The government is never going to turn its back on big oil

I will first say that I appreciate the respectful debate environment that has been created for this topic. Now, for the debate. To clear up what I meant about undermining the war effort in Iraq, I simply meant that we are trying to establish a well rounded government and economy there before we would pull our troops out. Their economy is based almost strictly on oil. It is true that the United States only receives around 12% ( a little lower) of its oil from the Persian gulf, but we are the largest consumers of oil on the globe, so 12 percent of our oil, is an incredibly huge amount of oil that the Persian gulf gets to export (and crude oil just hit over 100 dollars a barrel). If we were to lead a global energy revolution, leaving crude oil in the dust, what would Iraq do with its economy? Therefore, it is in the American government's interests to make sure that there is some form of oil demand, which perhaps is why we haven't dedicated enough effort to new technologies. Absolutely we hear a lot about new technologies coming around. However, these are in large part not government sponsored. Bio-diesel fuel still uses a lot of oil, pure bio-fuel congeals in cold climates. Solar power in government buildings is a good point, but it is slightly for a different argument, although under the same topic as energy. As far as hydrogen Fuel Cell cars, it is a tremendous idea, yet, the government has yet to step in and help subsidize costs to create a healthy market in such things. This all dates back to the government and lobbyists point that I made, and you agreed with in the opening point. Your fourth point that more hybrid automobiles and higher EPA standards for miles per gallon is a good one. However, the EPA is very very low in context to priority in our budget, and within the EPA's new budget that Bush has just proposed, most of the money goes to guess what? National security (protection of waterways, etc). How much goes towards new technologies? Very little in comparison to everything else. In fact I must point out that if the government was to simply insist that the EPA make the efficiency levels of vehicles to run on a standard 40 MPG, it would entirely remove that previously mentioned 12 percent of oil from the Persian gulf. Why hasn't that been done? Greed, as is the point of my argument, the government being "in bed" with big oil and big car lobbyists. The car companies don't want to be regulated, because it will cost them a lot of money. As far as governmental bodies pushing for nuclear power, by bodies I don't know if you meant actual agencies or branches of government pushing for that, because as of now it is mostly on the politicians drawing board, and an election topic, rather than an actual process taking place. To close, it is true that oil is deeply "ingrained in the veins of this country", yet the point that isn't made, is that its in the veins of all countries. There is a huge political push for oil to keep the worlds economy booming. I think that the scientists and inventors of this world could have a clean oil free car tomorrow. But the politics of the government has tied up innovation. As far as transferring to something more cost effective, there are other options that would be more cost effective for the consumer, but not for the businessmen. Exxon mobile made 30-40 billion dollars in profit during one quarter of 2007. Is Exxon ready to move away from oil? What about the politicians that might accept some of the political contributions from Exxon? The system is corrupt, and it goes deeper than capabilities. Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and other regions rely on their sales of oil, and I have to think that us staying in good terms depends on us staying neck deep in oil.