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.
I love it.
Incessant.
If we criticize Bush for the specifics of what he has said, we are incessant Bush bashers.
Between the Romneyacs and this, I can say, quite frankly, that I have seldom seen such Orwellian posts on FR as I have seen today.
"increasing patrols of the US Mexican border..."
****
LOL... Here in Arizona there some increased patrols because people in the border states have been SCREAMING for them for several years. And what do we get? Unarmed National Guardsman? If it wasn't for the Minutemen making a ruckus, Bush would continue to have paid lip service to "border security".
That's the problem.
He may as well "address" the imminent invasion of earth by space aliens from Vulcan.
Actually, if you look at the posts above, you will see very little discussion of any specifics of what Pres. will say. (He hasn't even said anything yet BTW and he is being bashed.)
There are very few specific proposals in this article. There is more of a general Bush-bash going on, not an argument on specifics.
Thank you devolve, you don't do badly yourself, lol.
Stick it to the folks, GWB.
Sure. Let's use the Global Warming lie to put Hugo, Mahmoud and the Saudis out of business. I'm cool with that.
you do more of a variety of graphics
W's daddy did the same thing.
If you think about it. Daddy was in the White house for 12 years. Clinton was in the White House for 8 years. Little Bush will be in the White House for 8 years and is setting up Hilldabeast and the Traitor for another 8 years.
2 families with a total of 36 years in
the White House and our countries
freedom is being destroyed.
Global warming is
communist BS.
We each have our own expertise and style of posting. You can't be beat for style of posting.
Read The New American much? I've never seen a bigger crock of shit in my life.
Yeah, it's better not to ruffle feathers and just get along with the Dims and envirowackos. Nevermind standing on principle and bluntly proclaiming global warming is a scam.
This is exactly why conservatives are frustrated with Bush and the GOP.
Methinks some folks want to turn FR into a full fledged Republican website. GOP'ers allowed only. Why not, its already halfway there.
And You Sir have just hit upon what is actually going on!
Read this weekends news and connect the dots.
Chavez, Ahmadinajahd Et Al have openly declared that they want to destroy us. Saudia Arabia is flooding the market and prices are dropping in an effort to stave off Iran,Veuzuela and Russias leveraging power
The one thing we dont see eye to eye on is that it appears Saudi is on our side, prolly for protection
"So we therefore capitulate logic and reason to political expendiency."
That's the new GOP way.
Pander for power.
When in power, pander some more.
Lose Power.
Repeat Process.
Pres. Bush won't because he is not a scientist. He himself can't do detailed examinations to prove or disprove something that's up to the scientific community.
Until it's been proven one way or the other he's wise to speak on it since it is obviously a political issue, but not propose much which is what he's doing.
Imagine the outcry if this had been
"America must do more to reduce its dependence on foreign cars!"
Silly as it sounds, it would make as much sense.
Should we exhaust our own oil supplies, or should we buy oil on the world market, until such time (if ever) those supplies are depleted, and THEN focus on our own oil?
In the meantime, we don't even do the simple things, like cutting the import duty on ethanol to give U.S. drivers a break!
Let me get your political philosophy straight.
When in doubt, pander.
A pretty simplistic statement.
I don't regard addressing a political issue that could gut the American economy if the Dems are the only ones talking as pandering.
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.