What does "Addicted to Oil" mean?

I've been meaning to write a post about Bush's choice of words for a week now, but of course everyone has beaten me to it. Today, Dave Roberts of Gristmill has an insightful take on the issue:
When Bush talks about "addiction," the subtext is always his own carefully constructed personal narrative: The youthful alcohol problems and the redeeming power of Jesus and the love of a good woman. In Bush's campaign story, he was spiritually redeemed; he shook off addiction by improving his character. The subtext of America being "addicted" is that the American people are somehow fallen and weak.

But America does not rely on oil by virtue of any moral failing. It is not a weakness. It's simple prudence: For quite a long time now, oil has been an incredibly cheap, incredibly concentrated source of energy.

My first reaction to the use of the phrase was to perk up my ears. My second reaction came a day later, when Bush and his talking heads backtracked on what they'd said the night before. As Roberts also notices, the issue here is what it means to be addicted. When one is addicted, the solution is not to find alternative/better/cheaper ways to feed the addiction. The solution is to cure the addiction. Curing any addiction—from alcohol to heroin to oil—necessarily means eradicating the need for the substance.

By the way, Europeans are skeptical. As the Nieman Foundation for Journalism explains, Bush is still acting more as the pusher than as the addict:

But stereotypical visions of American highways and city streets clogged with gas-guzzling SUV’s, oversized sedans and the occasional Hummer were only temporarily compromised. Reading the fine print, it became clear that Bush’s speech was more political than realistic.


BBC: "...It is worth noting [that Bush] put energy in its place. He mentioned the need to detox from oil only as the sixth on a list of seven measures the United States had to take to stay "competitive."..."Nor are the words "greenhouse gases" (mentioned in the speech)."


Trouw de Verdieping: "Bush has no intention of tackling America’s oil addiction” suggests that Bush is only talking about decreasing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

"Bush accuses Americans of being addicted to oil. But he won't do anything to help them kick the habit…"

"From his speech it is clear that Bush is talking about independence from the Middle East, not America's energy addiction."

So clearly, the terminology that Bush used was not the wording that he apparently meant to use, or even should have used, if he wanted to maintain his own credibility. Oddly enough, Bush and his speechwriters apparently do have a knack for using memorable phrases that stick in the public consciousness ("war on terror", "axis of evil"). In those cases, these pithy phrases helped the administration succeeded in convincing the public that we're constantly under siege. Today, is it possible that even though the president is furiously trying to retract his statement, that the proclamation of our "addiction to oil" has already done irrevocable damage (in a good way, that is)?
What does it mean?  

Answer: It means absolutely nothing. It is just a political speech written by paid political hacks in an attempt to make the Bush regime look like it's ahead of instead of behind the problem.

Pay not heed.

If you want to know what's really going on in the world of energy supply, the Bush regime is the very last place you should look.

I didn't see the speech. Only read the highlights in the newspaper. As far as the "addicted to oil" thing and the other things Bush mentioned (Increasing math and science etc.)This is typical political bullshit. Politicians read the polls. They are very concerned about public opinion. Of course an astute politician will reference public opinion in speeches.

The important thing to consider is what they do, not what they say. The day after the speech the Bush administration slashed the student loan money by some 10 billion dollars. So much for the new wave of math and science teachers.

I know the poll they saw.
A CNN poll that was 96% No to 4% Yes.

The question?

Do you agree with the current energy policy?

I guessing that Americans are so un-informed, that if the same poll was given today, it would be 50-50.

"But he said Ethanol! From grass! And hydrogen!"...."Go Team!"

Someone inside the White House (Bush does not carefully vet every word given to him) is seeing the massive balance of payments deficit, and that almost half comes from oil.  And the voters have gotten restive, most people see oil heading up, not down.

In order to preserve the entire economy, "something" needs to be done.  It is clear that Bush et al think that something is technology.  An extra 22% spent on R&D will "save the day", or maybe the 2006 election.

