State of the Union

I didn't get to see the State of the Union, but I did get to read a transcript of it, and I am disappointed (but not really surprised) by the token section on the environment. It seems that Bush is most concerned with reducing US dependency on foreign oil -- a valid concern, but somewhat missing the point. Replacing foreign fuels with domestic fuels won't make a bit of a difference for climate change if 2 things don't happen: reducing our overall consumption and switching to sustainable, renewable energy sources.

On the bright side, Bush at least mentioned climate change in this State of the Union, a first for him. And diversifying our fuel sources is important, but his focus on ethanol is misguided. Problems with ethanol include the fact that it doesn't offset very much CO2 since fossil fuels are required in growing plants suitable for ethanol production; as well as estimates that 97% of the area of the US would need to be converted to the growing of plants to produce ethanol in order to fulfil our energy needs. Not a very promising solution, in my opinion.

Bush called for a 20% increase in fuel economy standards for cars in the next 10 years. This is a good step, but is just not enough. It also doesn't address the underlying problem of Americans being overly dependent on their cars. Perhaps a call for increased public transportation and the like would have been more on target.

His most egregious lip service to the environment comes when, in the midst of talking about reducing our demand for fuel, Bush states that we need to step up our domestic oil production. Not a surprise coming from a former oilman, but really, how do you sell that as good for the environment? He didn't even try. Not to mention that increasing our domestic oil production basically involves drilling in ANWR -- the rest of US production peaked in the 70s, and we currently produce only 30% of the oil we consume. Even if ANWR were opened it would produce anywhere from 30 days to a little over a year of oil for the US. The reality is that we don't have options for domestic oil production, period. Its just not there.

Bush says, "America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change." We're not on the verge of technological breakthroughs -- there is no magic machine that will fix all this. We have technological advances that we should be implementing already -- wind and solar power, cogeneration, decentralized energy, passive solar architecture, efficient appliances and transportation -- but we're just not. Plus, it would be folly to depend on technology alone to fix climate change. We also need to come to grips with the fact that we need to consume less, and that technology can only go so far to cut our emissions before we need to make sacrifices in the things we expect out of life. We maybe need to not expect to have 3 cars and a giant house. Maybe we shouldn't expect to take international flights at discount rates. Americans can have a high quality of life without high levels of consumption -- but its not politically savvy to say so.

In any case, I don't expect American culture to change overnight, so blathering on about it probably doesn't help anything. At this point it would be a huge step forward just to push for more dramatic increases in fuel efficiency for cars, and to make a big push forward in renewables. Every little bit helps; lets just hope that that little bit isn't, um, too little.