US Energy Policy: "What Me Worry"

 

It may come as a surprise to many but this is National Energy Awareness Month. President Bush, in connection with an energy speech in St. Louis, on October 12 proclaimed October as the month we should all be aware of energy and he suggested a number of programs his administration was either implementing or proposing, to increase energy resources in the future. As the President said “energy is going to help determine whether or not this nation remains the economic leader in the world.” He’s got that right. The President pointed out that his administration had committed nearly $10 billion since 2001 on the development of cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable energy sources. I have done that kind of counting before in government when the word goes out to the bureaucracy to add up all the money, which is already committed to existing programs, that could conceivably be construed as being devoted to the particular challenge at hand and then cumulate it into a nice big impressive number and pretend it is a new initiative. Of course, the $10 billion, you will notice, was “committed” not spent and could be counting expenditures on programs that have already been in place and are projected to continue well into the future.

 

The President said we should reward people for investing in research and development and noted that there was already a tax credit on the books which has to be renewed annually by Congress. His initiative is to make it a permanent tax credit – no new incentive, no new money, just more of the same. He also highlighted another tax credit that is on the books for purchasers of hybrid cars. Unfortunately, since the tax credit does little more than equalize the price (hybrids cost more), the credit has not led to a massive upsurge in the number of hybrids on the road.

 

The President, with a month to go before the mid term elections, gave due emphasis to ethanol which subsidizes the corn growers in the Mid West. This is a technology that may offer promise for the future some ten years from now but is not likely to help very much in the short term, except, of course, for that voting block of Mid West corn growers. The President stressed investment in nuclear technology, but he hasn’t overcome the local opposition to building new plants. He talked about wind energy, which is fine until they want to build a wind turbine in your back yard. And while he talked about research into vehicles that can go the first 40 miles on electricity and tax breaks on hybrids he has not done anything like the Republican governor in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has actually taken concrete steps to reduce energy use and green house gasses in his state.

 

The President talked about energy efficient windows and light bulbs. It sounds like warmed over Jimmy Carter. I remember when President Carter, or rather his relative in the White House whom we knew as “Cousin Cheap,” turned off half the lights at the State Department as an energy saving initiative. At around that time I also profited from the tax break home owners used to get for installing storm doors and insulation. So if I sound a little cynical, it is because we have known about the energy problem and reliance on foreign oil for a long time and what we have gotten from our Presidents and Congress is half measures and promises that may be better than nothing but are not even keeping pace with the increase in American demand.

 

What was surprising about the recent spike in oil prices was that even at $70 a barrel, there was very little dent in our driving habits. Demand, it seems, is inelastic. If you want an example of how tax policy can affect driving habits, all you have to do is go to Europe where gas at $3.50 a gallon would be considered a windfall. There, the emphasis is on low gas mileage and “Smart” cars. That, of course, makes sense when a US gallon of gas in Amsterdam cost $6.48 back in March of 2005 before the run up in the price of crude.  According to CNNMoney.com, in Europe, taxes make up as much as 75% of the cost of gasoline.

 

A few days after the president spoke, on October 21, AP ran an article by Seth Borenstein entitled “Future Forecast: Extreme Weather.” The article points out that a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, done with the aid of nine of the world’s top computer models, predicts a “lurching of climate at its most extremes” over the next century. The study identifies the Western United States, Mediterranean nations, and Brazil as the world’s hot spots that will get the worst of the extremes. “We’re in for a bad future” the scientists say.

 

In short, we have an energy policy that is big on promise and has very little delivery in the real world. In his speech in St. Louis the President said: “I talked to a fellow from Auburn, he's a Ph.D. -- just reminded me the difference between a Ph.D. and a C student; the C student is the President, and the Ph.D. is the advisor.” That was supposed to be a joke. I guess university professors are not a Republican demographic. Frankly, given the shape we are in, it didn’t seem very funny to me. Maybe it’s getting time to change these roles around and have a Ph.D. as President and the C student as the advisor.