Oil is not half of America's imports. It could be viewed as a percentage of America's trade deficit, but then, so could other categories of imports like agricultural goods or construction materials or electronic equipment or textiles or cars or even virtual imports like tourism.
By volume I have no idea, although I suspect it is number 1.   Its very close to half (at $60/bbl) of the trade deficit dollar value each month, = 25 billion vs total trade deficits  in range of 50-64 billion as of late.
Yeah, but the point is that the trade deficit (or surplus) is exports minus imports. It makes no sense to think of one imported commodity as a fraction of the trade deficit. Oil is not half of US imports.
Maybe somebody else said that.  I didn't say it was half the US imports.  I said its "almost half the trade deficit dollar value".  If I want to know how the trade deficit value in USD  originates and what % of the trade deficit can be attributed to oil imports - oil exports and I know the oil volume imported and the volume exported (assumed = relative 0) and the average cost of the imported oil, it makes sense to me.  I know a certain amount of oil import value is offset by wheat exports, bond sales to foreign entities, and HP computers etc.,  but I don't care about that.  I only want to know the relative impact of oil imports-exports towards calculating the value of the deficit, so I think it makes sense to think about it that way.  At least I think it makes "engineering sense".
Even relative to total imports it takes the pretty substantial 20% (rough estimate - oil imports: 13mln.bpd x 365 x $65 = $308 bln.; total imports as of 2005 ~ $1500 bln.)

If we could eliminate oil imports we'd cut our trade deficit by half.

America is not addicted to oil. Bush's statement completely obfuscates the real issue.

America is addicted to consumption.

Consumption and debt.  Credit card debt now averages $11,000 per household in the US (we are not alone, google news shows other nations around the world concerned with their blooming debt.)

I think this ties into "addicted to oil" in two ways: first, he certainly doesn't want to say anything (like "conservation") that will topple consumer confidence.  Second, he wants the "debtor nation" to feel gasoline pump prices are being addressed.

Don't worry ... charge some more stuff ... hydrogen will save us!

I have never seen so much double talk as I have with this administration.  Talking one thing yet doing another, usually the opposite.  Just like supporting energy research while cutting NREL funding.

The addicted comment is yet the latest example.

We are not addicted to oil.  We are dependent on it but it is not the root addiction. Oil is merely the latest greatest substance we have turned to in feeding our greatest addiction, namely growth.

We are addicted to growth.  

We want more and better of anything we stumble upon.  We are addicted to the promise of a better tomorrow.  Oil merely helps us meet that need.  This need for growth is more or less universal across the political spectrum and national too.  Curing this addiction will take far more than simplistic speech making.  Given the evidence that this behavior may be hardwired into our genes, it may be futile.

Your comment reminds me about Wouter Van Dieren's report to the club of rome "Taking nature into account". It describes the idea of "economic growth" pretty well. There is actually no necessity to do this. I think there were some pages about Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan" (Long time ago I read this excellent book. Oil is just the first important commodity which is in use in the industrial world. A kind of addiction which simply cannot be served in the long run. So it is with fertile soil, stable climate, clean water...
matthias, berlin
If we want people to be employed, a rate of growth in real Gross Domestic Product of about 3.5% per year is required to prevent the rate of unemployment from increasing. You may not like to acknowledge this fact, but I challenge you to find a single economist to disagree with it.

The problem as I see it is to sever income from work. The only people to tackle this problem seriously are the utopians (who have come up with nothing useful, to the best of my knowledge) and certain science fiction writers.

John Maynard Keynes gave some interesting hints as to how this problem might be resolved in his famous 1930 essay, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren."

My own ideas for income distribution are so radical that advocating them, for example in a graduate student economics lounge room, would cause somebody to dial 9-1-1 and have me involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Why? Because everybody knows that the way it is must be the way it has to be.

The word "growth" covers a lot of territory.  Personal growth. Spiritual growth. ... you shotgun that word an you don't leave a lot for people to hope for.

I think at the other end people do take a messy growth-is-good position as well.  In particular there is the implication that higher GDP means "wealthier" citizens.  Actually as we've seen you can have increasing personal debt with higher GDP.

I'd say "grow smart" or "smart growth" ... but something a little more selective than the two extremes.

We want growth because we don't want to think about justice. If we really had to face a steady-state economy, we'd have to start wondering how to justify the fact that the boss makes a thousand times as much as the guy behind the counter.
4 good comments. As I've said before, listening to these folks is worse than a waste of time.  Watch their actions only.  They will say anything, truth means nothing.  And while everyone is all in a twist about what has been said, the real adgenda is being carried out unnoticed (by most).
 Twilight. Great advice. SO MANY POSSIBLE GUESSES ABOUT WHAT WAS MEANT FOR WHO/WHAT,and the meaning; shows our desperation. In football to tackle we were taught to only focus on the torso due to leg, head, and hand fakes.   " Watch their actions only."
I think your correct about the notion that we're addicted to growth, but i think its not so much and addiction but an inherent trait in all humans.

