Since the State of the Union the assertion by President Bush that we are addicted to oil has bothered me. Today Reuters reports that not only are we addicted, President Bush says we are held hostage. It’s a national security issue now:

“Some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments or fundamental differences with the United States,” Bush said in a speech at the start a two-day swing through Wisconsin, Michigan and Colorado.

“These countries know we need their oil and that reduces influence. It creates a national security issue when we’re held hostage for energy by foreign nations that may not like us,” he added, without naming the countries.

Anything President Bush would have us do to get us off this “oil dependence” will cost more than the status quo. We might as well raise gas taxes and let an alternative market open up by itself. Funny how an Al Gore method, a 50¢ per gallon tax, might be more market friendly than forced collection of our tax dollars and forced spending on a pre-designated type of technology.

The President says hydrogen is the next big thing. If he’s right, then his educated guess will be aligned with the thousands of market decisions that would have come out with the same answer using a lot more research. If biodiesel were the next thing available to us technologically, then there is a terrible waste in funds that went towards hydrogen research.

We in the marketplace choose gasoline, and for good reason: right now it’s the cheapest portable energy. We could use electricity, but we’d sacrifice the trunk in order to load the batteries. We could use solar, but we’d have to ride one person at a time with no cargo and we’d have to widen the roads to accomodate the weird car body shapes.

Only the oil company with the largest reserves would have incentive not to research alternative energy solutions. If something were profitable it’d be on the market, like hybrid cars. Until alternative technologies are banned, we aren’t “held hostage” to petroleum.