To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more efficient technology.Well, I'll give him credit, his proposals don't smack of loony-left socialism. It's collectivism, all right, and I still don't think it's necessary, but at least the yoke will be easy and the burden light, compared to miserable things like Kyoto and carbon-rationing schemes.
What IIIIIIIII would do, on the other hand, is to make all carbon-based fuels (including biofuels) international, investable commodities (which should probably happen, anyhow). Growing demand would drive the prices upward, and, along with the encouraged drilling and mining of the resources, people would naturally gravitate toward greater efficiency and other, non-carbon resources. Furthermore, this solution would be market-based, rather than centrally planned.
Not bad. There already is a natural gravitation toward greater efficiency because it clearly saves money, and as energy costs increase, there will be more pressure in the efficiency direction.