Bush thinks Defense Department is 1,259 times more important than greener cars
The New York Times today called President Bush's 2008 budget proposal "improbable" (and other have said much less kind things about it), but I want to take a minute to look at what monetary value the President is willing to put on renewable/alternative energy for cars.
Bush's budget calls for $179 million for biofuels research, $81 million for research on advanced hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and $309 million "to complete the President's five-year, $1.2 billion commitment to support development by 2020 of commercially viable hydrogen infrastructure technologies and fuel cell vehicles that produce no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions." Hydrogen is obviously the big winner here, but that's to be expected from this White House. All told, these three items add up to $569 million dollars.
Now, let's compare these numbers with one or two others in the proposed budget.
- $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense's (plus supplemental funds of $93.4 billion for 2007 and $141.7 billion for 2008) for a grand total of $716.5 billion dollars. Alternate reading: The military is 1,259 times more important than greener cars.
- $2.8 billion to combat the spread of illegal drugs. Alternate reading: Stopping pot smokers is 4.9 times more important than greener cars.
(Note: I think I did all the math right in this post, but billions have a lot of zeroes, so if I goofed, it's an honest mistake. Clear it up for me in the comments).
[Source: White House, EERE]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Arnie 8:04PM (2/08/2007)
How many times more important (than greener cars) is the NHS? Or Law enforcement? Welfare for losers? Why choose these two? Ohh I remember. You are a liberal so you want to smoke your pot while the nation is left undefended. And surely you wouldn't want your fellow liberals on welfare to loose their checks? To tell you the truth, I'm tired of your childish, lefty bias. People like you give environmentalism a bad name.
Reply
Benson Leung 8:18PM (2/08/2007)
Arnie : lets put this in terms you can understand.
Creating greener cars and defense have a common goal : combating extremism overseas.
In the case of defense, this is a brute force approach, spending half a trillion dollars on expensive technology to arm our troops, and to go overseas to blow up th enemies.
On the other hand, investing in greener technology means making a critical source of funding for terrorism more, oil money, irrelevant in the long term.
In terms of impact, the first approach seems to have a poor return of investment... we're 4 years into an unpopular war in Iraq, and 6 years into a global war on terror, and there's no end in sight.
We're not asking to stop defending America and cut defense spending. There is such thing as immediate costs that are imperative we spend now for defense... but smarter foreign policy that DOESN'T involve unnecessarily mobilizing our forces would keep us just as safe (safer even), save money, and allow us to invest in things other than defense.
Reply
Paul 8:41PM (2/08/2007)
Wow. This blog has gone so ridiculously left I really can't take it anymore. Seriously, are there any other alternative energy blogs out there that might spend more time analyzing new technologies than opining on domestic and foreign policy? Seriously, I'm looking for recommendations. I've had enough of this one...
Reply
Benson Leung 2:16AM (2/09/2007)
Analyzing new technologies is one thing... but none of those will ever happen without sufficient government funding to get those technologies off the ground.
The problem is, the current state of government is set up to reward the current status quo (oil comes to mind, with back to back record years for the oil companies, along with record tax breaks for those same companies) rather than to fully fund alternatives.
If this idea that instead of just looking at technology and saying "that's neat!" to actually talking about what roadblocks are in the way to making those mainstream is too LEFT for you, then you should probably go somewhere else.
Reply
rick2653 8:24AM (2/09/2007)
try GreenCarCongress.com
they're left but they don't throw it in your face. You will also note they get MUCH MORE READER RESPONSE, most likely because they don't drip liberal goo right out of the screen.
One day the greens will wake up and realize the the right has bought out the entire green business and it's profitable, practical and they're out on their butts. But i'm sure they will find something else to whine about.
Reply
Dave 9:29PM (2/08/2007)
I am little distressed by the large number technical mistakes in this blog as well. If you're not correct on the technology and mindlessly left politically then what's the point of reading?
Reply
Henry 10:05PM (2/08/2007)
They sometimes talk about current events on this blog. Currently, Bush is being bombarded for doing jack nothing for the environment. This blog tries to show that from a greencar perspective. If you don't like green cars then what are you doing here?
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:11PM (2/08/2007)
"If you don't like green cars then what are you doing here?" -- Henry
IOW, if you don't like the obvious Leftist slant of an article slamming the President, then you must be anti-green. Typical of what passes for logic in Liberals.
Defense is a LOT more than 1,259 times more important than 'green' cars. Which doesn't mean that 'green' cars are not important.
Reply
jeff 11:42PM (2/08/2007)
Defense against what?
Environmental problems are often a lot more tangible and straightforward than perceived military threats. How many people die every year from respiratory problems in polluted cities? And that's just one very acute environmental problem.
We send troops to faraway places and spend a lot of money doing so, in the hopes that we're ensuring a safe world for us and our children. Isn't it a little naive to think environmental problems pose any less of a threat in the very near future? Not to mention further conflicts that will no doubt be brought on by these problems.
Then again, green cars are a very small piece of the problem. And who really wants to argue about this on the internet? Lets just hope a sizable chunk of that budget will go towards fuel efficient military vehicles, that'll do everybody some good.
