 |
|
British Ambassador: We’re addicted too!
It’s not every day I get to watch the British Ambassador lecture on energy security; rarer still is the feeling that someone might have switched the Ambassador’s notes with a reworked copy of the President Bush’s State of the Union address. While the tone of Sir David Manning’s speech was clearly different, more candid and elegant than what comes out of the White House, the underlying message was surprisingly similar to that from our Chief Executive. A few weeks ago, Bush said: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. It was a bit of a shock to hear our president say that, but a bit less so of the Ambassador, who started his lecture with a discussion of the convergence of geopolitical instability and geological resources, peak oil and world population growth/development. Like the President, the Ambassador’s recommendations first focused on diversifying our sources of energy, both as a method of reducing dependence on foreign oil and preserving support for and of the business community. Sir David then began to get specific. “It is clear,” he began, “that the solution is technology.” Scarcely six weeks ago, our President stood in front of Congress, and said “The best way to break this addiction (to oil) is through technology.” Both quickly followed with proposals to have government funding provide some incentive to the private sector, the President focusing on the research and development tax credit, the Ambassador on other incentives, such as the carbon tax in place in the UK. Nuclear is also in each proposal. The President pointed in the direction of “clean, safe nuclear power”, while the Sir David was more direct, stating that nuclear power “has to be part of the solution.” (A recent TerraBlog entry covered Greenpeace’s objection to this approach.) By the time the Ambassador was finished, a clear view was emerging — political forces are emerging that are genuinely shifting the debate about energy, and consequently climate change. As political security becomes an increasingly pressing issue, countries such as Great Britain are looking for tools that provide a new energy infrastructure that is carbon friendly and under their control. We’re hopeful that at-home renewable energy is part of the solution. For a funny view on an alternate clean energy development scenario, see this Onion article. Tags:
Further reading
Like this article? Get weekly updates by email!
Comments
I’m not going to take the partisan bait, but I have no trouble pointing out factual inaccuracies where I see them. Let’s start with Clinton’s State of the Union addresses, and whether he ever talked or tried to do anything about America’s reliance on fossil fuels:
Most of these comments were accompanied by a list of policy proposals. I’m not making any claims about the merits of those proposals or whether Clinton was sincere or effective in his efforts to combat global warming, but the statement that he was silent on the issue is categorically and demonstrably false. Turning to the claim that Bush coined the phrase “addicted to oil,” a quick Google search would seem to suggest otherwise. In fact, the phrase is a fairly common one that has been in wide currency for several years. Further, no president of either party deserves credit for using the phrase. Our reliance on oil is transparently obvious, as is the unwillingness of politicians to address the issue substantively. No gold stars for pointing it out. Actions are what matter, and actions have been sadly lacking. Several days after Bush uttered his famous phrase, the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory laid off 32 people due to budget shortfalls. GreenGOP, I’m glad to see genuine environmental concern from all sides of the political spectrum. But this sort sort of pointless — and ultimately baseless and untruthful — partisanship certainly isn’t helping us address the issues that matter. In the future i will take care to carefully point out when i speak in generalities. Bush has put the idea of our addiction to oil in our national policy debate and parlance, for the first time in my lifetime - as illustrated by the headline of the above post. I stand corrected on Clinton’s state of the unions. However, the fact remains (which was the intent of my comment) that after 8 years in the WH, America was as addicted to oil as ever. Clinton’s main energy strategy was to perpetuate the status quo with nations like Saudi Arabia: to overlook a dictatorial regime that funded terrorism in exchange for a steady oil supply. To digress, during the Clinton years, the US was attacked 5 times by terrorists, with zero response from Clinton. This gave Al Queda the time and confidence to plan and execute 9/11. Back to the point, i do criticize W for environmental failures. Yes, Clinton was more pro-environment than Bush is, but still, he made very little progress toward getting us energy independent or off oil. Post a comment |
|
That President Bush gets hammered from the left on environmental issues, goes without saying. Many Republicans, like myself, often wish for better too. But Bush deserves credit for effectively coining the phrase “addicted to oil” and publicly acknowledging our overreliance on oil, and setting some new incentives to reduce our oil consumption. Bill Clinton had 8 state of the unions to talk or so something about it, but never did.