Posted on 01/22/2007 8:06:07 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
America must do more to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming, President George W Bush will say in the State of the Union address early tomorrow.
Though he will stop short of calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, his speech is a watershed for an administration that has been sceptical about climate change. The annual speech assumes greater importance than some of Mr Bush's previous addresses since he has few remaining opportunities to set the national agenda before he becomes a lame duck president.
Though he will not leave office until January 2009, next year - including his last State of the Union address - will be eclipsed by the battle to find his successor.
Although Mr Bush will talk about Iraq, repeating his determination to put down the insurgency, for once his domestic policy proposals are more keenly awaited than his foreign policy vision.
"I'm going to talk about a bold initiative that really encourages America to become less dependent on oil," Mr Bush said in an interview with USA Today.
Mr Bush is expected to call for higher fuel-economy standards for new cars as well as for greater investment in alternative and renewable fuel supplies, such as ethanol-based alternatives to petrol.
White House aides previewing the speech also suggested that the president will urge Congress to pass measures that would reduce emissions from power stations. "The new technologies I'll be outlining will help us deal with the issue of 'greenhouse gases'," he said.
Though environmental campaigners have pressed the president to commit to a specific target for emissions reduction, Mr Bush maintains that "the way to solve the problem is to promote new technology".
The Bush administration believes that market forces will prove more efficient than government regulation.
The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said: "Carrots work better than sticks."
Mr Bush is responding to Democratic pledges that Congress will act on global warming issues even if the White House does not make the matter a priority.
The Department of Energy's £600 million annual budget for renewable fuel and efficiency programmes has not increased in real terms since Mr Bush took office.
"The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming," said Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. "We want to work with President Bush. But we cannot afford to wait."
The administration has opened new areas of US territory to oil exploration, granting new licenses for oil prospecting in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to increase domestic oil production. But imports still account for 60 per cent of US oil consumption - up from 53 per cent at the start of Mr Bush's presidency.
According to a new poll released by ABC News, 65 per cent of Americans disapprove of Mr Bush's performance - a figure second only to Richard Nixon among presidents since the Second World War.
Yeah, sure - that's why that technique NEVER worked for Reagan. /sarcasm
And probably give the issue MORE attention than it deserves, thereby diverting attention from Iraq
Then why mention it at all? Acting like Al Gore has a point, but not moving in Al Gore's direction, gives Al Gore credence when he should have none.
"I just said there would be incessant Bush bashing. I've already been proven right."
Why does Bush incessantly move the debate into the Dems quadrant of subjects?
He incessantly talk about amnesty for illegal aliens, global warming, new medical entitlement programs, etc right from day 1?
Why doesn't he use the bully pulpit to move the national debate onto OUR ground instead of theirs, where we can't possibly win?
This is a serious thread. Save the bootlicking for the "daily dose" threads where dissent is punished.
Now it would look like Pres. Bush was copying Reagan which would come across as dorky AND it would look like Pres. Bush was trying to compete with Al Gore's so-called expertise which would make him look dorkier.
Then why mention it at all?
Already answered in post #97.
**YAWN**
"**YAWN**"
Such an erudite and well thought out answer.
At least you put more thought into this post than the previous one I responded to.
And poorly at that. You do not answer demagogery with concessions - that only gives it a patina of validity.
You smash it right back.
**YAWN**
You see it as concessions. I don't.
I don't think he should give the Dems the floor on this. I think he should address it. You think he should address it with charts I guess.
I propose we wait and see what he actually SAYS before being definitive one way or the other.
Charts have a way of presenting trends in a manner that those who don't study a sujbect in detail can understand. There are many good graphs available that show the extreme variability of climate over thousands of years - and that put our current climate in perspective.
If he jumps on the global warming BS bandwagon, I'll scream. What kind of backstabbing EX-Republican is he?
"No it's just that YOUR post was far from erudite...too boring to respond to..."
You have a pattern of nonanswers on this this thread.
It's not clever, it's not funny, and it's dishonest.
I made a serious point. By talking about the dems issues, Bush is moving the ball into their court. He advance one conservative idea - he will talk about the Dem issues. When the temporary tax cuts expire, so will the remainder of the Bush legacy.
The closes he will come will be to mention the WoT which isn't stricly speaking a conservative idea, anyway - some dems support it, and some Republicans oppose it.
Of course there are. And there are charts on Iraq, the economy, education, health care...ad infinitum.
My personal opinion is that a chart isn't usually going to dramatically sway the public's perception of an issue.
"I propose we wait and see what he actually SAYS before being definitive one way or the other."
Never mind that the article is about bits that were leaked to the press in advance to gin up some interest in the speech, as always happens. These type of "preview" articles are typically spot-on.
sw
Many times they are tweaked here and there according to media bias.
Yes, I'm looking forward to hearing what the President ACTUALLY says in context, not piecemeal.
You missed my point entirely.
Why is he using the speech to advance Dem ideas at all?
Forcing car makers to make cars with higher fuel efficiency? How conservative.
I'll see in the speech what I expect to see. You'll smile and nod like a good little bot, and make excuses, but on the inside you will know that you have been cheated.
That trend started just before the 2000 election. It was a significant shift in the direction of this website in which the libertarian-minded conservatives were pushed back and the statists seemed to take over. It was like the party leaders had taken some control and wanted to eliminate opinions that weren't in tune with the party's line.
I already answered this several times on the thread. In order to not allow the Dems to be the only ones to speak on the issue. Why should the Dems be allowed to monopolize the airwaves on global warming as they form their new committee?
You'll smile and nod like a good little bot
Yes, yes...it's quite the "erudite" behavior to engage in ad homimen attacks and namecall, isn't it?
So the junk science of global warming is so overwhelming that we can't afford to wait, but there is no need to overhaul the social security system until it goes bankrupt.
" I already answered this several times on the thread. In order to not allow the Dems to be the only ones to speak on the issue. Why should the Dems be allowed to monopolize the airwaves on global warming as they form their new committee?"
Talking about increasing fuel standards and giving global warming the time of day as a viable theory is the utterly wrong approach.
He won't call it junk and bunk, he'll give it credence. Instead of excoriating dems for having another attempt at taxing us into prosperity with more regulations, he'll propose tougher emissions standards which will raise the cost of autos, rather than letting the free market find a solution.
"Yes, yes...it's quite the "erudite" behavior to engage in ad homimen attacks and namecall, isn't it?"
No.
You already took it there when I made a serious point, and you responded with the dimissive *yawn* then claimed I wasn't worthy of response - except a derisive response that is.The *yawn* was an implicit namecall. Referring to you as a 'bot isn't a namecall - it's an observation.
Try again.
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.