Comments

[Carey Ruckert]

Although it is true that the United States is far behind its European counterparts in addressing climate change and the current energy shortage at a federal level, at a state level, there is progress. California has been the state leader, adopting emission standards similar to those set in the Kyoto Protocol, as well as numerous green energy programs. Other states are following in its footsteps. Recently, New York and Massachusetts adopted California's Clean Car Campaign which calls for more stringent emission standards for cars. There has been more focus on developing and building "green" buildings (i.e. Four Times Square: see below for link) and in 2000, New York became the first state to offer an incentive package to developers who build environmentally sound commercial and apartment buildings. With so many states pursuing environmental protection and sustainable energy policies, there will be more pressure on the federal government to adopt national environmental policies. This pressure will come not only from the states and the people, but also from companies. With the numerous varying standards and environmental regulations, it is hard and inefficient for companies to produce products meeting the different standards. It would be more economically efficient and cost effective to have one national standard. In most cases, the products companies produce already meet the highest standards anyways. For example, car companies produce cars that meet the most stringent emission standards of California rather than producing cars that meet both low and high emission standards. With enough grassroots and international pressure, the US government will be forced to adopt a more sustainable energy policy and address the issues concerning global climate change.

http://www.cleanaircounts.org/resource%20package/A%20Book/EStar%20Buildings/Case%20Study%20-%20Four%20Times%20Square.htm

[Nico Drohojowski]

I agree with your statement that the demand for gas is inelastic. No matter how high the price of gas is people will still buy it. They will just cut down on other expenses if they have too. In Europe “Smart Cars” are the new thing, but in the US it’s just not practical. There are far too many “big” cars on the road because they are considered safe. I hate to say it, but Europeans are less concerned about safety than Americans are. They would rather have a car that gets 40+/MPG made from tin, than a car that gets less than 20/MPG but is solid steal. The US has tried to combat this oil dependency by introducing E-85 ethanol made from corn. The problem here is that very few cars are able to run on E-85. Further more, oil is such a huge business that they (the oil industry) will do anything in its power to keep people dependant on oil. There is just too much money involved.
It’s hard to say what the President should do about this growing problem. It’s not just a domestic affair, but affects the rest of the world. The constant burning of fossil fuels is increasing the rate of Global Warming. If it continues the eastern seaboard could be completely under water. Something needs to change, and it needs to happen ASAP. Maybe the advisor with the PHD should run the country… It’s better than settling for mediocrity.

[Jared Leslie]

What Me Worry?

"Energy is going to help determine whether or not this nation remains the economic leader in the world." George W. Bush said this in his speech regarding the countries future energy needs and problems. The current renewable energy substitutes are not capable of producing the necessary energy to sustain the country. With the capabilities of the energy sources it is unlikely that any of these different types of energy will be capable of supporting any type of civilization for some time. The only contribution congress has made is to institute a tax credit that does very little. As the President continues to show the nation his wonderful contributions to combating global warming it is apparent that it is a smoke and mirrors effect. There is very little action backing up his words and because of this the United States reliance on foreign oil will continue. Ambassador Walker commented on the U.S. energy policy. That an "energy policy big on promises and has very little delivery," is all but worthless. This policy must be put into action and deliver on the promises made by the President. If this does not happen the United States will fall behind in the race for economic supremacy.

[Meghan Hepp]

The biggest problem that the administration and policy makers have when it comes to making real strides with energy policy initiatives is that the short term offices held by politicians do not fit in to the long term policies that are needed to see a real change. Although it is recognized that our reliance on foreign oil and global warming are important issues, they keep getting pushed aside by issues that have immediate effects on the constituents.
International organizations and regulations are not the immediate answer to an energy problem. Instead of expanding the scope of the issue we need to narrow the focus and concentrate on changes at the state and local level. For example, as Ambassador Walker explains, California is taking substantial steps to reduce the use of energy and green house gases. The policies on energy at the state level in California are more promising then most of the energy commitments that the federal government is making. The local electorates will be able to appreciate the changes that are made if they are ‘closer to home’.
Local governments are often called “laboratories for democracy”. If this is true then state governments can enforce energy initiatives that will have real effects on the amount of energy consumed in each state. As certain state policies show real strength then the federal government can enforce them nationally. By bringing the issue to the local level then possibly the problem of short term offices and long term solutions can be dissolved. If the United States is going to face real economic and environmental problems in the next century because of energy, then the U.S energy policy must begin to make real changes.

