Hooray for Pres. Bush!

[TomF]

Seriously.

BBC's reporting him to have outlined a variety of ideas to help reduce US oil consumption, and in general start to make a move away from fossil fuel dependency.

All I've read is the BBC blurb, so I'm sure that there are hiccups in the actual proposals ... but maybe he delivered a different message to Saudi Arabia than we credited him with.

Good on you, George W.

... Karen, you're allowed to say that reducing fossil fuel consumption is a good idea now ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4491711.stm

[ 04-27-2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[Meerkat]

Did they mention that he thinks that most of his drop in popularity is due to high gas prices and that rehashing his old plans (which is what he's done) is about as likely to fly in Congress as it did last time? (it didn't!).

[TomF]

Nope ... that didn't seem to come up ...

[ljb5]

Reduce oil consumption and move away from fossil fuel dependency?

That's not what he said.

He said building new oil refineries on old military bases, increase natural gas drilling and give $2 Billion for coal development.

Also, he wants to drill in Alaska and he asked Saudi Arabia to increase oil production.

Gee, it's almost as if he likes the fossil fuel industry.

The last new oil refinery in the U.S. was opened almost 30 years ago. If Bush gets his new refineries on military bases, how long do you think they will last?

Will someone please explain to me how new oil refineries, which could last for more than 30 years are going to help us move away from oil?

[ 04-27-2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Meerkat]

Don't forget the offer of insurance for the nuclear industry - sure to please his big engineering firm friends...

[kenkongs]

He did mention that technology was our way out of oil dependency. I am sure we are on our way, what with underfunding No Child...

[Ian McColgin]

The sole measure that might reduce oil dependency is a tax break for efficient diesel powered luxury SUV's.

[TomF]

I dunno, lads, he also seems to have announced incentives for green cars and for ethanol fuel.

Not a world-leader in this perhaps, but at least some steps in the right direction?

[km gresham]

You don't understand, Tom. If this President single handedly solved the oil problem, eliminated the need for oil and turned all the oil fields into wildflower fields and old growth forrests it would never be enough to silence his critics. Shoot, they wouldn't draw breath before slamming him for putting all those poor middle eastern oil workers out of jobs! :rolleyes: :D

[Mrleft8]

I thought you were going to say that he finally learned to tie his own shoes...

[huisjen]

Shrub: So yer highness, any chance you could pump oil faster for us?

Abdulla: As oil runs out, the price will rise. The longer we hold onto the oil, the more we'll get when we sell it. We have no incentive to pump faster. And you can't threaten us either. Remember Desert Storm when we supplied all the gas your father's forces wanted for free? No gas means no forces. And the other end of this leash in my hand is attached to a piano wire choke collar around you testicles.

Shrub: Whatever you say, Sir.

[Norman Bernstein]

The most surprising thing about President Bush's statements about energy policy was that there were no surprises... it was more or less a rehash of the policies he tried to pass back in his first term.

There is a pretty good argument to be made for more refinery capacity... from all I've read, lack of refining capacity is part of the short term problem... and building more refineries is a short term solution, not the 'big picture' solution. Building them on old military bases is fundamentally a way around the NIMBY problem.

There's also a fairly reasonable argument to be made for more nuclear energy (the US decidedly lags the rest of the world in reliance on nuke energy), but for me to be enthusiastic, he'd have to 1) resolve the spent fuel storage problem, which he still hasn't done, and 2) abandon the notion of federally insuring nuclear plants against disaster. The latter is particularly odious... why should the nuclear industry get a pass? The few nuclear accidents we've had have actually been the fault of the utilities running them... and the possibility of a massive financial meltdown in the event of an accident is what will keep those plants safe... exempting them from that penalty is an invitation to shortcuts... and meltdowns.

As for more drilling, especially in ANWR, the relatively small proven reserves there aren't going to make a dent in the problem. I'm on the fence with regard to the environmental concerns... not happy about potentially trashing one of the last pristine wildernesses, but other Alaskan drilling hasn't been all that bad. The far bigger problem is related to transport and spills in harbors.

All in all, it's more of the same from the President... no new thoughts or initiatives.

[RichKrough]

political idealogues, thier glass is either full or empty............. :rolleyes:

I seldom agree with the President but yesterday he was right on the money with his proposal for nuclear energy.Nuclear Energy for the production of Electric power makes sense economically and environmentally
Jimmy Carter said exactly the same thing 28 years ago I hope President Bush has better luck with Congress than Jimmy did. Unfortunately the likely scenario is the GOP will use it as a club to beat the Democrats over the head who will in turn dig in thier heels and nothing ever gets done. As a result we will all continue to kiss saudi asses to save 5 cents on a gallon of gas redface.gif

.

[huisjen]

Nuclear energy makes all kind of sense if you want to give Al Qaeda yet another target. From a defense point of view, there are just too many stages at which nuclear materials could be used to hurt us. The handling systems for dealing with the running powerplants and the spent waste can never be robust enough at a reasonable cost.

Dan

[Victor]

No nukes. So much for that policy. Tell the truth, I'm surprised Bush hasn't come out in favor of them. Not only would it be statesmanlike to get people off their ruts about nuclear power, it would also benefit his constituents.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

No hits.
No runs.
No errors.
Looks like that old second term Republican tail spin again.

Charlie