Did I understand you correctly? You're claiming that research on wind energy and solar is "irrelevant".  Sure, I guess when it applies to oil substitutues but I have a hard time taking issue with this type of research.  And frankly, I'm a little surprised to see this take on a blog like Grist.  

If I understand correctly, he is increasing research funding for cellulosic ethanol, one of the most promising biofuel technologies in the pipeline.  Yet all I'm reading on this blog is what he screwed up and how he fell short on his SOTU.  

If I was to walk in to my favorite nonprofit advocacy organization and ask them which areas of technological research would be the most ideal for combating climate change, what do you think they would say?  I would imagine they would put cellulosic ethanol high on the list, along with algal biodiesel for oil  alternatives.  And wind and solar would surely be mentioned for our power needs.

I have no doubt that this research money is just another corporate subsidy and I have no love for anything related to coal, but when is a subsidy going to the right cause?  When would you be happy David Roberts? With no subsidies at all?    

OK, maybe I'll be happy when Showtime picks up Arrested Development. But not until then!

My point, Greenstork, is simply this: Bush said we have a big problem. We're addicted to oil. By any measure, his proposed response to that problem is grossly, almost comically, inadequate.

I would prefer, honestly, that the federal government get out of the energy-subsidy business altogether, and simply institute a stiff carbon tax. Given that such a development is, uh, unlikely, I'm all for some subsidies for wind, solar, and cellulosic ethanol. I don't mean to say such subsidies are a bad thing, given current realities. But they aren't exactly change-the-world stuff either.

www.grist.org

What I find amusing about all this (I have to laugh to avoid a deep, dark depression) is the president's emphasis on technology.

As Joe Romm has pointed out, we have all the technology we need.  What we need to do is get that technology deployed in a meaningful way that has more than a 1 or 2% impact.

I see touting "technology" as just another piece of the "We're spending billions on climate change research" argument - you should read it as "By continuing to spend money on research, we can put off actually doing anything!!"

(and don't take that as an attack on research - it's not. I strongly support research, but research without a commercialized product doesn't do us much good...)

And no, Dave, to answer your question, it certainly isn't an answer that meets the scale of the issue at hand.

If you think of those few paragraphs in the SOTU soley as an attempt to prop up consumer confidence, the faith in tech and small funding make perfect sense.