The U.S. may be “addicted to oil,” but President Bush’s State of the Union speech last week was hardly our country’s much needed intervention. While it is commendable that President Bush highlighted the issue of energy independence in a way previous presidents have not, immediate action and an honest recognition of the possible challenges of such an initiative must follow the flighty rhetoric before we can conclude that the oil president has turned over a new, green leaf.

No single agenda would addresses as many core U.S. strategic issues as a revamped energy policy. Achieving energy independence could at once un-muddy U.S. foreign policy and curtail potentially irreversible damage to the environment through the use of emission-free renewable, nuclear, or clean coal energy sources. Moreover, investment in the area in the long run would stimulate economic growth by creating new jobs and putting the U.S. back on the cutting edge of energy technology.

Unfortunately, it seems that President Bush has answered the praiseworthy, yet ultimately powerless, calls for an energy initiative on the scale of the Manhattan Project—frequent refrains of Thomas Friedman of The New York Times and the Apollo Alliance of Washington, D.C.—with an empty, echoing, “Yeah, that is a good idea.” Bush has yet to demonstrate a willingness to advance any immediate proposals on energy. Instead, he has put President 2025’s money where W’s mouth is, today. Hmph.

Grounding the airy-fairy proposal of cutting Middle East oil imports by 75 percent over the next two decades in today-speak might entail, amongst other things, dealing with the “addiction” side of our “oil addiction.” The administration and Congress must be willing to formulate policies that go beyond the August 2005 Energy Policy Act, which is glaringly lacking in bold conservation measures. Contrary to Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s belief that conservation is merely a “personal virtue,” one of the quickest ways for the U.S. to cutback on imports of oil is to stop using so much of it.

Even with less than a full term left in office, there is much Bush could accomplish in immediately and realistically cutting America’s “addiction to oil.” Possibilities include a gas tax, increased subsidies for hybrid vehicles, or penalties for gas-guzzling SUVs. With the right economic incentives, consumers would be happy to pull up to the 76 or Mobil station only every other month in 100-mile-per-gallon, plug-in hybrid cars. According to a 2004 report from the Congressional Budget Office, it is estimated that a gasoline tax of 46 cents a gallon, up from today’s federal tax of 18 cents, would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent over the next 14 years.

We would be remiss to ignore that many proposals that can make an impact now demand sacrifice from U.S. citizens—financial sacrifices and sacrifices of convenience. Bush has displayed leadership in finally bringing to the limelight one of the most pressing issues of U.S. energy, foreign and environmental policy. We hope that he bucks expectations and prepares to take the difficult steps for immediate, sustained, and workable solutions.