It's a desire to grow and prosper civilizations, we have done so for hundreds of years.

Oil only allowed us to produce technologies that allowed us to grow and prosper at an unprecedented rate.

I believe President George Dubya Bush only said we're addicted to oil to affect the oil market itself.

Stating that we can cut %75 percent of oil imports from the middle east by the year 2025.

Maybe he thought this statement alone would lower the price of oil.

Who knows?

Drug addiction is defined as the compulsive seeking and taking of a drug despite adverse consequences. If we substitute the word `resource' for `drug', have we violated or changed the definition? That should depend on the definition of `drug' - `a substance that a person chemically comes to rely upon' is standard.  Proximally, a drug is a physical substance, but ultimately, it is any activity or substance that generates brain chemicals in a pattern we acclimate to. Thus, it is not crude oils intrinsic qualities we crave but the biochemical sensations we have become accustomed to that arise from creatively using the energy embodied in oil.

High dopaminergic action in the brains neurotransmitter pathways has been linked to addiction. (Note: people w/ Parkinsons disease, who have difficulty w muscular coordination, take a drug called Mirapex which increases dopamine levels and in many recent cases, has resulted in addictions to sex, gambling and shopping. TOO MUCH DOPAMINE.

When the President said that Americans are addicted to oil, I had to smirk. I had just written a paper postulating that the immigration in the 1700s to the US might have been a genetic bottleneck, which potentially increased the prevalence of the DRD4 dopamine receptor which has been shown to lead to higher incidences of impulsivity, novelty seeking, aggressive behaviors etc. An excellent book that draws similar conclusions is "American Mania" by Peter Whybrow. Dr Whybrow goes through an evolutionary story and references studies that show as few as 1,000 people left Africa 130,000 years ago, and the trail of these migrants left higher incidences of the DRD4 gene. He goes on to say that many Americans are addicted to the 'buzz' of dopamine and this pattern is increasing.  My own (environmentally focused) research suggests this steepens our valuation of the present, to the detriment (unaware to most) of the future global environment.

Whether it is genetic or not is actually quite relevant. If Americans, due to our self-selected nature (our ancestors, except slaves, came here out of choice to seek a better life-those content with the status quo stayed in Europe -new arrivals found a bounty of natural resources and had lots of kids who then had lots of resources). These genes and behaviours were passed on. Im pretty sure that we originally had the largest endowment of oil in the world, though 80% of it is gone..

Clearly our behaviours are some % genetic and some % environmental. (Twin and adoption studies have in aggregate shown that between 30% and 60% of the variance in personality traits is due to inherited factors). If our desire for oil products and the life they give us is cultural, then through education, hardship and cooperation, we will find a cultural way out of it.  If our oil 'addiction' is more biological than cultural, as I am inclined to believe, theres gonna be hell to pay. Ever seen someone enter rehab for the first couple nights?

Pardon the self-conversation, but since this post is right up my interest-alley, let me add that dopamine activation has been linked with addictive, impulsive activity in numerous species.  Dopamine is released within the brain not only to stimuli an organism finds rewarding but also to those events which predict rewards. Extensive research in primates shows that when exposed to novel stimuli, high levels of curiosity (dopamine) are generated. When this previously novel stimulus is repeatedly presented, the dopamine cells do not fire as actively - it is the unexpected reward that causes their activation. (If ones mind is expecting a three course meal and all that arrives is a pretzel, a plunge in dopamine levels will create an immediate seeking of food).  

Experimental removal of the D4 dopamine receptor gene in mice causes them to reduce exploratory behavior.  Rats will quickly choose cocaine over food to the point of starving to death once the addiction state is reached. Repeated use of a dopamine generating `substance' causes tolerance for the drug so that withdrawal of it results in low levels of dopamine. Continuous use is then required to keep dopamine at normal levels, and even higher doses to get the `high' levels of initial use.

So now we have partypoker playin, spongebob square pants watchin, pepsi guzzlin, oildrum readin, internet porn surfin, coffee drinkin addicts who at latest tally used 36 barrels per year per person.

I put my money on cultural traits reinfocing biological propensities. Now the huge challenge is to figure out how to use new cultural themes to diminish rather than reinforce our biological predispositions that have developed through a million years of human evolution.

Genetics is not fate. Culture is not a puppet-master pulling our strings as if we are puppets. Some people both as individuals and in the groups we call communities and society can change.

