All that is true - but the problem is that the legislation under consideration in Congress wouldn't really do much to dent America's oil appetite. As CAP notes, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce U.S. oil consumption in 2020 by a mere 876 thousand barrels a day, or about 4.5% of total U.S. oil consumption.

And that means that a U.S. oil diet won't necessarily reshape the world or weaken petrostates. CAP argues that lower U.S. dependence would weaken oil producers such as Iran by freeing up China to buy more oil from 'stable nations.' Maybe so - but China has been busy inking oil and gas deals with Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, and Russia, and not just because U.S. demand has been crowding it out of 'friendly' suppliers.

The fact is that China's demand for oil more than tripled over the last 15 years, and few analysts expect the country's double-digit economic growth to eschew a similar demand for oil in coming years. Even if the U.S. cuts back a little on oil consumption, in other words, China (and other developing countries) will more than make up the slack - which will keep today's petrostates in business all the same.

There are plenty of potential benefits in the energy and climate legislation currently in Congress, but disarming the world's petroleum producers doesn't appear to be one of them.

【时事资讯:美国清洁能源立法无损产油国影响力】相关文章：

★ 中国商务部：美国会报告没有依据

★ 饲料涨价迫使美国养殖业限制产量

★ 威廉王子婚礼将拍3D电影 与百姓分享

★ 中英双语资讯：如何在10分钟内吃掉一头大象（图）

★ 莫言避而不谈支持刘晓波的话题

★ 克林顿紧急出访检验美国在中东的影响力

★ 安倍晋三希望迅速取得成效赢回民众信任

★ 韩国央行行长新思维搅动传统观念

★ 美共和党议员：勿与华为做生意

★ 上海奢华情人节：情人无价 情人节有价