Video: President Bush says continue investing in advanced battery, renewable fuels in his last SOTU
Last night, in his last State of the Union address, President George Bush said "let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future." You can see for yourself in the video above. We will have more on this later but from what he said and previews in the press, it looks like Bush won't have any major initiatives for cars in '08.
This is very different from last year when Bush not only talked up battery-powered cars and renewable fuels in the state of the Union but also hybrids, plug-ins, clean diesel, biodiesel and even CAFE. You can watch that video below the fold. President Bush got most of what he asked for in the energy bill that past late December. Do you think any more laws need to be written?
[Source: CSPAN2]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 12:23PM (1/29/2008)
What I learned from this speech is that Congress members have been adding earmarks to bills AFTER they’ve been voted on as a way to “pay off” supporters.
I know that this is NOT ethical, but how is this bribery even legal?
Is our system really THAT broken?
Reply
armmat 12:25PM (1/29/2008)
Oh how nice of the POS to consider such alternatives only after he set out to do what he did...
He's fecal matter on two legs.
Reply
Randy C. 12:54PM (1/29/2008)
What is President Bush up to now? If he is so keen on battery electric vehicles (BEV), why did his administration join the law suit against CARB? Why did he allow the car manufacturers to crush and destroy the BEV's without even saying a word? Could it have been because many of his top advisors were former executives of car and oil companies?
I'd like these questions answered. I know it doesn't make much of difference now since Bush is out of job anyway. I would like to find out if the next person I hire to run my country is going to behave like they make fuel burning cars. I would like my next employee to an impartial administrator interested in the health of my country not the pocketbook of General Motors.
Reply
Tim 12:41PM (1/29/2008)
"...only after he set out to do what he did..."
What are you talking about?
Reply
armmat 12:45PM (1/29/2008)
This whole war was planned from the getgo....it's all about oil and securing that area.
Reply
Dave 1:07PM (1/29/2008)
As long as SOME people keep buying large SUV gasers all the auto makers will keep making them. Until that time arises they will keep their product mix the same. I think that the reason that some people buy large SUV's ( that they don't need ) is because of the stigma that was developed over time about the station wagon ( family dork wagon ).
Reply
Karkus 1:13PM (1/29/2008)
There could be lots of legislation try to accomplish these types of goals.
OR you could do it all with one piece of legislation. Raise gas taxes in the US... a LOT. If that happended, people would demand efficient cars, and the market forces would create/fund them.
OR we can just wait until peak oil takes care of it. But that will be a bit more of a shock to the economy.
Reply
tagamet 1:24PM (1/29/2008)
"Why did he allow the car manufacturers to crush and destroy the BEV's without even saying a word?"
I don't think that the feds have any business "allowing" or interfering with an issuse such as to crush or not to crush a product. For my money, they interfere too much already. GM is STILL paying for their stupid decisions, but that has nothing to do with the President of the USA.
JM(unbiased)O
Tagamet
Reply
Randy C. 2:30PM (1/29/2008)
My point is, Bush is screaming "we are addicted to foreign oil" and then he takes actions or inaction's that don't help. He joins a law suit aimed at killing the first state's mandate for a ZEV. Did he try to mediate the situation? No, he immediately took the auto makers' side. ZEV's have a side benefit of not using imported oil, oil purchased from turban wearing *&$%'s that are trying to kill me and my friends. When Bush became aware that the auto makers were destroying the BEV's did he at least condemn the action? No, he allowed a major step toward oil independence be crushed and not one word about it.
---previous post---
8. "Why did he allow the car manufacturers to crush and destroy the BEV's without even saying a word?"
I don't think that the feds have any business "allowing" or interfering with an issuse such as to crush or not to crush a product.
----snip----
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 2:30PM (1/29/2008)
tagamet: "that has nothing to do with the President of the USA"
Actually, the Bush administration did have something to do with the demise of the EV1.