It has been suggested elsewhere on this site that humans are now behaving like lemmings at a population peak as we head ever faster for the cliff's edge. Though it is a mistake to push any metaphor too far, I think there is some insight to be gained from this image.

On an encouraging note, it has never been the case that ALL the lemmings plunge to their deaths, for if that had been the case, then lemmings would be extinct.

Therefore what? Therefore, as both individuals and as socities we make choices: We can run with the herd, as most always do. Or we can march to a different drummer, slower and thoughtfully and away from the edge of the cliff while being careful not to be trampled by majority.

To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: Most people will sooner die than think. And they do.

Lemmings have a perfectly adequate behaviour for crossing streams. But some "streams" are way too wide...
So you can picture the incumbent Lemming leader speaking to his flock as they stand before the next great crossing:

"My fellow Lemmerrycans,
We have climbed many mountains before
and forded many streams,
We have always succeeded
and made it to our dreams.

Ah ask you therefore to continue and follow me.

Ignore those Pesky Peak Streamwidth theorists amongst you who claim there is something that looks like a Gaussian distribution curve.

Nonsense. Our system always provides. Always has. Only cowards cut and run. Those with faith stay the course."

You know, twenty years ago when I worked for a large science/engineering company, a few of us would stop by the cafeteria in the morning and talk bs.

One day I was mentioning that I saw a difference in the nature of my Danish relatives here and my Danish relatives in Denmark.  I made the off-hand comment that there might be a genetic factor, immigrants were "self selecting" after all ...

I still remember because the body language across the table was so funny.  One buddy was nodding and the other was kind of bouncing in his chair with disagreement ;-)

It was not very PC in those days to talk about national character and genetics.

(BTW, my understanding is that genetics tend to drive "tendencies" and not the kind of "determinism" the then-PC crowd feared.)

If anyone wants to learn more about "tendencies" I'd suggest a little web surfing on "twin studies."  There are some truly strange correlations there.
Oh yes, there is much to genetics. I am half Danish by ancestry. I love to sail small open boats in strong winds over cold salt water and am good at it. Also I am extremely fond of pickled herring, ham, and rye crackers. My sister, she has goats and makes cheese.

It is a great mistake to fight one's heritage. (Oh, and this is both a joke and also true: I am attracted to women who smoke cigars, as many Danish women do.)

I have several connections to Iceland and have been there a number of times.

The differences between them and the Norwegians, Danes & Swedes is notable.

80% of the woman came from Celtic nations (mainly Ireland).  They were selected for beauty (and ability to work).  I think Miss Iceland has won Miss World four times now (not bad for a quarter million population, half of them men).  The most recent winner's mother had made the top 5 in Miss World.

Musically, the Icelanders are MUCH better (especially per capita) than those that speak corrupted Icelandic :)  Good singers waiting for Straeto at the bus stop.  The Irish heritage no doubt.  ABBA vs. Sigur Ros

The Icelanders work MUCH harder & longer than others that fly the Nordic Cross flag.  A harsh climate, natural disasters that killed off half the population more than once may have done more self selection AND cultural evolution than emigration.

They are also but more independent and less socialistic.  Consensus is NOT valued at all !

I'm 1/2 danish and 1/4 icelandic ... you guys are triangulating me.
if you have any daughters between 25-40 have them email me.
There is a big difference between tendencies and determinism.

Psychological researchers point out that our `personality' is comprised of `temperament' which is genetic and `character' which is learned.   Each of us is born with every ounce of genetic material we will ever have.  From that moment forward, society, culture, family and the environment instruct us as to what options we have available to generate the brain chemicals that were consistent with evolutionary success.

Our current society `approved list' includes Starbucks, publicly breast-feeding women, Budweiser, killing foreigners for oil, Jack Daniels, ecological damage for sake of profits, Prozac, state lotteries, stock market speculation, office football pools,  neatly packaged parts of hormone fed cows, and Humvees.  Our society `unapproved list' includes marijuana, "Jugs' magazine, opium, killing locals for oil, night soil, eating spiders, shooting and gutting free range deer, streaking, and asking for money.  We are taught how best to `succeed' with our innate talents and drives from family, friends and increasingly the media.

Ostensibly, the objective is to change the definition of 'success' through culture, so our biological behaviors can be more sustainable. (As Ive written before - we want the guy who grows the biggest sweet potato and rides his bike to look cooler than the guy who owns 5 office buildings and drives a limo)

You are quite right: Biology sets the limits, and culture plus our unique personal experiences determine the extent to which we realize our potentials.

