Aaaaaah, we're all gonna die! Or at least be forced to speak Mandarin

Now $3 gas is a "matter of national security." Look I sympathise with Bush here. I really think he doesn't want to do anything on this (we may have different motives, but I think we agree on the end plan, let the market work this out), and he's right. But his speech, as reported here, is just off the mark, and makes matters worse. If not filling the strategic oil reserves makes people think something is happening fine, whatever. But if access to oil is an issue of "national security" then it actually makes more sense to fill the strategic oil reserves now. Keep oil on hand for the military. However, I don't see how $3 gas has anything at all to do with national security. Why add gas to the flame (thank you, thank you very much)? Making a national security issue out of a consumer good only adds more irrationality to the issue. I've argued in the past that its dumb for us to fund our enemies with oil profits, but that was the case at $1.50 gas, why is it an issue now? Personally, I think Bush was making a subtle distinction. Our use of oil is a matter of national security (and I largely agree), but that he also has a plan to bring down the cost of gas. However, in the same speech, I'm not sure the difference will matter to people. You'll hear more people now talk about $3 gas being a security issue than not.

I also liked this part, "and that is to encourage conservation..." But Cheney said in a speech in Toronto, that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy". I personally don't care which side of the equation you fall on, "government mandated conservation" or "free markets will force conservation when the time is right" but stick to one. What's happening now is that all those folks that mocked conservation as market meddling, now want the government to do something when the market forces prices higher. Granted this isn't new. People have always wanted all the upside of market forces, but with a safety net to protect them from both the market and thier own choices when it starts to move against them. What's happening now with gas prices is exactly what pro-market, anti-government, anti-environmental, whatever you want to call them, said would happen. Gas prices would go higher as supplies went down, or world-wide consumption increased. We've had a great run of cheap gas, it may come back, it may not. But conservation is also an economic choice. At some point the two (virtue and cold hard economics) would connect, and maybe that's now. If you own an SUV that gets 10 miles to the gallon you can cut your gas expense in half or even a third by buying a car with better mpg. You conserve gas by making an economic decision. And/or the market develops an alternative fuel to bring prices down. In any case, America lessens its "addiction to oil". Where in that equation was the government? Markets work. But they go up and down.

If people truely believe that oil is a matter of national security then the Feds should do what they're supposed to do with these issues. Invest heavliy in our protection. Spend the money to develop alternatives. A "Manhattan Project" to get us off of our "addiction." (I don't think its a matter of national security, and wouldn't support it. The market is really working here on all fronts. My point here is that actions don't match words.)

But I just don't think with $3 gas China's going to invade. Let's not add to the insanity.