Horizons Online Edition

"America is addicted to oil," President Bush admitted in his State of the Union Address on Jan 31, 2006. One must consider the weight that these words have coming from a former oil executive. This particular portion of his speech has won some praise, but there has also been some criticism. President Bush is taking a step in the right direction, but is it enough?

Let's take a closer look at the details of the president's Advanced Energy Initiative. In the State of the Union, Bush called for a 22% increase in clean-energy research for buildings and vehicles.

"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," he said. He added that we must change how we power our automobiles, by looking into alternative energy sources.

In particular, President Bush cited better batteries for hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel cells, and further research into ethanol. All these technologies are available today, but they lack the efficiency to make them viable for the entire country. A safe and reliable hydrogen fuel cell driven car is highly desired due to almost zero emissions and the theoretical availability of fuel.

For his 2007 budget proposal, President Bush outlined specific areas he wanted research money allocated. $281 million dollars would go for developing clean coal technologies, plus a further $54 million for a private sector project to trap carbon dioxide in geological formations. He asked for $148 million for research into solar power. A further $44 million was given to research into wind energy. For automobiles, President Bush made a massive push for hydrogen research at $289 million. Finally, #30 million and $150 million were allocated to plug-in hybrids and ethanol research respectively.

So, in total, President Bush is asking congress for $996 million dollars, or to make things a little easier, roughly one billion dollars. This budget of one billion dollars is supposed to help the US reduce emissions and cut back on our Middle Eastern oil imports by 75% by 2025. To me, that seems a little far-fetched. It is going to take a massive effort, by the entire country to cut our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels. While some may argue that the first step to curing an addiction is to admit that it exists, is it prudent for us to say we just want to reduce oil consumption?

Sweden and Iceland both have plans on the table to be completely free of oil consumption well within the first half of the century. Iceland, a country literally built on a geological hotspot is poised to become one of the world's largest exporters of hydrogen.

This is an area the United States cannot afford to lose ground in by doing things only half way.

The Sierra Club released a statement that I think sums up the problem. "When you have an addiction you don't say 'I'll try to kick the habit in 10 or 20 years,'" the statement read. President Bush is giving the problem some thought, but at the same time is ultimately passing the problem on to someone else.

Its time for some real environmental responsibility, not "We'll try to reduce the problem in the next 20 years." Nonetheless, I do applaud the president for even standing in front of congress and talking about energy problems. At least it's the beginning of America's wake up call.

Article Tools