Really, really late to the party

Notes on the President’s energy policy

There were a lot of things that made me feel like screaming about Bush’s SOTU address last night, but this one stands out:

“Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.”

Mr. President, do you come this late to every party?  I don’t mean, ‘fashionably entrance-making’ late; I mean, ‘Sorry sir, the party was 30 years ago, it was in all the papers, and you’re not even dressed for it’ late.

Remember Jimmy Carter?  (I’ll pause for conservative readers to spit) He said energy independence was ‘the moral equivalent of war’ because of its importance to national security.  He called for conservation and renewable energy research, all of which were promptly scotched by Mr. Reagan when he took office to save us from the peanut farmer with a freakin’ degree in nuclear engineering.

Of course the president calls for ‘research’ into energy technology and renewable energy.  Not surprisingly, he is also in favor of removing restrictions on his oil-producing buddies.  He didn’t seem to think there was much that could be done NOW, during his administration.

The technology for energy independence has been around for a long time.  In 1973 I saw Henry Ford II on television saying “a practical 30 MPG car is 10 years away, technologically”.  (If memory serves, that was the year Ford introduced the Pinto, which was certainly not a practical car.) As I watched that announcement, we had in our driveway a 1968 Fiat 124g.  It was a roomy 4-door (chosen by my 6-foot 2-inch father) with a huge trunk, 4-on-the-floor, 4-wheel disc brakes, stable handling, and it got 35mpg on the highway at 75mph.  Maybe Ford II meant ‘10 years in the past’.

While we’re at it, we could stop building McMansions in the suburbs and start talking to some of the more enlightened urban planners who could help us move beyond that paradigm. 

Conservation is a good thing, but the president barely mentioned it.  Since our ‘68 Fiat was built, average automobile engine power has just about doubled, but gas mileage has remained flat.  And the leadership? Mention ‘conservation’ in conservative circles today and you’ll be hooted down.  It is ‘the thing of which we must not speak’. 

As I said, there’s more.  I have a hunch others others will give pretty good coverage to Iraq policy, education, the budget, etc.

Update: Well, it turns out he really didn’t mean any of it.  The whole durn shootin’ match was just talk.  Anyone surprised?

Posted by George on 02/01/06 at 08:49 AM
Politics •

  1. I didn’t listen (nauseau is sooo unpleasant, I try to avoid it)but did catch a summary of the main points. I thought I could no longer be stunned by Bush’s stupidity, but he proved me wrong. We need research into alternative energy sources? Yeah, right!

    Posted by Catana  on  02/01/06  at  10:19 AM

  2. I’m glad I didn’t listen to/watch the speech.  What stupidity and futility that man represents.  As for urban planning, Jane Jacobs is a good resource, among others.

    Posted by WeeDram  on  02/01/06  at  09:15 PM

Post a comment...

Name - What should we call you? Please use the same name every time.

Email: (won't show)

Location: (optional, but adds context)

Got a website or blog? Want us to know about it? Put 'er here:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?


Type in below, the word you see above:

Next entry: Not getting it, Muslim style

Previous entry: Rest In Peace, Challenger Crew

<< Back to main