9556Re: [carfree_cities] re: "America is addicted to oil"
- Feb 4, 2006I took a look at link you provided and saw what there was for the US DOT,
which is not much. Any ways there is practically nothing decent for the FTA
or Amtrak. Till later, Andrew
>From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
>Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] re: "America is addicted to oil"
>Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:11:31 -0800
> > Ask them:
> > * If he wants to end the addiction or simply replace the drug
> > * What he is doing fundmentally to change energy use now
>=v= Bingo. Recall that in 2003's State of the Union address
>he mentioned allocating $1.2 billion "so that the first car
>driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and
>pollution-free." With this turn of phrase, his speechwriters
>(1) reinforce the idea of driving cars as a rite of passage
>and (2) suggest that there's no pressing need to fix cars for
>another 15 years or so.
>=v= People who should have known better were encouraged. The
>record from the White House at that point is pretty much the
>same as it is now: slashing energy conservation and clean
>energy research from budgets, aggressive promotion of fossil
>fuels and "clean, safe, nukular energy," and absurd tax breaks
>for SUV drivers.
>=v= I looked at the FY2003 proposed budget that went along
>with that speech, and wrote this at the time:
> The Department of Energy executive summary stresses "clean"
> energy, but as you read on you find that the big money's
> going to (surprise!) fossil fuels and nuclear energy. We
> also see that the automotive technology money is going into
> the "Freedom CAR" program, which as we know simply throws
> money at Detroit without any real accountability or goals.
>Take a look at the actual budget that goes with this year's
>speech, and you'll see nothing new.
>Well, actually, there is something new. In 2003 the very high
>cost of decomissioning nuclear power facilities was categorized
>as "renewable energy." In 2006 it's been renamed "environmental
> > * If they want their tax dollars spent on nuclear research
> > * If they really believe in "clean coal"
>=v= He mentioned a mythical beast called "safe, clean nukular
>power." He also mentioned ethanol. The scriptwriters seem to
>have pulled that section, word-for-word, not from any energy
>research report, but from a recent _Fortune_ story.)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>