Many in congress have pushed for a different energy policy.
If Andrew and ShamMol want to bring up the history of calls for 'different' energy policies, then they should not stop at Clinton. There have been both Presidential and congressional calls for a 'national energy policy' going back to the early '70s, even before the first Arab Oil Embargo.
Such calls are nothing new. It has, over the years, been, as usual, a game of politicians of all stripes seeking partisan advantage and of special interest groups pushing their own self-serving agendas. The fervor has diminished in times of low oil prices and increased in times of high oil prices. It wasn't new with Clinton; it isn't new with Bush. Commensurately, over the years, Congress has periodically voted funds for R&D into alternative energy sources, but never in amounts sufficient to provide any fundamental change in the mix of our energy usage. Occasional calls for a 'Manhattan Project' for energy have flared then died.
OPEC learned to play the industrialized world - mainly the US - like a fiddle: following the lessons of the oil embargos, they knew that we knew the consequences of tolerating a high price versus denial of availability. As long as crude was merely expensive, our economies continued to function, albeit at perhaps a more modest pace. But if unavailable, our economies risked stopping dead in their tracks. But in that event, so too did their revenues. The strategy has been clear: keep crude oil production levels low enough to keep prices high but consistent with availability. In other words, keeping the oil dependent economies going while extracting the maximum amount of revenue.
To be sure, one cannot really blame the oil producers for such a strategy; it is the only strategy that maximizes their benefit from a finite resource. Cutting off availability permanently would invite military action to regain access; prices too high encourage more aggresive conservation and research into alternatives.
But there are now major differences in the circumstances surrounding the issue: one, a major ME oil producer governed by religous fanatics is determined to become a nuclear power; two, a major South American oil producer is becoming consistently more belligerent toward the US; three, radical Islam has declared war on the US; and four, rapid growth in oil demand from an emergent Chinese economy. A dangerous situation: supplies of crude are now less assured and competition for existing supplies is increasing.
Fortunately for us, those years of bits and pieces of underfunded research have produced a handful of very promising technologies. Now, we actually know
how to reduce our dependence on crude, but so far, only in laboratory or experimental scale. We now need implementation. We need to learn how to scale up those experimental successes to economy-wide applications. Given the changed, more tenuous, circumstances, now is the time to put away those partisan inclinations and get something done.