[Boitumelo Sisulu]

Initially, the $10 billion that the government claims to have committed to the development of environmentally oriented energy programs seems commendable. However, upon finding out that in fact, what the government declares as new and innovative initiatives are actually old policies in disguise, one can’t help but wonder about the current administration’s actual commitment to an issue that has far reaching and possibly even detrimental environmental, political and economic implications. President Bush himself acknowledges that, “energy is going to help determine whether or not this nation remains the economic leader in the world,” yet somehow there still seems to be a disconnect between the available knowledge on this matter and the government’s action (or lack thereof). Even the incentives for energy saving such as tax breaks are, as Ambassador Walker notes, just “more of the same.” In many ways, it appears as though these “incentives” are nothing more than show. Take the tax break on hybrid cars for example, not only are hybrids more expensive, which means that the tax break will merely “equalize the cost,” but in an effort to protect its own auto industry (namely GM), the U.S government placed a rather prohibitive quota on the number of hybrids that Toyota can export to the U.S in a given year. Such meager efforts and empty promises are simply not sufficient. The energy problem didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere, its nothing new, but it is high time the government began to take a serious and proactive approach to addressing what is nothing less than a pertinent issue. Given its relative economic as well as political power, the U.S has no choice but to take a leading role on this matter. What the government should be doing is seriously looking into available research on the energy problem, directing new funding and programs to research and development, looking to other national as well as global efforts, and researching and encouraging the use of alternative energy sources such as ethanol.

[Boitumelo Sisulu]

Initially, the $10 billion that the government claims to have committed to the development of environmentally oriented energy programs seems commendable. However, upon finding out that in fact, what the government declares as new and innovative initiatives are actually old policies in disguise, one can’t help but wonder about the current administration’s actual commitment to an issue, that has far reaching and possibly even detrimental environmental, political and economic implications. President Bush himself acknowledges that, “energy is going to help determine whether or not this nation remains the economic leader in the world,” yet somehow there still seems to be a disconnect between the available knowledge on this matter and the government’s action (or lack thereof). Even the incentives for energy saving such as tax breaks are, as Ambassador Walker notes, just “more of the same.” In many ways, it appears as though these “incentives” are nothing more than show. Take the tax break on hybrid cars for example, not only are hybrids more expensive, which means that the tax break will merely “equalize the cost,” but in an effort to protect its own auto industry (namely GM), the U.S government placed a rather prohibitive quota on the number of hybrids that Toyota can export to the U.S in a given year. Such meager efforts and empty promises are simply not sufficient. The energy problem didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere, its nothing new, but it is high time the government began to take a serious and proactive approach to addressing what is nothing less than a pertinent issue. Given its relative economic as well as political power, the U.S has no choice but to take a leading role on this matter. What the government should be doing is seriously looking into available research on the energy problem, directing new funding and programs to research and development, looking to other national as well as global efforts, and researching and encouraging the use of alternative energy sources such as ethanol.

[Rose Zourdos]

I think that the energy crisis is definitely a "crisis" because there are no real policies that are being formulated to effectively deal with the problem. I think that each president we’ve had has more or less put the problem off to the next generation and all the while the problem has done nothing but escalated and worsened.
In order for something to really be done in regards to this crisis, the administration would have to take extreme and far-reaching measures. I think that hybrid cars are a good start. We’ve been hearing about hybrid cars for a long time, and yet, we just started really selling them, and I still rarely see one on the road! I think that a tax credit is a good incentive, but if the incentive just equalizes the price, you’re really not providing an incentive. Most hybrid cars are expensive, and at least the ones I’ve seen have also been kind of lacking in body style and other ascetic appeals. So, in order to provide an incentive, the government needs to offer larger tax credits and subsidize the car manufacturers so that they can offer the vehicles at a much lower price.
If you go to Europe, all you see are the Smart cars and other TINY cars that would make us Americans shiver, but they are extremely economical. You don’t see SUV’s and I think one of the reasons is because of the gas prices and how much consumption those SUV’s take.
I’m not an expert and I really don’t know too much on other energy alternatives, but if there are some, which obviously the government would know about, it’s time to start implementing some policies for them, because like you’ve said, the energy policies are big on promises but lack implementation.
The forecast of extreme weather is frightening, and I know that I’ve seen a difference in the weather from when I was a child to now. Americans, unfortunately, are not that aware of the problems concerning energy and I think there should be media coverage on the matter. I think if there was more information in the media then more people would be interested in hybrids as well.

[Emily Byron]

Although I'm continually frustrated with the lack of sincerity on the Bush administration's part in devoting time and resources to smarter energy use, energy reform can't only come from top-down policies. Consumers and businesses have to participate to contribute to a comprehensive and conglomerate effort. Providing consumers with incentives to choose energy-efficient products will help, but those consumers must be convinced that a slight effort can have a significant impact.

