In energy policy, a major part of his address, Mr. Bush promoted the construction of nuclear power plants and renewed a call for the development of alternative fuel for automobiles, including ethanol, which is made from corn, as well as the development of fuel made from the waste of plant crops.
Energy analysts also said Mr. Bush's goal to replace 75 percent of America's Mideast oil imports by 2025 was not as meaningful as it appeared because the bigger suppliers to the United States are Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.
But for Mr. Bush, the emphasis on reducing foreign dependence on oil, particularly in the often volatile Persian Gulf, reflected a critical political dynamic this year: Republicans have been increasingly alarmed that escalating gas and home heating prices could prove a major issue in Congressional elections this year, particularly as oil companies are reporting record profits.
Well, I wonder just how much he wants to spend?
(Ummm...holy shit with that last link...which was ostensibly a transcript...
[ Background: The policy of ending tyranny was set forth in his second inaugural address, in Jan. 2005. ]
Huh? Is the propaganda so embedded into speeches that nebulous ideas like "ending tyranny" aren't even in quote marks in editorial hyperlinks?
Oh, wait...here's what I was looking for:
The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. And we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative, a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies and clean, safe nuclear energy.
Oil's how we feed ourselves. So, other than a symbolic gratuitious reference to genitalia, I was wondering just how this initiative compares to the space program...
Well...it turns out in 2005 dollars putting a man on the moon ran us roughly $135 billion.
And that ain't much.
Here's a thought that's been in my head since college days: if anybody could provide the energy savings or generation without being so capital intensive as oil, nuclear, and utilities, they would potentially be able put some really connected out of business, who would fight tooth and nail against it.
Which is why that kind of research is what's needed.