The smart money is on conservation and energy efficient technologies, global warming aside, what do we do when the oil runs out? The U.S could easily reduce CO2 emissions by 1/2 and never miss a beat, gluttonous use of energy may be could for the energy providers bottom line, but everything else suffers.

Wow...talk about a pack of lies.

In 2001, at the onset of the Bush Administration, one of the first large scale billion dollar programs was for the funding of the new Hydrogen Economy...fuel cells, hydrogen conversion, hydrogen cars.   It has also championed nuclear fusion...the ITER project.

That has continued every year since.  Al Gore suppressed this information in his movie.

The Bush Administration is attached by Grist because it went head first into true new technologies, the ones can that reduce pollution to zero: Hydrogen.  It deemphasized things like solar cells and biofuels because it felt that private industry was handling that adequately -- and also, that those things would not get us through the 21st Century.

jabailo, lies? . . . I think not.  The Bush administration has, all along, been talking about our technological future.  Hydrogen is NOT a fuel, it is a very expensive and inefficient energy storage/transfer medium, like a bad battery.  

Have you ever heard of bait-and-switch?  Putting our bucks into 'future tech' is simply a political tactic that maintains the status quo and delays any REAL change.

Why are spending our tax dollars on 'future tech' when we have had, for more than 15 years, all the technology we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions AND break our foreign oil addiction at the same time - solar (thermal & PV) and wind.

Grist has it right!

Bodman continued, "Even if we were successful in accomplishing some kind of debate and discussion about what caps might be here in the United States, we are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world.

I thought the US of A IS the number one emitter of carbon into the atmosphere.

Have I been lied to?