In a New York Times Op-Ed, Andrew Postman wrote about his commitment to an “energy diet,” in which he reduced the weight of emissions his household produced by 5%. If I remember correctly, the process of brainstorming and implementation took less than an hour. Small steps, like turning down the thermostat by one degree, using the Warm/Cool wash cycle instead of Warm/Warm, and resetting your laptop so it shuts down after 10 idle minutes, can add up to significant energy savings. Let us find our own creative ways to reduce personal energy use in the same way we made recycling popular. Recycling is now another daily routine, reinforced by social pressure to do the right thing as well as local laws in some municipalities.

Big businesses are now realizing the benefits of using cleaner energy, as they have improved public image and hopefully lower energy costs (after initial start-up and research costs) to gain. And we’re not just talking about oil companies anymore. Goggle, for instance, is pushing for more electrical efficiency in computers. In order to make some kind of effort in reducing the United States’ overall energy waste, fighting over international agreements to cut CO2 emissions will be less effective than inspiring more cooperation nationwide on the parts of individuals. People have to take ownership of this issue to gain meaningful results. The government’s role is to educate and provide appropriate incentives for businesses and consumers to reduce personal energy use.

[tanya shpiniova]

In light of all the real and potential challenges to the national security and welfare of the U.S., it continues to surprise me how much importance is attributed to the relative price of gas by the American electorate. Polling indicates that gas prices significantly influence public approval rates of the Bush administration, and ostensibly a Democratic president would face the same sort of constraints. Public officials are under constant pressure to lower the cost of consumption for individuals and businesses within our society. However, as one of the leading sources of environmental pollution in the world, the U.S. and the world at large might be better served if the leadership focuses less on its prospects for reelection, and more on finding more efficient and environmentally friendly means of production. Unfortunately, the changes we need to make to ensure the future sustainability of the earth’s resources may require a reformulation of our current “way of life,” and of our societal values on a broad scale. And ultimately, people are deeply resistant to change, particularly so when the change in question involves their pocketbooks. This is a prime example of the democratic model’s constraining effects on the capacities of policy makers to make sound and generally beneficial decisions.

[Ethan Shoemaker]

Amb. Walker’s post and, not surprisingly, President Bush’s speech, fail to mention the most troubling aspect of this administration’s commitment to maintaining the energy status quo: $8.41 billion dollars in tax breaks to traditional energy producers (i.e. oil, natural gas, coal etc.) in 2005 alone (Washingtonpost.com, 7/25/05). As a result, companies like Exxon Mobil have posted record profits and renewable energy “pioneers” have failed to keep pace. This is not to say that the Bush administration ignored renewable energy entirely---it has, as Amb. Walker mentioned, “committed” $10 billion to cleaner energy. Still, it seems pretty obvious that the all-carrot and no stick approach toward traditional energy companies sends a mixed message and will not bring about the dramatic change that President Bush claims to endorse.

[Alexandra Berkley]

For as much talk as there has been this campaign season about a need and a desire for ‘change’ it seems to me that the (not so new) energy problem is a reflection of our societal attachment to the status quo. It is logical to blame the administration; the institution of the presidency is powerful and we have come to rely on top-down policies, however, I argue that it is the people who are not behind change and not our politicians and President.
The comment that it was “surprising…that even at $70 a barrel, there was very little dent in our driving habits” is not surprising to me at all. In the absence of available and efficient public transportation we have become accustomed to driving so much that we live in suburbs and exurbs far away from where we work and consider cars to be a necessary asset much like our homes. Currently Americans don’t seem to like the short term nor the long-term solutions to the energy problem. We are unwilling to seriously invest in ethanol, we refuse to build windmills because they are unsightly, we have a strange fascination with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and refuse to drill there, we are terrified of the potential risks associated with nuclear power plants and most importantly we have not proven willing to seriously cut-back on our own personal consumption and energy use.
The real problem, however, is that we want the government to solve this problem for us without inconveniencing us. Americans may say that they are interested in change, that it is up to the current or future administration to implement energy policies or provide more meaningful tax breaks for hybrid cars, however until we recognize that ‘we’ too are a big part of the problem and stop placing all of the blame on a widely criticized administration then we may actually be able to take the first step towards solving this problem. Solving the problem will take not one, but many steps that we must take simultaneously; we will have to reexamine our own personal consumption and significantly cut-back, and we will have to continue to invest in long term solutions like ethanol while also investing in nuclear power plants and considering the option of drilling in ANWR.

