Bush gas cut wise, but nukes bad & coal not clean
WASHINGTON -- President Bush made some moves tonight in his State of the Union speech.His call for cutting US gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years is not enough, but a rather significant step for him. Bush said he also wants higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, but didn't say how much.
GW said climate change (aka global warming) is a 'serious challenge.' No doubt, but nevertheless it is good to see this President finally catching on to this giant problem. It remains to be seen what his administration will really try to do about it.
Biodiesel, the fuel we use in the VW TDI, and other alternative fuels got mention.
For electricity, Bush seems to be pushing more big energy, big money, and big grid power with unsafe and expensive nuke plants and so-called 'clean' coal. There is no such thing as clean coal.
Despite all the cries about 'terrorism,' US support for nuke power provides a smokescreen excuse for nations such as Iran and North Korea to develop nuke weapons under the guise of energy production.
I am surprised the dems gave Bush so much applause. He doesn't deserve it. It helps prop up a very unpopular and out of touch man to give him too much unearned praise and backing. Many dems were nice to Bush tonight at the House, maybe too nice.
I did notice dem Presidential candiate Rep. Kucinich getting in Bush's ear as he entered the room, then again on the way out!
Sen. Webb (D-VA) was not nice to GW in the dem response speech. Webb's closing line of 'or we'll show him the way' was hard and on target.
I spotted Rep. Grijalva twice, but didn't see Giffords, at least not on the PBS cameras. Sen. McCain was scowling, and Kyl back slapping.
Comments
Did you see the look on the congressman from Iowa when Bush talked about Biofuel and incentives?? the man just about orgasmed! Someone needs to tell him that corn has little place in the new forms of biodeisel. It is just not an efficient form. There are far better sources. If this is truly about energy efficiency, they will not dump tons of subsidies into corn as an alt fuel source.
-- It is very expensive.
-- It makes deadly waste that lasts over 10,000 years that we don't know where to put and no one wants.
-- Nuke power pushes uranium mining, which is very damaging to the land.
-- Some nuke plants (Palo Verde in AZ) have not been well maintained and could be dangerous and possibly melt down or release tons of deadly radiation.
-- Nuke power also provides rogue dictators a smokescreen for development of nuke weapons.
-- There are better, cheaper, cleaner ways to make power that don't bring all these serious problems.
HA! I thought I heard him say it... I was paying attention. LOL Do you depise the man so much that you neglect to hear the words he speaks? That's not to say anything about the truth that he speaks, or not speaks......... but he did say the words. You told me to check it and I did.
After years of denial, I am encouraged GW is moving toward addressing global warming and oil addiction, but it may be too little too late. And his ideas for turning coal into liquid fuel are very flawed.
Bush has made very many mistakes, the biggest being the failed Iraq war, but I am quick to credit him for good moves.
"...even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power." said Bush.
Glad the real electricity solutions are mentioned, but many may have missed it due to 'solar and wind' being sandwiched between bad ideas 'coal and nuclear.'