Forget the Greek tragedy theory of a vengeful son. Set aside claims that attacking Iraq is aimed at diverting attention from the inability to locate Bin Laden. Beyond the fact that wartime presidents enjoy high approval ratings and that, pre-War on Terrorism, Mr. Bush’s were sinking Washington policymakers are keenly aware of how oil fuels the drive to war: Iraq contains the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Our addiction to oil, say political analysts, creates a deep vulnerability that can be quickly twisted into an economic and national security nightmare. What’s to be done?

Using less oil would not only reward us with cleaner air and a stable climate but would loosen restrictive ties to a petroleum-propelled foreign policy, giving the U.S. more immunity to dangerous but oil-rich dictators. Reducing our oil dependence is the fastest and cheapest path to increased national security, say experts.

Meanwhile, the tone of last week’s international climate talks in New Delhi marked a striking departure from the fracas over whether and when to cut emissions to a new focus on Darwinian do-or-die adaptation to climate change. Sink or swim, New Orleans! But climate change is serious business.

• Unusual weather is blamed for 9,400 deaths and $56 billion in damages this year alone.
  
  
• Raising fuel economy standards to 40mpg would save 2 million barrels of oil a day, or slightly more oil than we imported from Saudi Arabia last year and three times our imports from Iraq.
  
  
• Key Europe-based petroleum companies are investing heavily in renewable energy technologies.
  
  
• The European Union has made far-reaching commitments to mainline renewable energy sources.
  
  
• The White House is prepared to spend $80 billion to depose Saddam Hussein taxpayer dollars that could be put to use developing job-creating, economy-boosting alternatives to the vicious oil-war cycle.

Will we seize the promise of conservation and clean energy or sink our fortunes into an oil quagmire?