President Bush claims to have joined the group of citizens concerned with America's energy future. If he's sincere, it's certainly a welcome addition, however belated. The old oil man famously said the US was 'addicted to oil' in his recent State of the Union address.
He also recently called for tapping renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to contend with surging energy costs.
That America is addicted to oil is not really news; it's been the case for decades. And Bush is hardly the first president to call for increased support for renewable energy sources; Jimmy Carter did the same thing.
While the 2003 State of the Union address focused primarily on justifying the impending Iraq aggression, Bush tossed a bone to pre-empt left-leaning critics by proposing a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative.
What's been lacking is consistent, systematic and comprehensive government support for research into these alternative energy sources. Interest always picks up in times like ours when energy prices are high, but interest collapses as soon as the prices do. I've heard Bush mention that hydrogen fuel initiative not one single time since the State of the Union.
Adirondack Musing blog wonders:
Buy a gas-electric hybrid car and you could be eligible for up to a $3150 tax credit. But if you are a business owner and buy an SUV that weighs over 3 tons you get a deduction of up to $25,000. And, you can depreciate the entire remaining amount over 6 years.
If the government wants to positively influence energy policy, it can start by at least offering the incentives for desirable behavior rather than rewarding undesirable energy choices.
This guy has some other ideas.
1 comment:
Randy,
You're right, Gore would've had difficulties in this domain had he been elected, though I think it would've ranked higher on his priority list. The reason he would've had such difficulties despite it being a priority is because the the problems are the long-term result of policy choices made over decades. As such, they are not going to be addressed overnight or even in a single presidency (or governorship or mayoralty). That's why I spoke of policies that are 'consistent, systematic and comprehensive.'
For example, it's easy for environmentalists to lecture people about not driving a car or driving it less. But the reality is that driving a car is the ONLY viable option in many of these localities. For example, even if you wanted to walk, I'd be surprised if there were a mile of sidewalk in the entire town of Queensbury! (Trust me, I don't have a car and it's hellish to walk once you cross the border into the town).
No sidewalks. No or neglible public transportation. An atmosphere that's overtly hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists. Suburban sprawl. Subsidies to the airline industry but let Amtrak go to pot. These are all results of policy choices that governments and society have made in recent decades.
Other countries (and some cities within this country) have made different choices and gotten different results. Yes, public transportation costs money. Most will not make a profit. And developers don't like zoning restrictions. But building roads ad infinitum costs money too. Dealing with the consequences of polluted air costs money too. Building the infrastructure to support sprawl costs a lot of money.
The public mentality and the government policies feed off one another, for better or worse.
Yes, there was a downside with regard to convenience. Stockholm and London charge automobiles for driving into downtown (of course, both have good public transport systems). So this is a downside, but the upside is less traffic congestion. Their priority is cleaner air. Our priority is convenience. Ok, fine. But the public has no right to whine when the natural consequence of its desires plays out.
We need to stop pretending that citizens are innocent victims in all this. They make choices as consumers. They make demands of their political leaders. Or they don't make demands of their political leaders. What we're seeing is the result of decisions made in past decades. There's no quick fix, which I know is not politically popular. But until people realize this, they are just going to have to suffer with higher energy costs. There really isn't any other way around this.
Cheers.
Post a Comment