Bush’s Faulty Plan to Wean America Off of Oil
How productive is it to keep talking about America’s oil addiction (read more here), yet continually cut the funding for new research and development of alternative energy sources? (here) Is it President Bush or Congress that has a misunderstanding of how developing energy independence works?
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
The Business Plan competition is coming around again this year, starting with the Idea competition tomorrow. The top prize winner in the overall competition......From The Wall Street Journal: Another brick could soon fall from the Berlin Wall that surrounds America's failing public schools, as Utah's legislature considers what would...I think America is a great role model for the world. It's the best role model the world has got. You can consider Americans with...
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
It is irritating to be fed inflated, unsubstantiated verbage by politicians. However, I don’t think that Washington is ever going to be the real factor in the development of alternate energies. Economics, more than anything else, regulates the behavior of the oil industry. Therefore relying on economics may be the best method of combating high oil prices. R & D by private corporations (who stand to gain financially) is probably the most feasible option for finding alternate forms of energy.
Additionally, the US posted some pretty high numbers in oil consumption this summer, regardless of all the grumbling. Perhaps we need to act before we speak. Alternate forms of transportation may be the most appropriate solution to the frightening overconsumption of oil. If we actually start walking a bit, maybe both the obesity and oil issues will begin to resolve themselves.
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Private firms may stand to gain financially if their R & D finds an alternative form of energy that is more efficient, perhaps reproducable and, (most importantly) that everyone will adopt. The problem is, developing that kind of technology is long-coming and expensive. It’s difficult to ask individual companies to take on that kind of financial risk without the backing of a big insurance company like the federal government in the form of grants and subsidies. Also, who has the clout and position to influence the masses in adopting new technologies on a grand scale if not Mr. President and Congress? I’m not an advocate of big government involvement if not necessary, but with something on such a big scale, with the size of financial risk involved, what other feasible options are there?
I think you over-estimate the impact of unnecessary, liesure driving that is substitutable with walking or riding a bike. I think a large part of the nation’s oil consumption probably comes from necessary and unavoidable things like trucks that transport the nation’s consumables through supply chains from producer to consumer, etc.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
You present a valid point regarding the expense involved in R & D and I accept the idea that the government can, and perhaps (perhaps) should, provide attractive incentives for alternate energy. Indeed, the government should support innovation in many fields, particularly those with significant public impact. Yet, in the end, the government won’t benefit financially from the alternative strategies–corporations will. The government can provide grants and legal support to encourage research, and attempt to “influence the masses” but too much bureaucratic influence will most likely lead to an even longer R & D process.
Yet, regardless if Mr. President rolls out a plan of support of researching alternate energy, I don’t think the high oil prices should be the main motivation whether or not the government supports this. Perhaps this seems like an inconsequential distinction–whether the motivation is lower oil prices or environmental concerns or long-term energy strategies, R & D will still occur right? Perhaps, but the presentation alters the average American’s sense of responsibility. If the government is answering the oil question for them, there is no incentive to look for alternate strategies of energy consumption and it numbs us to our own responsibility for overconsumption.
And whether the oil is being consumed by the transportation of clothes or office supplies or all that necessary alone-time on your way to work or the store 2.3 miles away, it’s all still related to the American consumer and our expectations of consumption. If that’s how we still choose to live after examining other options, than that’s fine. But I don’t believe that examination has every truly happened. We just expect the oil prices to drop because we don’t like paying more and we’re used to getting what we want. It may be annoying to pay more at the pump, but that’s the consequence of using a valuable commodity.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
The government should only provide monetary support to innovation in fields where the market system fails to provide sufficient incentives for corporations to bear the cost burden of R & D; i.e. when some other variable, like huge amounts of financial risk, downplay that incentive.
With the corporate tax rate around 40%, I’d say the federal government will be the biggest benefactor in the end from alternative strategies.
Ultimately, although I think I agree with you, I’m having a hard time undersanding the thesis of your position.