[Michael Daley]

It is no secret that the United States is not a good model for energy efficiency. The US’s cavalier attitude towards this issue is propagating the most serious challenge facing the world today. A point of interest here is the fact that the US has refused to join the Kyoto Protocol, and has made no serious effort to reduce emissions. The US sees itself, and the global community views us as the drivers of change and as international difference makers. In general, when the United States makes policy decisions the world knows and watches closely how the policy works. Using empty rhetoric to show that the environment and energy are a priority simply is not enough. When it comes down to it, with issues like this, numbers carry substantial weight. The fact is, the programs that have been used have not made enough of a difference for any of the rhetoric the administration is throwing around to mean anything. Tax credits don’t work, the “energy star” program was well intentioned but does not cover enough products or inputs to production to make a serious difference, and the overall dedication to find a new form of energy has been less than stellar. The consumption habits of the American public has created a situation where the efforts of the administration need to be focused, clear, and dedicated to driving serious social change. This unfortunately is something that we have just not seen in the United States; hopefully this new round of rhetoric is not just well timed political maneuvering but serious assertion of new dedication to positive change.

[Sam Morgan]

Energy policy in the United States has been restrained, not because of a lack of innovation, but because of social constructs and aging practices. We go to great lengths to talk about all of the small things like turning off lights and carpooling, but the only way to actually see results would be through drastic proactive legislature. As early as 1996 GM produced the first ever fully electric car which produced zero emissions and could go a hundred miles on a single charge. The program was axed in 2003, only just before the longest run up in fuel prices experienced by Americans since the 1970’s. The thinking was there but the legislation wasn’t. We saw resilience in demand for gas despite dramatic price increases, but it will take much more than temporary increases in price to actually change behavior and habit. Although I love driving, probably even more than the next person, I know that the only way to curb sales of the H2’s and pickups and frivolous driving which plagues the US is through taxation of gasoline. The use of Ethanol as an additive to gasoline is serving as a small tax on the consumer now, since it is required to be added to gas but is in limited production, but only significant taxation will change consumers driving habits as well as automotive manufacturers priorities. Whether the oil is foreign doesn’t matter. The fact is that we use too much of it, and only legislation can help curb our appetite.

[Julianne Jaquith]

I think that our lack of action in protecting our environment stems from two causes – one is that our leaders are big on promise and little on delivery. The other is that the majority of Americans don’t want to make the sacrifices that are required in order to promote a sound environment. While the government applauds itself for providing tax credits to hybrid car owners, these cars are still much too expensive for the average American who is interested in buying a car. Most Americans cannot afford to trade in an existing car solely in order to get a tax credit for buying a new hybrid. Therefore, the tax credit for buying hybrids has not really made these cars more affordable to the majority of Americans. In addition, while Americans are willing to make sacrifices for causes that they care about, it is hard to get people to change their behavior when they do not see the sacrifice as having a significant impact on their lives. Americans have not placed environmental concerns at the top of their list of priorities. Unless leaders alter policy and force an adjustment in behavior, Americans will not act altruistically in order to improve the environment.

[Kelsey Richardson]

Today’s US energy policy is a joke. As Ambassador Walker notes, it is filled with empty promises and little action. Proposed energy policies are more often attempts to save political face. Striking a compromise between corporate and environmental interests, US energy and environmental policies contain lukewarm objectives and virtually no enforcement. This passive behavior from the Bush Administration, however, is not doing anyone any favors. The energy and environmental crisis is a reality and today’s policies are ensuring a bleak future for all of us. Today’s Administration needs to learn to see energy and environmental issues not as an avoidable inconvenience but as a pressing global interest.
In the end, however, the United States’ environmental and energy predicaments can not be blamed entirely on the President. Unfortunately, today’s administration is reflective of a widespread environmental apathy. Though the American people have become far more aware of the mounting energy crisis they have not changed their behavior. Most people have a hard enough time remembering to recycle, let alone changing their consumption based lifestyles. Everyone wants to see the environmental situation improve but look to others to solve the problems. To solve them ourselves, most of us think, is just too inconvenient. It may be easy to point the finger at today’s Administration for our environmental woes but the change must start with all of us. We must assign urgency to energy and environmental issues if we expect our
Administration to do the same.

