Al Hubbard, the economic adviser who’s coordinating the administration’s energy strategy, recently promised that President Bush would produce “headlines above the fold that will knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence.” Every president since Richard Nixon has talked this way, while every year the country slides further into dependency. Mr. Bush’s overpromising has included a forecast that we would all be buying hydrogen-fueled cars in 20 years and his pledge a year ago to rid the country of its addiction to oil.
Still, we must hope that Mr. Bush is serious this time, because we simply cannot continue to hold our national security and the health of the planet hostage to our appetite for fossil fuels.
Instead of using the European model (and that of Liberals here) of scrunching into ever smaller cars and riding buses with poor people who smell of urine, we should direct all of our attention to developing energy sources better than oil and coal -- and much better than solar and wind. I don't know what that may be; possibly fusion, or something not yet invented or discovered. But it needs to be done soon.
I'm considering voting for the 2008 presidential election on a single issue: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, although not for a green or liberal fool who will ask me to curb my lifestyle.
The Times editorial says, "we must hope that Mr. Bush is serious this time." We will know an American president is serious about energy independence when he talks about ONE TRILLION DOLLARS for new energy development. If we succeed, and there's no reason to believe we can't in light of human achievements of the past, the money will be repaid a hundred times.
No comments:
Post a Comment