|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by In an abrupt change in tone, President Bush was reported as saying that if Americans are able to avoid going 'on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful.'
It has long been this administrations stance that increasing oil supply is the primary means to deal with the nation's energy deficits. The recent Energy Bill, passed by Congress, provides government subsidies to petroleum companies to increase offshore development and exploration. Perhaps prior comments by the Vice President best sum up this administrations view of the issue, 'Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy.'
While the Presidents statements don't signal a shift in policy, it does signify the seriousness of the problem. The question remains, if the President feels the need to ask Americans to change their habits, why not the automotive industry? Is it fair to ask the American people to bear the burden that could be easily remedied by the private sector for profit? When does conservation become sound energy policy?
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (17)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
0 Nerd-Its
Stay Home Bush
I think Bush should quit running down to survey damage on the Gulf Coast every few days. (All he wants to do is have his picture taken with his sleeves rolled up..doing all kinds of bogus things.) He feels guilty that he didn't show up when he should'a down there. So, now for the past couple of weeks or so, he has been flying down there and back to Washington every other day. He's telling US not to travel unnecessarily. Airforce One burns up almost $7,000 in fuel every hour it is in the sky. Stay home and forget the photo ops...save energy. You can help the American people more that way.
This comment has 5 replies.
RSS
Apples and oranges by romanizzo :: NR6 :: Show
The difference between hinting at Americans driving just a little less and dictating that the automotive industry increase fuel economy is enormous. Really, the burden of walking 1/4 (or even, God forbid, a whole) mile to the Stop'N'Go to get a can of Copenhagen is no burden at all. Thinking ahead and only going to the grocery store twice a week instead of four times a week probably doesn't affect peoples lives adversely, either. But raising the average fuel efficiency of cars would raise the cost of vehicles by at least a few grand (I think, can we get some smart guy in here to confirm?) which would not only influence the automotive industry, but would also have a significant impact on the average citizen's life.
What I would love to see from the President (this one or the next) is some encouraging propaganda to not buy a large vehicle if you don't need one (a la our last fuel economy discussion.)