Apparently in tonight's state of the union address, President Bush plans to preach an end to 'oil addiction'.
Hope he succeeds in that, insofar as our economy shouldn't be dependent on what happens in unstable oil producing regions of the world.
However, he is rather late to the game.
Here are some initiatives that have been proposed by Democrats over the years, which Republicans have blocked or cut back on:
* Increasing fuel mileage standards on vehicles.
* Increased use of alternative fuels, including research on
electric, hydrogen and other fuel sources.
* More funding for mass transit.
* Tax credits or funding for installation of solar and better
insulation in homes.
Now, I hope that the President is serious about ending our addiction to oil (for greenhouse gas reasons, in addition to other reasons), but let's see if he follows his words with actions.
Yea - "serious" means both supply side and demand side initiatives along with R&D
ReplyDeleteOn the supply side it should include nuclear in my opinion - sorry, Eli - I know you don't like that one :)
On the demand side it should also include include finding cost effective ways redirect part of waste stream into useable materials
Dorsano:
ReplyDeleteYou like nuclear, then?
Since they mine the uranium in my state, can they bury it in yours after they are done?
Jimmy Carter's energy plan. Well, it's too late now.
ReplyDeleteShrimplate: You are right about that!
ReplyDeleteCarter had a vision to make the U.S. self sufficient in energy by the year 2000, and Reagan dismantled the whole thing (well, almost the whole thing-- he did keep the trans-Alaska pipeline, which was the only part of it he liked.)
As a conservative there were two times I was dissapointed with W last night. One of them had to do with his energy speech. Why in the world he did not (and does not) promote nuclear power is beyond me. The only thing I can come up with is his inability to say the word the right way.
ReplyDeleteHe's already back peddled on his statement. Figures. When you have the oil execs secretly writing energy policy you know his words are empty just like him. He's an empty suit.
ReplyDeleteSince they mine the uranium in my state, can they bury it in yours after they are done?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned - yes - but as I'm sure you're aware, I can't speak for the rest of the state.
MN is very stable in terms of threats from earth quakes and such.
Support/resistence for nuclear energy isn't so much a matter of "conservative" or "liberal" it's more a matter of when and where you were born.
ReplyDeleteTHE FUROR OVER FISSION
Some of that polling dated is dated and things are changing - global warming is one new factor.