2007/05/15

An Old Climate Plan Is New Again

So the President's got a new plan
That should put a crimp in demand
And in doing so foil
Our huge thirst for oil
Over a decade long span

But where was the word "conservation"
A push to avoid the gas station
Nowhere it seems
The plan's central theme
Is alternative fuels for the nation

So the plan is all just a scam
And Bush's words mostly a sham
Because what Big Oil craves
Is for us to behave
And to burn all the fuel that we can

Bush is recycling his nonsensical State of the Union remarks. The only difference now is that his 17 month timetable may allow the administration to derail California's push to regulate vehicle emissions on it's own.

18 Comments:

Artificial time tables
And States' rights be damned
For Bush Is Only Pro
Things that help his friends
I;d rather have Democratic big government than completely out of control unresponsive, reactionary Republican big government.
WS... Well said.

1138... Though I don't think that the Democrats differ from the 'Thuglicans on many issues, I think that this is one. A Democratic president would be adding conservation to the long list of things we need to do to avoid catastrophe.
I don't even listen to him anymore. It's all BS.
The master of fake initiatives.
I envy your ability to write limerick verse.

Seriously. I really wish I could do it.
kvatch, you wrote:

"A Democratic president would be adding conservation to the long list of things we need to do to avoid catastrophe."

The idea that Congress or the president can or would control the by-products of combustion is too funny. It may be possible to improve the efficiency of the combustion process, but its essential chemistry will not change, no matter how hard a Democratic president stamps his feet.

However, the foolish demands of certain consumer groups and the goofy prescriptions offered by every politician slobbering over a microphone about this issue will fall way short of accomplishing anything. Most ideas will simply die in the Elephant's Graveyard of committee meetings.

First, raising CAFE standards means nothing. If cars get better mileage, drivers will drive farther and more often. History is an incontestable guide on this topic.

There is an element of Wal-Mart here. If you shop at Wal-Mart, where you get more for your dollar, you have money remaining for other purchases. If the government forces car companies to sell high-mpg cars, drivers will have more money for more gas. Unless they're suckered into paying more for the car, which seems to be the case.

Meanwhile, the lunacy of the "carbon caps" will surface soon enough. How much longer will it take before the cost of carbon caps is viewed as simply another tax? Many will willingly pay those added taxes, just as Europeans pay outrageous taxes on their gasoline. We are merely inserting the tax at a different point in the production-and-consumption process of energy.

Expanding ethanol production and use is a good idea. If only because it cuts into oil dependence. Diverisfying our energy sources is smart for a lot of reasons. Not least, it creates new jobs. However, we must do it without blocking imported ethanol or imposing protective tariffs if we want to see a competitive industry arise.

As for your lyrics, well, oil companies don't build cars, buses, trucks, planes, ships, air conditioners, furnaces or any other energy-consuming devices.

In fact, it is delusional to think oil companies have any responsibility for consumption of hydrocarbons. Blaming oil companies for one's personal behavior is simply an act of denial of personal responsibility.

But if I were to accept your view of oil-company responsibility, you would have to admit that the reason oil is so popular is its low cost.
I think that was his attempt to make lemonade out of the lemons without using water or sugar. It meant nothing and as usual nothing will change.
let's just keep sucking that black gold down like a bunch of "holics" and, for some odd reason, be suprised when a california-sized chunk of antarctica melts away.
Did you write that? Very clever.
Great poem! How true the words are!
Very nicely done, Kvatch. Of course this is just a delaying tactic.
...oil companies don't build cars, buses, trucks, planes, ships, air conditioners, furnaces or any other energy-consuming devices.

In fact, it is delusional to think oil companies have any responsibility for consumption of hydrocarbons.


But we're not talking about oil companies, are we? Save for the oblique reference to their interest to keeping consumption high, we're actually talking about Bush, and a plan that contains no mention of conservation, no incentives to spur conservation, in short nothing that would encourage anything but continued unbridled consumption.

As for your remarks about China: Yes, yes a tired horse that you beat every chance you get, but also one that has no bearing whatsoever on what we should be doing to reduce our energy footprint.
Sewmouse... Limericks are generally easier than other verse, but for some reason this one was hard to get right.

Nvisiblewmn... Everything in the BlognonyVERSE (check the right sidebar) is original...and thanks!

Suzie-q, Tomcat... Thanks as well. We'll see soon if this derails CA's initiatives.
kvatch, you wrote:

"Because what Big Oil craves
Is for us to behave
And to burn all the fuel that we can"

Then you wrote:

"But we're not talking about oil companies, are we?"

Well, er, yes. You even said so. But then you tried to distance yourself from your own words when you wrote:

"Save for the oblique reference to their interest to keeping consumption high..."

then:

"we're actually talking about Bush, and a plan that contains no mention of conservation, no incentives to spur conservation, in short nothing that would encourage anything but continued unbridled consumption."

You don't seem to understand that our annual aggregate oil consumption is headed in only one direction, no matter how hard you wish for something else.

You seem to think it's sensible to slow the increase in our oil consumption. But that will only postpone the day when we re-start our nuclear program. As long as oil-based energy is cheaper, we will retain its use. But if MARKET forces push oil prices high enough to offset the benefits of oil, we will move to other energy forms sooner.

That day is pushed further into the future every time we develop better oil technology and improve our oil efficiency.

You are working against your own goals. The only way to assure the switch to alternative fuels is to let the energy market run unfettered.

If people want cars that travel a mile per gallon, well, let them waste their money. Plenty of pleasure boaters go no farther than a mile on a gallon of gas.

In any case, when the Earth's oil reserves are nearly depleted, the cost of oil will have risen enough to cause a switch.

But if the whole world begins to merely sip the supplies, we'll depend on oil for a lot longer. Either way, we're going to burn just about all of it. Fast or slow. What's the difference?

And, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter what presidents say about conservation. Americans won't do it. It's still a free country, which means we are free to drive cars that don't travel far on a gallon of gas.
Even if Bush had the greatest plan in the world it would never work.

He screws up everything he tries.
larry, you wrote:

"Even if Bush had the greatest plan in the world it would never work...He screws up everything he tries."

Are you suggesting that presidents should have the power to control our use of gasoline? Jimmy Carter embarrassed his presidency by begging Americans to wear goofy sweaters and turn down the heat in their homes. That's when the Iranians knew they had an easy mark in the White House.
Our president, mentally ill,
Has no energy strategy still...
Unless it is found
Down there in the ground.
His only solution is "drill".

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link