Bush's State of the Union Energy Remarks - Now You See Them . . .

Just normal politics.

So, in other words, Bush continues his strategy of assuming the mass of voters will take him on confidence when he says he's going to do something, and that the only people to actually call him on it will be writing for online news services that practically nobody reads (because practically nobody reads), and maybe Jon Stewart.

I was actually excited to hear Bush talk about new sources of energy. It's been a common thing for him to bring up since his first year in office, but he's never really meant it. Obviously, he didn't mean it this time, either. I was wondering how he was gonna deal with his oil constituents.

It's the same old song: say what you're going to do, then don't do it, then blame obstructionist Democrats.

Or just shout "9/11!" over and over.

It reminds me of how happy I was to finally learn the difference between responsibility (taking ownership of a problem) and accountability (being completely forthcoming about what you did or didn't do).

And it reminds me of how infuriating it is to watch BushCo occasionally do the former -- but never, ever do the latter.

This is why I watched cable television instead of the State of the Union address. Why spend my evening watching Bush promise the political equivalent of vaporware?

I think that these innovations need to come from the private sector, not government agencies. I don't feel it's the governments job to develop technologies that we will all rely on. They didn't invent the process of burning fossil fuels, and they shouldn't be responsible for inventing new energy sources.

private sector is making $$ off of forcing oil down our throats, they have no desire to switch yet.
Anyone catch the news that some senators are looking into anti-competitive practices by big oil to keep E85 off the market?

Our gov't has f$#$ed up in the Middle East, now we are paying the consequences.

Private sector has all the reason to research and develop something different. Money is exactly it. The oil companies know there isn't much of this stuff left, they need to find something so they can keep making money.

You can't think they are just going to bleed the plant dry, and then say "now what"

It's also good to remember that Saudi Arabia is the only Middle Eastern country among the top five importers of crude oil to the U.S. It's third behind Canada and Mexico:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/totimportsby_country.htm

Slate.com has some excellent reporting on Bush's speech at
http://www.slate.com/id/2135236/nav/tap2/ and http://www.slate.com/id/2135238/?nav=fo

Some oil companies do spend money on alternative fuels research, Artemis. BP Amoco is one, it seems. That said, it can't hurt for the government to give them some encouragement. The availability of alternative fuels is a public good, and it's not always good business to provide a public good -- if an oil company funds research into alt-fuels, they might want to keep it to themselves. If the government funds it, maybe we can all use the information they find.

The kicker for me in NebulaClash's post, though, is excerpt #3. The president quotes a percentage to the American people, and then the next day his cabinet says he didn't mean it literally? Like 75% is such a powerful metaphor. Maybe our leaders are always going to lie to us, but could they at least assume we have half a brain?

great stuff, NebulaClash!

One explanation for Bush's bizarre behavior that people seem to have neglected to mention ...

... he has no brain left. It has all been vaporized by all the alcohol and drugs.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. Plus, the pre-senility dementia thing just looks more and more plausible every time the guy opens his mouth. Many posters commented on the odd look in the Bono/handshale photo this AM. The guy is off his rocker.

Nebula, the article you cited for the Wednesday report didn't correctly state what President Bush had said in his speech. It was never mentioned in the State of the Union the he was cutting imports from the Middle East by 75% - the actual text read: "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." This is essentially what was stated by his office to reporters in the conference call: "What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025."

I don't see how you can still claim you are correct when you quote out of context to support your argument: "and he really did call for a 75 percent reduction (which was then called "not literal" the next day). So my article is overall correct..."

I fail to see any difference between "displacing an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025" and calling for a 75% reduction that would be reason to call his claim false. In the excerpt quoted, President Bush never stated that he would cut imports of Middle Eastern oil by 75%. While you may argue the specifics of his proposal (I have not seen them, and cannot defend him on those points), attempts at discrediting his comments because of erroneous information in a newspaper article is both unjustified and sensationalist.

Also, please refrain from posting links to obviously biased news sites. As the writer of this article has made clear (http://nebulaclash.newsvine.com/_news/2006/01/25/70443-a-plea-for-political-sanity-on-newsvine), please try to present an unbiased site if you are under the impression that it contains more news than partisan views.

For those interested, here is a fact sheet on the State of the Union. It has only tangential relevance to the current news story: http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Exhibits/stateUnion.pdf

Sorry Nebula, the last post was in regards to the posting of the Slate article.

As for the 75% business, I think it's actually rather straight forward. Besides being misquoted in the news article by Knight Ridder news, the President and the members of his staff recieving the conference call both pushed the same information - a majority of Middle Eastern oil could be replaced by 2025 by alternative energy sources. There are no deviations from this statement in either of the mentions from the White House.

I agree with Artemis Pender. The Federal Government doesn't have any business being in business. The private sector and market forces will always move towards what people ultimately want, if they are left free to do so.

Nicolas, that was an interesting link - thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'm not sure if they were broadcasting sports in HD in 2004, but apparently they were broadcasting the State of the Union in HD :)

In response to Kevin Bae:
The problem with market forces is that they never seem to work exactly the way economists predict them to. Theory is based on the idea that everyone will act in their best interests - rarely does this ever happen. The barriers to entry into new fields of research and development are exhorbitantly high, making it extremely costly and risky at the very least to the largest players in field. These companies find it difficult to justify billions of dollars in research funds when their stock holders won't see any benefits for years down the road, if even then.

It was mentioned in the State of the Union how government funding helped create technology which is used the the iPod, one of the more popular music players of the day (I believe he referred to the development of the solid-state memory used in them, research and development of which was partially funded by the government). Government subsidies have provided for everything from the transcontinental railroad (paid for by the government) to the highway system (built and maintained by government money) to the internet (originally developed by DARPA and called the Arpanet). From commodities to luxuries (which become commodities), government funding plays a large role in many goods and services we enjoy today. The provision of subisidies to energy companies will provide them the ability to conduct new research without taking the huge financial risks that would otherwise be demanded of them.

@Kevin & Artemis Bender: The idea for basic energy research is similar to the current system of health and medical research. The NIH (National Institutes of Health), a division of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, is the single largest source of funding for medical research in the US. It funnels money to the universities, colleges and affiliated laboratories which are responsible for most of the advances in medicine and health we enjoy today. It's yearly budget is over $25 billion and much of it goes to support research in areas of basic science which have no immediate prospect of commercialization, no guarantee of positive or useful results, and therefore no reason for businesses to risk investing in.

These are the kinds of projects governments have always been involved in, from the funding of the great explorers in the 15th century to the development of the Internet and satellite-based communications last century. The research and development involved in creating alternate ways to sate our energy gluttony is too large for energy-related businesses to undertake all on their own, and too potentially-damaging to there own interests. We've all heard the urban myth about the 300 mile per gallon engine quashed by the energy industry, and while it is just a myth (I believe), it illustrates the natural response to changes in core business exhibited by most industries. (Look at the reactions of the movie and music industries to changes in their business for another example.)

While its nice to fantasize about the free market as a panacea, it's just a batch of rhetoric and none of us would want to live in a world where every advance in science and health was subject to the profit motives of business.