Among some conservative circles, neocons are said to have evolved from cold-war Trotskyite (old left liberal) to their present avatar. Thirty years ago these folks were likely knee-jerk environmentalists belaboring the energy industry and automobile industry. They must now feel much more comfortable in the neoconservative robes to take up the energy-efficiency banner. What next, secular humanism?

Considering the amount of plant crops necessary to even make a dent in satiating the fuel needs in this country, I don't consider ethanol an environmentally friendly alternaltive to oil. Corn for example, besides often being genetically modified, is grown with sythetic fertilizer & requires a tremendous amount of water. None of these things are in the realm of environmentally sound sustainability. So, when I hear the neocons cheerleading the ethanol industry, I have to wonder if isn't motivated by investments in those technologies, or something similar. Hostility by oil producing countries toward the US is nothing new.

Good point Althea - IMO, more likely than investment is the effectiveness of industry lobbyists.

Perhaps, but calls to the auto industry to step up the production of fuel efficient vehicles is a significant departure from the current administration's policies which see the crisis as one solved best by controlling foreign oil and drilling for more oil at home. Even the admission that we are too dependent on oil from countries hostile to the US, while not a new revelation, is important because it is actually being admitted by those who were in denial previously about the uneasy relationship between the US and our Saudi allies who themselves are very vulnerable to radical Islamic unrest at home which has not been helped by fallout among both our allies and moderate Arabs to the disasterous Iraqi War. The significance of the article to me is more in the political than the conservation arena. Perhaps it represents a small fracture in the Republican alliance between the Neocons and the Bush-Cheney oil Cronies who are already feeling tightening reins from the Old Republican Guard of Daddy's generation over the budget deficit, growth in Gov't, expensive social programs like Medicare, costly overseas adventures, Social Security, etc. Bush is already a lame duck. Republicans are scrambling to get out of the way when he implodes and are manuevering for advantage in 2006.

Maybe there some fractures developing within the party.

FWIW, I ran a seach on commondreams for James Woolsey. Rather than post clips articles, here's the list of hits if anyone wants to find out what Woolsey has been doing since his stint at the CIA.

Here is a link that might be useful: give war a chance

For the sake of equal time, I ran a search for Gaffney on the same site. Below is a link to one of the hits which describes the neocon split KT alluded to.

Here is a link that might be useful: January 15, 2005

Interesting Althea. Another stake in the heart of the imperial dreams of the Neocons and Bushites has been the fallout over the Prez's inaugural address which I'm sure many of you have followed. It and Cheney's posturing about Iran along with Hersh's expose of the planned secret war in Iran so startled many traditional Repub's that people like Peggy Noonan (Reagan speechwriter) described it as a "God drenched" vision of the world as heaven without evil and warned it was foolhardy to invade Iran. Even Daddy Bush had to reassure folks that the speech didn't represent a change in foreign policy.

"Even Daddy Bush had to reassure folks that the speech didn't represent a change in foreign policy."

That's Reassurung KT? LOL!

Yes, I feel much better now.

Further developments:

Unlikely Bedfellows Lobby Against U.S. Gas-Guzzlers
by Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON -- A group of former national security officials on Monday took up the cause of weaning U.S. drivers from their oil addiction -- normally the realm of environmental groups -- and asked the Bush administration to spend $1 billion on lighter, more fuel-efficient automobiles.

Retail U.S. gasoline prices now averaging above $2 a gallon make U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia a looming national security crisis, a group of 31 national security officials said in a letter to President Bush.

"This really constitutes a national security crisis in the making," said letter signer Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, a thinktank, and a former Defense Department official under former President Ronald Reagan.

Other signers included Robert McFarlane, Reagan's national security advisor, and James Woolsey, Central Intelligence Agency director under President Bill Clinton.

In an uncharacteristic move, the security experts sought input from groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which have long lobbied for more fuel-efficient cars.

"It's strange bedfellows but this is actually the real American majority," said Nicole St. Clair, a spokeswoman for the NRDC. "It's common sense."

Policymakers should address rampant oil demand from gas-guzzling vehicles, and stop trying to solve the problem by opening land like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, she said.

The letter urged the government to encourage car makers to design vehicles from lighter materials to improve mileage. It also endorsed the use of "plug power" -- hybrid vehicles that can run off internal batteries for short trips before switching to their internal-combustion engines.

The program would cost $1 billion over five years.

Regulations known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards require automakers to achieve an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for all passenger cars sold, and 20.7 mpg for vans, sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks. The standards have not been tightened for more than a dozen years due to opposition from Detroit.

The average fuel economy has steadily dropped since 1988. It was 20.8 mpg for all 2003 model vehicles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's annual mileage report.

McFarlane told the White House that stricter mileage standards could help cut U.S. crude oil imports in half.

The group's recommendations gave short shrift to hydrogen-powered vehicles, a Bush administration priority, because they will take decades to field.

U.S. drivers should not depend on foreign suppliers like Saudi Arabia for security reasons, they said. Although Saudi officials say the kingdom's oilfields are protected from terror attacks, McFarlane said the oil installations are "extremely vulnerable from a military point of view."

If Saudi oil facilities are damaged, "You're not talking about $100 (per barrel) oil. You're talking about well beyond that," McFarlane said. U.S. crude oil prices peaked on March 17 at $57.60 a barrel.

Copyright 2005 Reuters

Interesting development, neocons working together with NRDC. Will they be taken seriously by the theocons?

I ran across a blurb awile ago about Woolsey being involved in the legalization of hemp. I can't find the original piece easily, but a quick google search shows that he is on the board of the North American Industrial Hemp Council. I expected their board to be people from the Green Party or NORML, not a republican.

Time Magazine has this article about the coalition of neocons & greens seeking to advance electric/biofuel automobile technology.

Grist has posted this recent interview with "Jim" Woolsey. He cites Amory Lovins as an early influence. He goes on to applaud and encourage emulation of the core principles of the work of who else but, Mahatma Ghandi.

They want to save oil for war with Iran.

I thought no political messages were allowed? LOL

Interesting views by Woolsey on the WH energy plan and general sustainable energy use. The many interviews do seem to suggest this is a real issue for at least some fringe neocons. It is a refreshing sign of sanity in my opinion and a welcome split in the neocon faction.

Infoterror, we do all walk a fine line on this forum in trying to discuss issues without being overtly political or religious. Of course, you can't discuss energy without touching on politics at some level. No its not fair nor easy, but before slamming folks here, you should be aware that these are NOT our rules. The managers of this forum who lurk in the background have threatened several times to shut us down when things have degenerated into partisan political shout fests. Many of us also find such "Crossfire" type debates unproductive, so yes we stay just on the fringe of what is acceptable, approaching forbidden topics and backing off just at the yellow zone. We try to be somewhat objective and respectful (its not always easy) and never engage in personal attacks. Call it hypocritical if you want, but through self-restraint and a measure of respect to a variety of views, we do manage to have some interesting discussions with people with diverse opinions AND not get shut down.