As for why Bush is doing this… I know this goes against the, “Chimpy McBushitler is the devil” meme that liberals throw around, but George W. Bush is an idealist. A hamfisted, shortighted idealist perhaps, but an idealist nonetheless. He’s not your typical heartless, money-grubbing Republican. This is the guy who sponsored the prescription drug benefit, who increased education funding something like 30% in his first three years, who sponsored the Exploration Vision for NASA, and who has grown the federal government faster than any President in recent memory (even excluding military and homeland security spending). Even the war on Iraq was part of an idealistic belief that he could end tyranny in the middle east and cause democracy to flourish.
I see his energy initiative as more of the same thing. A big, bold plan to change the world for the better. Not that I necessarily think it will, or that government should be in the business of picking technologies and pushing technological solutions. But I think Bush believes it.
Canada is also one of the only oil producing nations where producting is projected to continue increasing over the next 20 years, making it increasingly important to the U.S.
To be less than pc here:
I would much rather be “held over the barrel” by our Democratic and liberal friends to the North than a bunch of Theocracies and Monarchies. Sam, are you talking about the Shale oil fields or the disputed Oil resources in the artic?
There’s a rumor today that Shell has put in a bid to buy Vestas, the largest producer of windmills. So the oil companies are getting ready to diversify into becoming more like energy companies. Good for the future.
BP is also big on biorefinery technologies (January’s Science had a wonderful piece on the future of biorefinery written by a BP employee). Unlike a lot of other industries, these are companies that are looking at their longterm prospects and hedging for the future (as opposed to CEOs looking at this years bottom line only). They know (on the basis of more actual knowledge than anyone else) that there is a real risk that peak oil may be sooner rather than later, and they want to be ready to continue to profit handsomely whenever it occurs.
The petroleum companies have been investing in energy research–including high temperature fusion, hydrogen and methane production, et cetera–for decades. They may be greedy, but they’re not stupid; the person or company that comes in on the ground floor of the next energy revolution stands to make massive profits, and the oil companies are more aware than anyone of the limited availability of oil resources. (Obviously, they’re more interested in forms of energy that can be controlled and sold for profit than strictly renewable sources, but if there’s profit to be made in it, they’ve got a thumb in the pie.)
You are right of course. The Carter sentence was ill place and was referring to government action not corporate research. He had very ambitious plans and there has been very slow follow through.
And yet, despite what is pretty obvious to most folks you continue to think that GW represents ‘conservatives’. This despite the fact that most of the ‘hard-headed realists’ type conservatives (i.e. the non-religious crowd of the Republican party) dislike most of his policies…fiscal and otherwise.
I tend to think of Bush as a Religious Conservative with no economic conservatism. Not 100% true but a good working model.
Now Cheney I just consider an evil, corrupt greedy thief.
Yeah, they sure voted against him in droves in 2004, didn’t they?
“We are shocked – shocked! – that George W. Bush’s policies are leading to the fiscal collapse of the nation! …But that won’t stop us from supporting the man as long as we get our tax breaks.”
Are you sure the Fiscal Conservatives just couldn’t vote for Kerry?
I’m not a Conservative and I have voted for Clinton and Nader in the past. Voting for Kerry was a very very tough Anti-Bush vote. If he had dropped Cheney and added a moderate I may have voted for Bush too. Kerry was a really bad candidate to sway the independents.
:rolleyes: Come on rjung…even you know the answer to this no brainer. Just like a lot of moderates held their nose and voted for Kerry in 2004 (‘Anyone but BUSH!’ ring any bells?), conservatives of various stripes (especially of the fiscal variety) did the same thing. Lesser of two weasles and all that.