[Greg Rogan]

It's a matter of priorities. Once we start to really see the problems arising from the present energy policies, more strict policies will be implemented. It's true that we've been hearing about the detrimental effects on the environment because of high energy consumption for a number of years now. It seems that steps to improve the situation have been neglected because not enough attention has been brought to the matter. We all know that what's going on is harmful to the world's environment. I think it's going to take some form of a wake up call to really get the wheels moving for better energy policies. Once we begin to see a real and certain danger, I have no doubt that citizens and policy makers alike will find ways to protect our environment.

[Jenna Lally]

Everyday the news is inundated with oil news and whether the price of oil is up or down for that day showing how energy is a significant part of our lives- politically and especially economically. The United States depends on Oil and the administration has done little to reduce or divert this dependency. Just this month a UN agency released a report which said that despite Kyoto protocol pledges global carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase. The United States, the largest contributor to CO2 emissions, has yet to sign the protocol while nations around us are making strides to combat this problem. Solving a global problem such as this is increasingly difficult when the strongest nation sets such a poor example. Many will say that reducing Co2 emissions through methods such as decreasing oil consumption through better car standards and using alternative energy sources, to name a few, will be detrimental to the economy. They are ignoring the economic benefits that come with alternative energy such as the economic growth associated with new technologies. In addition, as the rest of the world transforms to solve global warming, we will certainly experience competitive disadvantages if we refuse to change. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is startling and proves that we can no longer afford to ignore global warming.

[Mitchell O'Connor]

You say that demand (for gasoline/oil) is inelastic, noting that American driving habits were little changed after this summer's spike in oil prices. However, in the same paragraph you mention the much higher gas prices in Europe and the much greater focus on high gas mileage, smart cars. Obviously, demand for gasoline is elastic but the American price has not risen enough to have an effect on demand. An ideal solution would be to dramatically increase the gasoline tax. That revenue should be invested in research and development for alternative energy sources and also used to fund a major tax credit for buyers of hybrid vehicles. Thus, people who continued buying gasoline would subsidize the cost of hybrid vehicles for those who could not afford to buy gasoline. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to sell this to the American people. Critics would charge that the government is violating the right of people to make independent choices about what type of car to buy (not to mention the general opposition to any taxes). Although it is a difficult charge to defend in an America based on individualism and freedom of choice, the government could argue that it is merely correcting for the external cost of gasoline, which the market fails to incorporate into gasoline price.

[Christie Sauve]

I agree with Ambassador Walker's point that "we have an energy policy that is big on promise and has very little delivery in the real world." I feel that it is increasingly important for the United States government to take a stand and create a new national strategy for future energy use. Despite Bush's repeated statements that this problem is being handled, this country has yet to see any substantial results. Though President Bush has proposed a number of programs to increase energy resources in the future, these plans lack substance and fail to propose any meaningful solutions. As a global leader, it is important that the United States take a stand in combatting this energy problem and invest substantial funds in research for new, cleaner, and more efficient energy sources. By stressing investment in new energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and other advanced technologies the United States will be able to maintain its status as an economic and political leader in world events.

Though Bush has stressed his ongoing involvement in this struggle, it seems that this is merely another public relations stunt in which the President is portrayed as a concerned, environmentally friendly politician. His emphasis on an improved energy plan, though desperately needed in the United States, seems only to address the American people's concerns over the high gas prices. In other words, President Bush is merely concerning himself with this problem to appease Americans. The President's interest in energy policy is driven much more by a desire to win over the American public and produce a calming effect on the nation as a whole. President Bush and his staff have not made any real effort towards substantial policy making in this field. Terrorism is the evil in today's world; however, if the energy problem is not addressed it will become the evil of future generations.

[Arthur Giovannangeli]

One huge problem with the Bush administration’s approach to energy conservation is the way it changed its tune mid way through. In the early goings Bush was not emphasizing the conservation of energy because he valued the American lifestyle too much and did not want alter it. The administration later changed this approach and is now advocating tax credit for donations to research and the purchasing of hybrid cars. The American lifestyle is all but set in stone and in order to change it, or at least make progress toward changing it, a consistent and well-thought out approach is required. If in the six years Bush has been in office he had stressed development of alternative energies, bolstered public transportation to reduce oil consumption, and made an effort to change American attitude towards energy of he might have made some progress but still not very much. Bush’s haphazard implementing of these new energy policies and initiatives on his way out the door is going to do absolutely nothing especially given the contradiction with his earlier statements. Many people are still confused about which side of the issue the administration comes down on when it comes to energy conservation and are therefore likely to be tentative to take initiative for fear the administration will change its policies again. If Bush had been firm and consistent with energy conservation from the beginning people would be more confident to change their lifestyles because they’d know their government was squarely behind them.

