage inflicted on the fiscal health of the public sector of this nation by the current administration will ensure that there won't be that kind of investment capital available for a long time.

And auto manufacturers will only get serious about efficiency when you put a gun to their heads. They knew that oil shocks could happen yet persisted in orienting their profit structure to big inefficient vehicles with big inefficient but cheap engines. if they can't adapt real fast, then let them die. Honda, Toyota, and VW would more that likely be moving in right behind making efficient vehicles in US plants to meet market demand. US auto companies didn't invest in engineering to make more efficient engines on a mass scale because it cost money and was too hard. Too bad. Buh bye.

[Jose]

Empty campaign rhetoric.

Whatever, we do, as long as we are importing oil we will be indirectly dependent on the middle east even if none of our oil comes directly from there. Global trade in oil is not regionally fixed. The only way to pull off such a pledge would be to sign exclusive trade arrangements fixing delivery of oil from other nations to the US, and that flies in the face of free trade agreements and using market forces to control oil prices. I don't think even Obama would try that level of government meddling in the market

I don't know if this is still the case, but at one point the oil coming from Alaska was more than could be consumed on the west coast. it didn't go east due to size restrictions on tankers and the Panama Canal. They had to pass a law allowing the oil to be exported, as the original Alaska oil enabling acts didn't allow that.