Typical pundit response to Bush's State of the Union address and oil usually pointed out something like the following:
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Analysis: State of the Union:
"Reacting to last night's speech, Jason Mark, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: 'We could save more than 75% of Middle East oil imports within ten years by increasing the fuel economy of our cars and trucks to 40 miles per gallon. The investments in renewable fuel technologies the president proposed will pay important dividends down the road. But you can't transform transportation by research alone. We need aggressive policies now to wean ourselves off oil.'"
But I remember another State of the Union, delivered decades ago by Jimmy Carter. Carter emphasized conservation and the search for alternative fuels and began-- and funded-- several programs to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Results, on the alternative fuels front, were small at first but certainly held promise; results on the conservation front were immediate and dramatic. The 55 mph speed limit helped break the Arab oil embargo and stabilize prices.
Carter received only the shrillest of blame for these events. With the Republicans a welcomed minority, the Democrats are the blame, along with criminal manipulation of the Iran hostage situation by Reagan traitors, for Carter losing the presidency to Reagan, thanks to the ceaseless backbiting of Carter by members of his own party.
Reagan, bowing to his corporate bosses, immediately begins disassembling the synth-fuels programs and attacking conservation efforts. If the nation had stuck with the Carter plan, we would be energy self-sufficient today and free from the leech marks of the Middle East, so is Bush channeling Carter to make Reagan look bad?
Sounds like a good idea to get circulating around Wingnutia.
No comments:
Post a Comment