Why Won't Congress and The President Get USA Off Foreign Oil?

Ever wondered why since our first modern energy crisis in the 1970's the USA has not had a comprehensive Energy Policy under either a Democratic or Republican Congress or President? It hasn't made the slightest difference who has been in charge in Congress or the White House, we have continued to rely on foreign oil, while the US domestic reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are extensive.

With the energy crisis beginning in 1973 during the Nixon Administration, we were promised that we would identify new sources of domestic energy, and that with research and development we would be independent of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Jimmy Carter laid out a plan that he said would address the energy crisis, and said that the world's oil supply could only keep up with America's demand for six to eight more years, and in 1977 Carter created the Department of Energy to lead the charge in making us energy independent. Carter then proceeded to halt research and development on new nuclear technology (breeder reactors at Oak Ridge National Laboratories), and significantly slowing the construction of new US nuclear plants thus cutting off a major source of energy to replace foreign oil. Carter the ushered in new environmental regulations, furthering the energy crisis of the late 1970's. Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_administration#Energy_crisis

Because of the 1970's energy crisis, high inflation, some government programs and regulations, and predictions by Carter and his administration that the world was about to run out of oil, the US consumption of energy dropped. With the drop in consumption and the development of new oil resources, the 1980's became a period of oil glut. Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut Each President from Nixon, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and now Obama has promised to make us energy independent. They usually promise to do it by research and development, moving to green energy sources, and even building new nuclear energy plants. Then they ask us all to sacrifice and conserve while they fly the world over to Copenhagen, Hawaii, Europe, Asia, the Great Wall of China and so on.

The US economy is built on fossil fuels; from cars, planes, trucks, homes, factories, everything. It can't be replaced overnight. It hasn't been replaced in 40 years; in fact, probably less than 10% of the energy we used 40 years after the first energy crisis comes from sources other than fossil fuels. The government has spent millions of dollars, if not billions, in research and development on alternative energies and in subsidies for alternative energies, and we still run the country on fossil fuel.

Even with the recognition following the September 11th terrorist attacks that a portion (maybe a large portion) of the money we send to OPEC nations ends up funding terrorism against the US, we still pour billions of dollars into those countries. Maybe if we stopped buying their oil they would just implode. Even when we have potential offshore and onshore oil and gas reserves, we get lots of excuses as to why we can't develop our own resources, or build more nuclear power plants, and ever why we just can't "go green," but you don't hear much about what it would do to the terrorist if we cut off their main source of funding, or the jobs that would be created in America with more energy development within the US, or what the "road map" is from where we are energy-wise now to where we should be in ten, fifteen, or thirty years.

The Excuses:
Damage to the environment- Oh, if we drill for oil here there might be an oil spill; if we mine coal like that we are destroying a mountain; if we put a pipeline there the Caribou will die; yada, yada. I happen to believe that we can do all these things responsibly, and if someone screws up they should be held accountable; penalize heavily with fines or jail. I want to have a clean, safe environment but I don't want to live like the did in the middle-ages, or as many do now in Africa, Bangladesh, and many other places in the world.

It just looks ugly (or Not In My Backyard)- This one applies equally to oil rigs, nuclear plants, and wind turbines (just ask Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy (oh, you can't)). They didn't want wind turbines built off the coast of Cape Cod because they look ugly. It's okay to build them in Kansas, but not Cape Cod. Or more appropriate for John Kerry, it's okay for the Proletariat, but not for us Aristocrats.

Not enough fossil resources- This is often used by the political elites like Jimmy Carter who predicted that America would run out of fossil fuel in six to eight years (see above reference), which would have been in 1983 to 1986 ... hmmmm it's now 2010. Awww, he was just a little off (his rocker). It's so damn inconvenient when they discover new sources of oil isn't it Jimmy?

Alternatives too costly- There's some truth to this one. Fossil fuels are at present much cheaper that any of the alternatives. Every alternative to fossil fuels has been heavily subsidized by the government (aka you the US taxpayer) to even look attractive. Yes, even ethanol is heavily subsidized otherwise gas with ethanol couldn't possibly compete with plain gasoline. So, if you think about it every time you buy gas with ethanol you are paying more than you would if you bought gas without ethanol. Oh, I know they look the same at the pump, but then you have to add the ethanol subsidy you pay to get the real cost.

Need for more Research and Development- All the Presidents since Nixon have promise "the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" of research and development. And while there have been developments, the progress has been incremental while the costs have been staggering. I once had a boss that I didn't like very much (at least until later in my career) who said that "at some point you have to 'freeze' the research and development and get something into the field." That means you have to start producing the product and using it. In 40 years, we still don't have an electric car that most people can afford; and if you bought an electric car at today's prices you'd have to own it for 20 years to pay for it with the energy cost savings over that of a gas-powered car. How many people do you know that keep a car for 20 years?

I know I didn't really offer an answer to the question, Why Won't Congress and The President Get USA Off Foreign Oil? I'm not sure I know. There might be multiple answers, all which may be right. I'd like to hear some plausable explanations though, but not the excuses I've already discussed. The excuses are just that. They are a diversion from the truth. Why are the excuses a diversion? Because they can all be solved. They can all be implemented without harming anything. But for some unknown reason, our elected officials just don't want to.