For example, some people have a predisposition to alcholism. Will they become alcoholics? Probably not, if they live in a devoutly Moslem country or are raised in a Mormon family in Utah. Some people (myself included, no alcholoism for three generations back on either side) do not have the genetic predisposition to abuse alcohol, and though you could force feed me an ethanol solution, and maybe get me physically addicted if there were nothing to drink but, say straight Jack Daniels, as soon as I had the opportunity to drink coffee or tea or water I'd be off the ethanol.

Thus the old "heredity vs. environment" issue is bogus. Heredity determines potential. Culture, society, family, education, religion, historical events, these determine which potentials we fulfill.

Suppose another Albert Einstein is born today in Nigeria. What will he be able to accomplish?

Oh yeah, I know.  FWIW, a little more info for those new to this:


(I'm going to ride my bike today, but to the market to buy beef for carne asada - to be cooked over charcoal.  I suppose my environmental score is 50:50 on that one.)

I think the need for growth is not rooted in human nature--it's capitalism. It's true that there has been growth in human population long pre-dating capitalism, but not the kind of growth that's occurred in the last few hundred years, and the 20th century in particular. Ancient hunter-gatherers spread around the globe filling new niches -- when the niches turned sour, they retreated. Biological growth.

Oil has certainly speeded things up even under capitalism. The slide down off peak is enormously threatening to capitalism (as it would have been to Soviet style socialism), because it mandates a decrease in capital intensity -- the foundation for the dominance of financial- corporate- military order.

This is why survivalism won't work. You can't just go off and do your own low-capital-intensity thing. They won't let you. There is just no alternative to fighting these guys -- not for some specific way of re-ordering society, but just for the right to experiment. That's what's subversive now: asking for the right to experiment, to look for a way to make things work, to be pragmatic. But they can't permit that because it runs afoul of the interests of big capital.

The energy war between Russia and Ukraine is
just a taste of what is to come.

Once the environment wars get underway, we are
going to witness Darwinian survival of the
fittest, or the most agressive, or the best

This from 'The Independent' is probably a small
taste of what is to come for many.

The battle for water in the drought-hit north
of Kenya has sparked tribal conflicts leaving
dozens dead in recent weeks and the death toll
is growing daily, aid agencies have warned.

More aid is needed urgently in drought-hit areas
to prevent further violence over scarce water
resources and pastures for animals, the charity
Oxfam said.

On the arid northern plains, strewn with the
decomposing carcasses of cattle, people are
preparing for a battle. There are plenty of
weapons in this remote corner of the country:
home-made spears, bows and arrows, and guns
smuggled in from southern Sudan.

This is just the start, or rather a continuation of what I think warfare will be about for much of the next century.  Wars won't be fought for territory per se, but for he resources, especially liquid ones beneath the surface.  Whether it be crude oil or water, much of the world is running short on the basic liquids to run a modern society.  In some places, especially Africa and the Middle East, they are running out of fresh water.

Look at the water usage statistics in Israel, compared to those of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The amount of water the Israeli's use is staggering.  I believe half of that water is used for agriculture, in the desert.  They are by no means the worst offenders.  Look at Las Vegas, and the rest of the desert southwest.  People have open air swimming pools, lush green lawns, and in Las Vegas, giant open fountains that run day and night regardless of the weather.
Micheal T. Klare wrote a great bok about this, called Resource Wars

Poten has some good stuff on oil addiction.


Well worth a look

What does "Addicted to Oil" mean?

I think the bottom line is that when gasoline again crosses $3/gal (The OC averages $2.57 this morning), people remember the quote ... and maybe move to a little more short-term action.

(google "GasBuddy" if you don't already know about it)

Great thread! I love TOD!!!  It's the best on the Web, by far...
In defence of the lemming!

Hi all, I have been reading TOD for a while and so far found I have found little I can usefully comment on but I am compelled to post in defence of the lemming (and of ascertaining the truth, which TOD is more interested in than other sites).

The idea which has been mentioned several times in this thread and others that lemmings commit suicide en masse is a complete and utter myth. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The truth is somewhat more interesting: lemming populations vary wildly but no one really knows why. Humans may rush headlong over the cliff, but lemmings don't. Instead of saying "behaving like a lemming" perhaps it is better to say "behaving like a human".

I think it strange the way these things get reversed in the way we view other animals. While I don't subscribe to the view that we are just the same as other animals (clearly we are not), many of the attributes we think of as uniquely human are found in other animals. And the things we think only apply to (other) animals, apply to us just as much.

