Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The administration's energy policy remains a disgrace


Winslowalrob

Recommended Posts

Energy policy

The pusher-in-chief

Feb 2nd 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC

From The Economist print edition

The administration's energy policy remains a disgrace

Copyright, George?

“AMERICA is addicted to oil.” Those may be the most memorable words of George Bush's state-of-the-union speech. Not quite as evocative as “axis of evil” perhaps, but still a fairly candid confession—especially from a man who spent much of his early life trying to prosper from that addiction.

The soundbite also came with a dramatic goal: to replace more than 75% of America's oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. To achieve this, Mr Bush unveiled something called the Advanced Energy Initiative, which promises a 22% boost in clean-energy research into two areas of America's energy-guzzling. “The best way to break this addiction,” insisted Mr Bush, “is through technology.”

One thrust will be changing American homes and offices. Mr Bush promised to boost spending on “clean coal” technologies, renewable energy and nuclear power. The second target is transport. He vowed to increase research spending on better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, as well as on hydrogen fuel cells. He also promised to help a new kind of ethanol—made from wood chips and switchgrass rather than the usual corn—become commercial.

Look closely, though, and it turns out that this grand new plan to end oil addiction is really no such thing. Take, for a start, that objective of replacing three-quarters of Middle Eastern imports of oil by 2025. Because oil is a fungible, globally-traded commodity, it does not matter where imports come from. Even if America got all its oil from Canada, Venezuela and Nigeria, an oil shock in Saudi Arabia would send the price of every barrel of oil skyrocketing—even Alaskan barrels. Only abandoning foreign oil completely would free America from the prospect of an oil shock.

The problem is not that the technologies identified by Mr Bush are necessarily the wrong ones. Quite the contrary. Some of the approaches he points to, such as “plug-in” hybrid cars and “cellulosic” ethanol, are quite promising.

The problems with Mr Bush's speech are the same ones that undermined his energy policy, which was passed into law as the Energy Act last year. That grotesque law handed out tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to every imaginable source of energy. But it did nothing to promote carbon trading; it did not mention carbon taxes; it had no tightening of vehicle fuel-economy rules.

In short, Mr Bush is still avoiding most of the regulations that might actually encourage the market to ditch dirty technologies in favour of clean ones. And he is still avoiding any attempt to make Americans pay the true cost of the energy they guzzle. Until that happens, he is firmly on the side of the pusher, not the addict.

http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5469849

Crazy liberal hippie Economist! I read this a while ago but with the OTHER thread about the energy breakthrough, I wanted to see what you guys thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just drill in Alaska if we want to not depend on the ME as much. Too bad those same hippies dont want to hurt a piece of grass.

Did you even read the article? And we don't depend on the ME... we only get 20% of our oil from there. Drilling oil in Alaska is not a bad idea... except that we won't see a drop for about 6 years. And it won't affect oil prices for another 8. Too bad those same oilmen are too stupid to know anything about economics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read the article? And we don't depend on the ME... we only get 20% of our oil from there. Drilling oil in Alaska is not a bad idea... except that we won't see a drop for about 6 years. And it won't affect oil prices for another 8. Too bad those same oilmen are too stupid to know anything about economics...

Meant to say off foreign dependency. Who cares if we wont see a drop for 6 years...you cant have everything the second you think of it. The idea has been around for years. Just think if we had drilled 6 years ago.

And those stupid oil men are laughing their way to the banks, so Id say they know a little about the economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meant to say off foreign dependency. Who cares if we wont see a drop for 6 years...you cant have everything the second you think of it. The idea has been around for years. Just think if we had drilled 6 years ago.

And those stupid oil men are laughing their way to the banks, so Id say they know a little about the economy

Oil is one of the most unpredictable of businesses, a lot of investors caution their clients not to buy stock in oil companies. Oil is fungible. Can you read the article first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil is one of the most unpredictable of businesses, a lot of investors caution their clients not to buy stock in oil companies. Oil is fungible. Can you read the article first?

I see what youre saying. Im not talking about investors, Im talking about the guys who run the companies...CEOs. I understand the point of the article is that getting off Middle Eastern oil wont do a thing for the oil problem, but this is one mans opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meant to say off foreign dependency. Who cares if we wont see a drop for 6 years...you cant have everything the second you think of it. The idea has been around for years. Just think if we had drilled 6 years ago.

And those stupid oil men are laughing their way to the banks, so Id say they know a little about the economy

And I would say a third grader could run an oil company and make money. You don't have to be a financial wiz to make money if you own an oil company, you just need an administration who will give you tax breaks while you pork the working class and manipulate the market through collusion.

BTW, what did we spen on Hydrogen research last year? The same amount of money as it costs for operations in Iraq for one week. The CEO president and congress are the worst thing for the country, because there is absolutely no vision for the future of this country. They are concerned about the next quarter, not the next decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy policy

The soundbite also came with a dramatic goal: to replace more than 75% of America's oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. To achieve this, Mr Bush unveiled something called the Advanced Energy Initiative, which promises a 22% boost in clean-energy research into two areas of America's energy-guzzling. “The best way to break this addiction,” insisted Mr Bush, “is through technology.”

The technology is already there. Maybe George should ask South Africa about their new highly efficient solar power technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...