Sorry, but actions that take place over the next 10-20 years are not aggressive at all.

It's funny how both the President, and the loyal opposition, state this contradiction ... "now is the time" ... "within a decade" ... "by 2025."

Geez "by 2025" is getting as popular as "by 2000" was in my youth.  I used to say "man, 2000 is going to be a great year ... everything is going to be better by then"

(Action truly in the "now" would change the way people use their current, overwhelmingly gasoline, cars.)

I have to second odograph's comments.  There is a familiar slight of hand here.  Sen. Obama is politician.  One doesn't get to the Senate without the sort of savvy that allows you to say many things to many people - and by doing so, saying very little to anyone.

However, here some complicating thoughts for me.

I do not doubt that Sen. Obama has the same ambitions that every Senator has at one point or another in his or her career: To be President.  This is great language for a Presidential candidate to be using.  So, do I judge him on the relationship between his words and what we know about the actual situation?  Or, do I celebrate the fact that the conversation has been forwarded on this level and think about ways national language like this can be used for the kinds of local actions that are necessary to end the oil addiction?

I guess I lean toward the latter, with eyes as wide open as possible.

Peace,
Kip

I disagree - I think he, and his advisors, took a couple of deep breaths before giving this speech.  Here he is, directly addressing a room full of Govenors, spelling out all of the problems we discuss on this site every day.  

Granted, he is preaching to the choir, as the Govenors Ethanol Coalition are only going to be excited about moving away from oil.  But I don't see a lot of political double-talk here; he outlines specific legislation (reimbursement of health care costs for manufacture of hybrids, tax breaks for installing E85 pumps, tax refunds for installing FFV tanks, etc.) with measurable, achievable outcomes in the "now."

The 2025 year is a milestone goal, and, I believe, plays to human nature - makes the changes seem not quite so scary.  But the changes he proproses would be initiated in the "now" - the point that we continually hammer upon in this forum is that even changes that are begun tomorrow will take years before real effects are observed.

Are you ready to reject his proposals because they aren't aggresive enough?  

Thanks for posting this. I like it because it starts where the President left off, sharply focuses the issue around a tangible enemy--a killer, no less--and then goes on to provide hope for the future. Is it enough? Hell no. What speech could be enough? But it should help get the conversation about new energy started, especially in places (such as Detroit) where alternative fuels are considered weird and impractical. It'll be interesting to see how the auto industry reacts to the "Health Care for Hybrids" proposal.

Kmp, are there really govenors who don't want to hear about ethanol?

I'm sorry but these words strike me as funny this morning: "Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence."

Oh yeah, now is time to "start down the path" ... with Corn Subsidies!

..I'm guessing, could care less about ethanol discussions.  Probably Alaska governors as well. They'll listen, and try to keep the eye-rolling to a minimum, because it is W's latest toy.

The point is that now IS the time to strike while the iron is hot, while Bush is traveling the country trying hard not to mispronounce "alternative."

Real change does have to start somewhere - right now we are not even on the path.  If my taxes go up in order to support corn subsidies of course it will annoy me, just like it more than annoys me that half of my taxes go to fight a war that I don't support.  At least with corn subsidies for ethanol fuel, unfair or not, my tax dollar is contributing to cleaner air.

Look kmp, I agree with you on the big picture ... but I really think you have to look at that long Barack quote above with an eye for detail.  It is about a continuation of the ethanol push.  Of that 5-point plan, it is 4/5 ethanol:

"First" "alternative diesel"
"Second" "flexible-fuel" (and "plug-in hybrid as well")
"Third" "flexible-fuel"
"Fourth" "flexible-fuel"
"Finally" "E85"

Of those, only the first (biodiesel I presume) is non-ethanol.

I mean ... does anyone think this is brave of selfless for a Senator from freaking Illinois to push ethanol?

I'm afraid I see it as status-quo, and worse a standard attempt to translate energy concern into "pay my state."

Obama is more sincere and coherant than Bush. He is right of course. Alternative energy is inevitable. Either we start soon or we pay more later.

We will use ethanol, bio-diesel, solar, wind and any other green source. We will also use nuclear power, ANWAR and off-shore drilling. We will use conservation, insulated homes, smaller cars, bicycles, public transport. We need to reorganize so we don't need to use so much energy.

Gov't can get in front of the parade or be run over. We can use research, tax breaks and subsidies. It will happen because it is an economic imperative.

Alternative Energy? Environmental concern? National Security?

I am sick and tired of hearing people replace one evil for another when it comes to alternative fuels.  Why isn't Hydrogen being considered on the table?  the Earth is covered in abundance with water and these days it is far more easy (contrary to popular belief) to extract Hydrogen from water.  (not by electrolysis folks!)  Why are we still considering a polluting hydrocarbon based fuel such as Ethanol, etc?  These fuels might help us in achieving energy independence, but they DO NOT help us when it comes to the environment!!!  You are still burning a hydrocarbon based fuel people!  If you burn hydrogen in the presence of Oxygen, what do you get coming out of your tailpipe?  WATER VAPOR!  Why can't we KILL 2 BIRDS WITH ONE STONE and, if we're going to build a new fuel economy, build one that solves two problems and pay one price?  If you're gonna pay to build out a new fuel economy and infrastructure, let's do it smart and go HYDROGEN and win our independence and save our environment for our grandchildren.  We need to demand this direction from the people who want to be elected into office.  I hope more and more people can bring this up and start demanding it.  It is possible to make Hydrogen and make money in doing it - remember, you still need to produce, store, transport, and dispense it - that's an ENTIRE INDUSTRY right there!  

Let's get OFF HYDROCARBON fuels altogether - they oand only then, will we REALLY win!

The sheer ignorance of Barack, on fuel farming versus plugin hybrids, is rivaled by the sheer ignorance of the comments here.  Amazing.

Even those who drive plugin hybrids do not understand the issues involved?  When you all see the words "plugin hybrid" do your eyes glaze over and you pass on to another thread?  

That has to be it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog