Bush vs. Cheney
by matt at 7:00 am on April 29th, 2005 in Bush Man Date, CheneyShortly after taking office, Vice President Dick Cheney made this now-infamous remark about energy policy:
“Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”
In his press conference on Thursday night, the President said:
To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps.
First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy. And secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power. Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen, ethanol or bio-diesel. Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more efficiently and reduce global demand of fossil fuels.
It’s hard to figure out what’s going on here. Cheney says conservation plays no part whatsoever, and Bush puts it at the head of his list. Bush made his remarks in demanding that the Senate pass his energy plan by the summer. Conservation is not a significant factor in that plan, coal is in no way “environmentally sensitive,” we still haven’t found a long term solution for storing nuclear waste that has been piling up for 30 years, and almost no attention is being paid to alternative energy sources by this administration. Their energy package is nothing more than a thinly-disguised tax cut plan for the same oil and gas giants that are currently reporting record profits because of their ability to gouge consumers at the pump. All in a bill that even the President grudgingly admits will not reduce skyrocketing gas prices.
The CEO President and the “grown-up” whose job it is to keep things on track.
Jim wrote:
matt,
I’m no supporter of this administration. however, cheyney’s quote didn’t say that “conservation plays no part whatsoever.” he said it was insufficient. they are miles apart. the deeper truth is that if conservation isn’t the whole answer (I agree), cheney and friends have don’t zero. so you should quibble with his actions, not his words.
another stupendous lie/mistake that you passed over is that hydrogen isn’t a fuel source. there are no vast untapped deposits of hydrogen. 95%+ of hydrogen that is used for various commercial purposes comes from reforming natural gas, oil and coal.
get a lesson:
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
Posted 29 Apr 2005 at 7:52 pm ¶
matt wrote:
“First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy.”
If it’s insufficient (and I certainly question that) then why was it listed first in the President’s list?
Increasing CAFE standards on new cars even a few miles would eclipse all the oil thought to be in ANWR, and raising them more could be an integral part of a responsible energy plan that wasn’t a giveaway to big oil.
And this is a bipartisan fuck up, Dem Sens Levin and Stabenow are guilty of catering to the big 3 automakers on CAFE standards.
I will quibble with his actions and words. They have no intention to do anything that lessens our dependence on oil. They have rewarded all of their campaign contributors, and never denied any of them what they seek. The interests of big energy are favored over the interests of the citizens of this country.
Fair enough about hydrogen, but I’m confident that if there was a sufficient government and/or private industry crash program coupled with a serious rise in fuel efficiency standards, we would all be in a better spot than we are now.
Posted 29 Apr 2005 at 8:03 pm ¶
bush wrote:
bush suks big d*****
Posted 10 Jan 2006 at 7:22 am ¶