Posted on 02/06/2006 12:05:44 PM PST by presidio9
When President Bush talked about environmentally responsible energy in his State of the Union speech, it was a surprise to a lot of folks. He was supposed to be a patsy or a puppet for Big Oil, according to his enemies, who grumbled that he was playing against type. But, as one political consultant said to me, "If Bush was actually a pawn of the oil industry, he would never have said that. He would not want people to even begin to think about alternate forms of energy." The harsh and sometimes daunting truth is that, like everything else in politics, the idea often precedes its execution by a number of years. That's even true for a former oil man President who's been thinking about America's "addiction" to fossil fuels.
But once a President emphasizes something, it either begins to grow in the air or fall from it. The idea cannot remain stationary. What Bush proposes, however, cannot come from America alone, nor can it come unless there is a revolution in car manufacturing, the industry that has been so, so important to oil profits from the beginning of the 20th century. Oil, cars, freeways and roads have plaited themselves together, and it will take a tremendous effort to pull them apart.
The President called for "safe, clean nuclear energy," and that's going to require another revolution - this one in the minds of the American citizenry. This has already taken place in France, which refused to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. That led to 56 working nuclear plants, generating three quarters of the country's electricity. Unlike Americans, the French people do not see a mushroom cloud every time the word "nuclear" is uttered and they know the difference between plants built for energy and plants built to make weapons.
Yet another revolution - this one in China - could make the President's job much easier. China could change the direction of the international car industry by demanding cars that do not use gasoline. Over the next 20 years, the Chinese will buy somewhere between 100 million and 500 million cars, which would have the potential to wreck its ecology.
If alternative fuel sources were required, automakers would not be able to resist the huge profits. As a woman close to the car industry says, "They would try to innovate fast enough to bring about the chance [for monumental profits] as close to overnight as possible." Once the better idea becomes profitable, it finally has a chance of taking over.
Like it or not, that is a law of capitalism that never changes.
China should be the linchpin in George W. Bush's campaign to free us of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
If the money Bush vows to spend on researching nuclear energy produces information that can change the American mind, and if the necessary shuttle diplomacy alerts China to the overwhelming influence it can have on environmentally responsible energy policies the world over, the historical significance of the Bush presidency would be as great as any since World War II.
From automakers. I guess you think the Chinese will invent one? And if the Chinese do invent one, won't Americans buy it?
Won't that fix our "addiction" to oil?
The notion of "China-as-savior" doesn't sit well with me.
Maybe he said all that, knowing that will be no viable, cheap form of energy in the near future.
That is the Bush initiative to change our balance of payments with China. We export clean coal technology etc. As for care, they are already coming, and coming, and coming. Flex fuel; and hyrids on the way.
That is the Bush initiative to change our balance of payments with China. We export clean coal technology etc. As for care, they are already coming, and coming, and coming. Flex fuel; hydrogen-powered, and and hyrids on the way.
Assuming the Chinese did invest one, it would still cost more than an internal combustion gasoline engine. Think there is a market for that in China? The only way this could ever happen is if we subsidized it be lowering tariffs and sharing technology. No thanks.
NUCLEAR NOW!
I've heard six years, that's not too far out in space.
This is just silly. As we shift from direct hydrocarbons into other forms of energy, you can bet that the oil companies will be right there all the way. The oil companies are "energy companies". If the US suddenly went to alcohol-driven cars universally, Exxon would buy Archer Midlands Daniel in a heartbeat.
We been told since the 70's, that our energy problems are being addressed by the govt.
I've been told it's a year and half from even being street legal over here. Once they get it street legal here, then they have to begin product improvement. I think it will take them at least a decade to come up with something on the level of the Ford Escape Hybrid.
And every president since, has been addressing the energy problem....nothing yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.