[TJ Reynolds]

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth and am afraid that because of our administration's neglect to adress the ongoing climate crisis. We are only one of two countries not to ratify the Kyoto Treaty (Australia being the other). The film reveals some startling facts about the United States position amongst others globally in terms of global warming. I would have liked the film to cover more the problems dealing with the population and the emerging problem with lack of water. The film touches on the population issue in China but does not go into enough about how much pollution there is because there is an astonishing migration in to the urban areas of China.

[Raymond DeMartino]

I'll use Hollywood movies to compare the issues of energy and climate to terrorism and war as political issues. Box office hits are usually movies with tons of big name stars, big name director, flashy special effects, and tons of action, violence, and usually nudity. This type of movie is the issue of terrorism and war. Terrorism and war are issues peeople want to know about. They involve other human beings and violence; the issues play out like a real life blockbuster movie. The issues of energy and climate are similar to low-budget indie movies. While these movies don't get tons of media attention and usually don't have the big name stars, the people that see them know how good they are and try to get others to see the film as well. People try to spread the word about future problems with energy and climate but people don't want to listen because they want to see the blockbuster of the day, the war on terror.

[Katharine Steigerwald]

I think this article does a good job at elucidating the truth that issues of energy and global warming are problems that should no longer be ignored or pushed to the background when addressing international crises (especially for the US). While it is clear that other countries throughout the world have attempted to reverse the damaging effects of pollution/ global warming it is upsetting that the US continually sidesteps the issue, especially when many solutions to the problems are as simple as providing government subsidies to citizens who are willing to buy hybrid cars, or to citizens that are willing to exchange gas guzzling vehicles for fuel efficient vehicles. I also believe improving US systems of public transportation (by making buses and trains faster, cleaner, more fuel efficient and less expensive) could provide solutions to some energy and global warming problems. This article reminds me of Al Gore’s labeling the issue as an “Inconvenient Truth” and a moral/ ethical issue that can no longer be ignored without causing significant harm to future generations. I think it is also an unfortunate truth that our generation continues to ignore the problem because the threats presented by global warming are not as tangible and imminent as other concerns such as the War in Iraq or gas prices. How difficult would it be for our government to focus on both issues at once? And what will it take for the US government to begin implementing effective energy and global warming policies?

[Ryan M. Murphy]

Though our country has made steps towards a better energy policy, our new strategies are only potential glimpses into the distant future and manipulated facts for political gain. The United States cannot take the energy issue lightly, with the shortages and price hikes to come, we need a solution now. Even when our gas prices ran to over three dollars over this past summer, there was no dent in purchasing of gas or an increase in hybrid cars. Instead of only promising a better future alternative, European countries have taken direct action and put high taxes on gas. Due to these price increases to upwards of 5 dollars the economy has listened and people’s habits are changing. The United States has to be able to make drastic actions now and change our path, or energy shortages will become a very real problem.

[Nathaniel Emmons]

Nathaniel Emmons

The US needs action in its energy policies, not just talk. The Bush administration has continued to talk about changes and the need for changes but has done little, if anything, to implement a new approach to America’s energy needs. Bush has even called America addicted to oil, but has done little in terms of legislation to change this addiction. America’s energy problem and dependence on foreign oil is not only an environmental issue but also a national security issue that the Bush administration continually fails to address. If America was able to generate more energy from green sources within the US, like wind turbines, not only would it decrease the amount of fossil fuels in the atmosphere but it would also make America less dependent on foreign oil sources. Even though America is the most powerful economy in the world, our economy is still largely driven by foreign oil and when there is instability in oil producing nations that can affect our economy in a very adverse way.
However, the Bush administration has not only failed by not decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, but the administration has also failed by not delivering on promises. Like Ambassador Walker illustrated, the tax cuts on hybrid cars do little to make them more affordable and the 10 billion dollars Bush said he put to creating cleaner and renewable energy has yet to be spent and has only been committed. As Ambassador Walker illustrated, Bush has done nothing like California governor Schwarzenegger to actually implement his promises for making America cleaner and reduce greenhouse gases. What is more sad than a C student now running America, is that very little will be done to create alternative energy until oil prices force America too and by that time, it will be to late.