Matt's post on the tension between geopolitical, environmental, and economic concerns on oil is very good. Give it a read. It's this zero sum game that spurs most politicians to lapse into techno-futurism, simply funding technologies that promise to simultaneously end carbon emissions, lower fuel prices, and end global reliance on Middle East oil. Unfortunately, the debate seems to oscillate between these dodgers and the single-issue folks so terrified by their corner of concerns that they advocate the harshest, most laser-focused solutions possible. That's why those focused on environmental and geopolitical concerns routinely advocate the harshest, most focused, least politically viable measures (gas taxes) and spend little time or capital on CAFE increases or conservation efforts. The most inventive thinking on this debate tends to come from Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, but because their solutions would moderately address all of the concerns rather than solving one of them, they receive little support.
It's also worth saying that the geopolitical aspect is a bit more complicated than we make it seem. A variety of stable, moderate-if-autocratic governments in the region are supported by oil revenues. Without that income, they topple, and what rises to replace them in a newly-impoverished Middle East is rather unclear.
