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.
Thanks you for you post. I'm fully aware of the North American Union nonsense.
Please take a look at this Hannity & Colmes video and be aware that conservative talk radio is in the cross hairs of the Dem's.
Far closer to Reagan than to GHWB.
Thanks
I feel you are right. This is not a popular notion, you know. I think this concept is not one people would like to believe, it offers no hope. One of the reasons I fear you are correct is that to speak of it brings on severe animosity and a denouncement that you are nuts. If some choose to think prior to the attack on you, they will see how the pieces fit, and why then, should it be that a calm discussion cannot follow. To merely discuss this concept as plausible, should not be a reason for attacks. America is suffering from blind faith. Good luck to you for the day.
The fact the even mentions global warming is caving into the idiots. What ever happened to the guy who refused to sign Kyoto? I guess he went away, kind of like the caving Arnold in CA did, only milder.
Total nonsense. He twisted my words. I didn't say anything about appreciating anything.
I'm curious as to why it is still unacceptale to be critical of W? I could understand it during the '04 election and even the '06 election to a certain extent, but if we aren't vocal about his obvious flaws, then we will get stuck with another like him next time. We had some great successes in gun rights, tort reform, judges, taxes, economy, and foreign policy, but we never drilled domestically, we never got vouchers, no dice on personal accounts for SS, he signed McCain/Feingold, he lied to us about Rumsfeld staying on as SecDef, he instituted the most ridiculous rules of engagement for our troops on the ground, he couldn't stop a leak with a 55 gallon drum of JB Weld, etc. If you can't see that the guy has botched some stuff while doing some great stuff, then perhaps the problem does not lie with those of us you consider "bashers".
Look at the Dems. They have core beliefs on most issues and if there is dissent, they actually drum people out of their party to maintain discipline. This is so powerful that even the mighty Rodham has been demonstrated against. The Dems wanted a full blown leftist lgislature and they got it. Those "centrist" democrats from the midwest are nowhere to be found now, are they?
The Republican Party lacked discipline and vision and it lost its majority. We simply can't win if we won't fight like our opponents. If the next candidate we put forth isn't on the order of Newt or some other unabashed right winger (Walter Williams would be my pick), then we are all screwed.
This is a smokescreen, they don't need more exploration off the coast of FL to beging drilling now. The fact is the oil that has been discovered off the coast of FL is inaccessable due to the fact the greenies won't allow it and our government caves into them. Saying they are allowing more exploration doesn't mean anything if finding more oil means we simply sit on it the way we are now.
No problem with criticism.
It's incessant bashing I was speaking of. For example, jumping all over the Pres. in response to this article, BEFORE the President actually speaks and even though IF the article is true, he is proposing very little.
It's the ugliness of taking the opportunity at every turn to bash the President. You may be not be guilty of this...I don't know. But plenty of small-minded and ugly people are...mostly because they are eating up every anti-Bush morsel the MSM feeds them even though they claim to hate the media. What a laugh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't oil prospecting include drilling?
Bush is letting the global warming camel's nose into the tent here.
And this is hardly a trivial matter. The left seeks to use a global warming agenda to hamstring the American economy to make other countries stronger.
The criticism from the right regarding lending credence to the notion of man-made global warming stems from our belief that global warming is a scam perpetuated by socialists to fundamentally change our country and hinder our pseudo free market. One needs to look no further than Europe and their carbon taxes and fees for driving in Paris on smoggy days to prove this.
No, you're correct. You didn't say anything about appreciating. HE did in his question, which you haven't answered. Paging Rod Sirling. (Oh, I know, you didn't say anything about the twilight zone, either)
Are you one of those who believe Pres. Bush shouldn't speak on the topic, despite the fact that the Dems have created a committee on global warming and are about to demagogue the topic during the next 2 years?
Do you want the Dems and the MSM to be the only ones to speak on this topic?
Why in the world would I entertain a question which twists my original point?
Oh, I believe he should speak on the topic.
He should show that there is serious debate as to whether warming is human-caused.
He should pull out a climate history chart, similar to the kind of charts Reagan used to make his point, where people can see that climate is truly variable over time, long before the internal combustion engine was developed.
He should point out that the Senate voted 96-0 back during the Clinton years to not accept a treaty like Kyoto that exempted developing nations.
He should make it clear that the underlying agenda of folks such as Al Gore are to reduce American standards of living in the name of global economic parity.
But he's caving on this subject instead.
He has mentioned that in the past and I would be surprised if he did not mention it in the SOTU.
He should pull out a climate history chart
No, this would make him look foolish, as though he's attempting to be an expert on global warming. I don't think he should set himself up as a conservative Al Gore. That would just look dorky. (And probably give the issue MORE attention than it deserves, thereby diverting attention from Iraq).
And I don't think he's caving. Again, he's proposing very little, just pre-empting the Dems in their attempt to demagogue the issue.
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.