 |
State of the Union“Bush, Resetting Agenda, Says U.S. Must Cut Reliance on Oil” reads the top headline in today’s New York Times. “Bush has plan to end oil ‘addiction’” trumpets CNN. These are impressive-sounding claims, so let’s see how they stack up against the actual substance of the speech. And let me offer the disclaimer that I find the State of the Union address delivered by any President to be a fairly unwatchable event, several hours of ovation punctuated by a few minutes of happy talk. Nevertheless, it can offer some indication of the President’s legislative priorities over the coming year. When I sift through the details of Bush’s speech, I find a little to like, a lot to dismiss, and a few items about which we can only wait and see. Bush did start off his discussion of energy policy with a fairly stark statement: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem. America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. Fair enough. Only problem is that just about every president since Nixon has pledged to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Bush himself has used his last four State of the Union addresses to call for reductions in our dependence on foreign oil. Oil imports now stand at a record level. Worse, one of Bush’s specific goals — “to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025” — is both less helpful than it sounds and potentially misleading. To begin with, only about 10% of America’s oil comes from the Persian Gulf, so Bush is only talking about shifting 7% of our oil consumption over the next 20 years. Pretty small potatoes, and certainly far short of a plan to end our oil addiction. Second, Bush implies that reducing our dependency on Mideast oil will somehow improve global security. But oil is a commodity. If we shift our supply to other, friendlier oil-producting nations, someone else will step in to pick up the slack. The real problem is America’s dependence on oil in general. And at least in this regard, Bush did offer some concrete proposals, mainly in the form of a 22% increase in funding for clean energy research at the Deparment of Energy. The exact dollar figure isn’t yet clear, but it’s probably around $250m. Bush also mentioned a laundry list of technologies — ethanol from wood, solar, wind, zero-emision coal, and nuclear — that all might have a useful role to play in American’s clean energy future. If we really do achieve “practical and competitive” use of biofuel within the next six years, I’ll be pretty pleased. Of course, notably missing from the speech was any discussion of the demand side of the energy equation. Bush made no mention of improved fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. And I’m not holding my breath waiting for any sitting President to call for an increased carbon tax. Now that would be a State of the Union worth sitting through. Comments
|
|
About Us | Press | FAQ | Site map | Contact us | Jobs| Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Customer service | Logos & badges © 2004-2009, TerraPass Inc. All rights reserved. TerraPass is a trademark of TerraPass Inc.
|
I remember the same sort of rhetoric in '74, and look what has been accomplished! Nil, zip!! In fact, the spoilt brat term "SUV" came into vogue.
"Second verse, same as the furst"
Reply
As long as our government is owned by the great corporations--and that ownership now includes the White House, Congress, and the new Supreme Court--the gross errors of managment (including slurping of oil) cannot be corrected. John is right; things have got worse since 1974: on consumption of fossil fuels, on detaxing the rich, on "globalization" which is license to dismiss workers (30,000 at a time) to protect the 8- and 9-figure incomes of corporate managers, on eagerness of Presidents and of religious "leaders" to snoop into the private affairs of everybody (in God's name), on willingness to propagandize and outright lie to the public concerning issues minor (like WAR) and major (like "protecting" social security).
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is now DEAD in America. In three more years it may have dissipated altogether. NOT only do the people "in charge" not appreciate complex science: like the catastrophe of global warming which is rushing upon us--but they don't even understand elementary biology: like the fact that parasites which kill their hosts are those which propagate in feces and other dead material. Like the cholera organism. As soon as Europe and Asia cease giving us the life-prolonging financial drip that we have been on for 5 years, we will expire, exhaused from greed and stupidity.
Less than 300 years. Not very impressive as civilizations go. But the real tragedy may be that we take everyone else down with us.
Clearly matters can no longer be corrected at the White House, because the next (3rd in a row) election will be stolen as well; and not by the courts, since they are now fully owned by the corporations; but only by starting with a brand new Congress. That may just barely be possible.
Reply
Check out what this guy said about the state of the union:
http://mcbourniescolumn.blogspot.com
Reply
Bush is trying to reduce the effect instead of fixing the root cause of the problem.
In my opinion he should:
- pass a law that limits the size of automobile engines to a maximum of 6 cylinders and 3 liters
- introduce a much higher tax on cars with 6 cylinders compared to ones with 4 cylinders
- increase the tax on gas at least $1 per gallon and use that money to finance energy saving programs and alternate energy sources
I assume he doesn�t want to do this because he and his family have high stakes in the oil industry.
Reply
While I agree with much of the cynisism echoed through this blog and others like this I think we need to look at the other side of the coin. Bush may be insincere but the mere fact that he's even speaking about this topic is progress. We've shifted our consumerism from the biggest SUV we can find to a more reasonable hybrid. Unable to find any stats to back this up I can only use the subjective measure of TV commercials. Hybrid is the new buzzword. Most of America is now aware that you can use ethanol as a fuel. The money is a drop in the bucket but it's more than nothing and it can lay the infrastructure and help smooth the rough spots associated with 'new' technologies.
What we should take away from this is that there's a huge potential for change and it should start on a personal level. Don't expect Bush to lead America (why should he start now?) in an altruistic direction. Take the first step (change to CFLs, keep your tires inflated, buy a terrapass; whatever). Talk is cheap.
Reply