Reply
Michael 12:53AM (2/09/2007)
Defense is a long term investment, and besides how much good will your Tesla Roadster be if the communists decide to invade?
Reply
Greg 1:24AM (2/09/2007)
Wow... Um... Can we just cool it?
1) Yes, the article was biased pretty far to the left. That can be admitted easily, right?
2) This website is fairly leftist. That can also be admitted easily.
3) If something about the above two statements bothers you, then either a)Stop reading, or b)Contribute in a positive and constructive manner. Things like,
"You are a liberal so you want to smoke your pot while the nation is left undefended."
"Typical of what passes for logic in Liberals."
and
"mindlessly left"
only perpetuate an environment of hatred. It's FINE that you think (or don't) this article is b.s. It's FINE that you agree (or don't) with Bush's budget. Just take a deep breath and give an opinion without insulting those around you. It makes you (liberal and conservative) look like you are close minded. Please start being considerate of each other.
Now here's my opinion on the budget issue:
When a country is at war, for better or worse, the defense budget is going to be huge. That is just how it is. Green cars are very important, and most people would agree with that, but the primary motivation for a country at war is war, not the environment, which is understandable.
Reply
Scatter 4:37AM (2/09/2007)
You americans are funny. I love the way you use the word Liberal as an insult. It's so childish!
And can you please explain why on earth having a left of centre viewpoint should "give environmentalism a bad name"?
Reply
EnviroBob 8:11AM (2/09/2007)
I think we need Congress to pass a law banning volcanoes, seeing as Mt. St. Helens emitted more pollution than all of the cars ever built. And while we're at it, lets ban all large bodies of water, because they emit more CO2 than all of the cars ever built.
Once again people, we need FACTS and TRUTHS to support environmental causes, not rhetoric and BS.
Reply
Clay 9:26AM (2/09/2007)
I think YOU need to get your priorities straight. We are surviving fine now on oil cars. We are also at war! I agree it won't hurt to clean things up a bit, though. Plus think how much those F*#&ing pot smokers are polluting the environment!!
Reply
Tim 9:35AM (2/09/2007)
So, when will the Mexican boarder fence be finished? NEVER!
W, just like his dad wants to virtually remove the boarders with Canada, Mexico and Guatemala and create a North American Union just like the European Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union So much for our Constitution!
Reply
Scatter 9:38AM (2/09/2007)
Can we nip this rubbish about volcanoes in the bud please? Their conbtibution to CO2 emissions is small compared to man's.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Reply
Charlie 10:22AM (2/09/2007)
Why even compare the two? But if you must...
DoD is at least 1259 times more important than greener cars. Perhaps its 12,590 times more important. Those of you who don't understand the importance of the US military don't deserve the freedom you have. Do the rest of us a favor, go live under a dictator or in some socialist country, or move to Canada, or better yet, France.
Before you judge me or my opinion: I drive a 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid every day to and from work.
Reply
Tush 11:24AM (2/09/2007)
Haha, Charlie. I'm glad you get your identity by what car you drive.
I agree with Scatter. Using "liberal" as an insult is just plain stupid. That goes for "conservative" as well. At one point the founding fathers of the USA were considered liberal (wanting change).
So cool your jets guys, because someday you'll be the one who wants something to change and people will yell at you for being a "liberal".
Reply
Phuc Vu 11:51AM (2/09/2007)
Maybe the author and AOL will second guess saying our government is spending too much on Nation Defense when a terrorist faction takes out their city. Only $481.4 billion?? I say atleast double it and put more officers on our streets and airports.
Yes having 'green' energies is very important and maybe these industries should get more financing but to compare it to OUR SAFETY from 'nut bags'??
People like this author make me SICK. Bitch about the spending before something happens then bitch after something happens because there wasn't enough done. PICK A SIDE AND STAY WITH IT.
Reply
Doug R 12:55PM (2/09/2007)
An article of colossal ignorance and stupidity followed by comments that are a majority intellectually challenged in an arrogant sort of way.
Perceived threat, spending $1.5 billion is doing nothing, volcanoes contribute little compared to man. Oh boy, what smart people you are! Oh, I can't forget my favorite sentiment that I've seen many times on this site. "If you don't agree with the little la, la, Disneyland we've created for ourselves then why are you here? We don't like alternative views that rain on our plastic parade with fact and reality! Don't bother us with the real world! We're so much smarter than you that whatever we think becomes the reality."
The intial point being pushed here is so dumb it requires no response.
I don't agree with spending one dime let alone $1.5 billion on any of this. If it has a legitimate place in the world it can make it on it's own merits. The idea that new technology and invention can't make it without government assistance is naive and devoid of any real knowledge of history. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Benz, the Wright Bros.., the inventor of the oscilliscope (can't remember his name, the founder of Tektronix). I could go on and on and on and on!
The communists may as well have invaded already Michael (#8), you're responding to many of their most ardent supporters.
Liberalism has given environmentalism a bad name Scatter. Idiotic responses such as yours to EconoBob (#12) proves that.
Reply