In 2002, GM, Daimler Chrysler and seven California car dealerships sued the California Air Resources Board, (CARB), demanding a repeal of ZEV mandate.
On Weds. October 9th, 2002, the Bush administration's Department of Justice filed a "Friend of the Court" brief, siding with the automakers and dealers.
CARB folded, and modified the CARB mandate to favor future hydrogen vehicles. GM then recalled the EV1s and crushed them.
Most likely, had Gore won in 2000, he would have also filed a "FotC" brief, but on the side of CARB, and the outcome would have been entirely different.
Reply
Murc 4:53PM (1/29/2008)
"10. by Randy C.
My point is, Bush is screaming "we are addicted to foreign oil" and then he takes actions or inaction's that don't help."
no actions huh? what about drilling in the gulf and in alaska. Anbody who says we have hit peak oil, is very uneducated, there is still pleny of oil left in the world, the only problem is congress, and all the treehuggers out there wont allow the US to go get it.
I see the future of the automotive industry building electric cars, that have batteries in them. but our money is being spent on other things. It should be spent on securing more oil (Alaska & Gulf), and on battery technlogies, in helping paving the way to future electric cars. But were wasteing money on biodesiel, ethanol, hydrogen, etc.
Reply
tagamet 8:45PM (1/29/2008)
Let's not forget that TOYOTA joins all the lawsuits. They don't want US companies to HAVE to look long term. It seems likely that series hybrids and eventually BEV's will help save the day regarding foreign (Saudi)oil and that day is all the nearer now that the competition is increasing. I'm trying to hold off until 2010, but right now my odometers total over 280K (two vehicles). Once we get 40+ all electric range and a decent kicker, I really think we'll reach a critical mass of demand.
Even so, it's corporations and the profit motive that will save our chestnuts. (God willing)
Reply
Randy C. 12:14AM (1/30/2008)
The recovery of oil in Alaska is just a band aid on a gushing wound. It really isn't a solution to the "oil addiction". Because the addiction is still there just being fed differently. Wherever the oil comes from we are still using a lot of it. It's just that the foreign stuff is more problematic. If you are to believe the film "Who Killed The Electric Car" there is only about 1 years worth of oil in Alaska. It will make fuel cheaper for a time but the laws of supply and demand will win out and the price will increase to intolerable levels.
We need to start the transition to the oil free economy now, not 10 years from now. It will take 10 years just to replace 1/2 the cars on the road with ZEV's. What do you suppose would happen if OPEC decided to stop selling the U.S. any oil for 6 months? (They have done it before.) With no alternately fueled cars, like electric's, on the road America would come to a halt. We tried to start this transition back in 1997 but the greedy and ill informed car makers crushed it because "it didn't work with the current business model" aka we'll loose money.
The auto makers have us all brain washed into thinking our car has to be big, make a statement and have the most amount of luxury. The 6000 pound SUV is not a commuter vehicle but many of them do the daily commute with only one person in them, why? More miles are traveled each year commuting than for any other purpose. So why do we need a 300 mile range 6000 pound piece of machinery to ferry us the 20 miles back and forth each day? What good is that shinny SUV when you have to mortgage the house to fill up the tank? Why not drive a vehicle that will give the most bang for the transportation buck doing the task that consumes the most fuel?
Electric vehicles are here now, ready to go and offer solutions to many problems. They are the quickest and easiest solution to implement. But, do we have the wisdom to use them.
---previous post---
no actions huh? what about drilling in the gulf and in alaska. Anybody who says we have hit peak oil, is very uneducated, there is still plenty of oil left in the world, the only problem is congress, and all the tree huggers out there wont allow the US to go get it.
Reply
Emil 11:33AM (1/30/2008)
I would not interfere into internal USA politics, but there are 2 topics worth mention:
1. Every American President since 1973 said something about the oil addiction.
2. The famous emperor Nero wept over Rome after the fire.
Reply