Another example, the BBC reports that the rabbit is the most common mammal in the UK, at 40 million. Hang on...there are over 60 million humans. So the jokey headline "breeds like rabbits" should really read "breeds like humans".

Thanks for the very good post.

Yeah, I know about it being a myth that lemmings rush over cliffs in a sort of mass suicide. But the metaphor is iconic. And it would be good to know exactly why their populations soar and crash to extremes--moreso than similar mammals.

BTW, maybe rabbits are the most common mammals in the U.K. Pray tell, how do you get an accurate count of rabbits? Or mice? Or moles? Or rats? It is hard enough to count humans. I smell here the fallacy of the unknowable statistic.

Who knows how many rats (or cockroaches) there are in New York City? When people come up with definite numbers (Twice as many rats as people in New York City!) for quantities that, by their nature, we cannot know with much accuracy, I despair for the victims of our schools who credulously believe such pronouncements.

If our society fails, in my opinion it will be in large part due to our failures to educate. I speak here as one who was in the teaching profession for thirty-one years and never lost hope, not even after 9,000 students. Some I helped much to learn to think, others not. All you can do is to do your best; nobody can do more than that.

You have a double standard. According to you, it does not matter whether something is true or not, if it is iconic. So the precise number of rats or cockroaches is irrelevant, because it is iconic. The point is we are part of an ecosystem (I think).

You can't quibble about numbers and complain about critical thinking and at the same time propagate and excuse obvious fallacies. I hope you explain to your students that what you tell them is not true, but it is ok to repeat lies if they are iconic.

So what exactly did the President mean when he said "reduce imports by 75%"? It doesn't matter, he was being iconic.

The "President" is an "icon".
What that icon means to each of us varies.
To me it used to mean truth, justice, and the American way.
Now it means something else, something very troubling.

As for lemmings not intentionally jumping off cliffs,
yes, I know that too.

Somewhere on my blog there is a link labeled Truth in Lemming.

We make fun of Lemmings.
They make fun of us.
All is fair and foul in our edge of the ledge politics.

Please cite a specific example where, in your opinion, I quibbled about numbers.

My big point is that people should not engage in the fallacies of misplaced precision or unknowable statistics.

People argue endlessly over unnknowable statistics such as how many rats there are in New York City. The big point is that there are way way too many.

People argue over whether the total mass of humans on earth is greater than the total mass of termites. It does not matter. Clearly if there is a major dieoff, the evidence will suggest that overpopulation was a fact.

Iconic cases, such as the dieoff in Ireland after 1848 are extremely important to focus our attention on issues that really matter. Ignore icons at your peril.

Somebody had to do this:

Your lights are off, but you're at home
Your car, won't start no mo'
Your heart sweats, your body shakes
A tank of gas is what it takes

You can't sleep, you can't eat
There's no doubt, you're in deep
Your throat is tight, you can't breathe
A tank of gas is all you need

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to oil

You saw the signs, but wouldn't heed
Now you're bikin' at slower speed
Your heart pumps in double time
A tank of gas and you'll be fine, a one track mind

You can't be saved
Consumpt-ion is all you crave
If there's some left for you
You don't mind if you do

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to oil

Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil


Your lights are on, but not for long
You can't pay, that massive loan
You're heart sweats, your teeth grind
A tank of gas, your wife is mine
Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah

It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to oil

Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil
Might as well face it, you're addicted to oil

Apologies to the late Mr Palmer, and I hope this is less crass than the 'Addicted to Lost' redub.

i somehow knew that was coming! i am sure Wierd Al Yankovich is coming with a recording of that soon!

But, i want to know what Sen. Kerry mean't when he said "This administration is addicted to oil, not the american people"
I don't mean to throw politics into the equation, but it affects us all. So what does he mean?

In my opinion, this is just standard political grandstanding.  A lot of people blame 'big oil' for the current high and volatile oil product prices, so Kerry is trying to redirect some of that resentment towards the admistration.

I really hope Kerry will take a more proactive stance; out of context, it sounds like he's defending the status quo.

To clarify - Kerry is drawing on the widely known links between the administration and the oil industry to imply that administration policy favors the interests of oil companies over the interests of oil consumers.  While a case could be made for this, most of the rise in gasoline prices (the most visible recent trend to most USA denizens) was due to other factors.
Kerry couldn't tell you the first thing about oil. You know more.