Syriana,
Kyoto and Hybrid Cars
Syriana is
bringing those fighting against global warming with those
those fighting against foreign oil dependency and hybrid
cars can be a tool for both
So, the Montreal
climate conference resulted in a 150 Nation agreement
for further meetings that won't include the U.S. (more).
The Bush administration won't sign onto the Kyoto Protocol
because of fears that mandatory emissions cutbacks could
have a negative effect on the U.S. economy.
While I support the Kyoto
Protocol, I think Bush does have a point about the
economy, but I think he has an even greater point when he
demands that Kyoto must include India and China.
Nonetheless, in the midst of ever more global warming
evidence, I think serious action is required, and Kyoto
might be a good step because it gets the U.S. to stop
talking about global warming and to start doing something
about it.
So, what is Bush's answer to global warming, technology.
While I agree with Bush, I don't agree with his process for
bringing forth such technology. The Bush future is the
hydrogen economy, which I believe in, but I also believe we
can't wait for it. We must start taking action NOW.
Ironically, one of the main contributors to global warming
is also one of the main contributors to terrorism - oil
dependency. Yet, even after 9/11, after Iraq, after Katrina,
the U.S. is still taking little action to really change
America's dependency on oil.
If Bush believes in technology, then why doesn't he seek oil
independence the same way Kennedy sought the moon in the
'60s?
The technology just isn't there yet?
Baloney!!!!!
While many criticize hybrid
cars for their costs and for their failure to meet EPA
fuel efficiency ratings, the truth is, if every American
drove a Toyota
Prius hybrid today, we would end foreign oil dependency
today.
But the best part of hybrid cars isn't what they can do
today, but what they can do tomorrow if we invest. Experimental
hybrid cars demonstrate that the technology to
drastically reduce America's oil consumption exists right
now, and it really isn't that expensive. In fact it is
incredibly less expensive and incredibly more feasible than
hydrogen vehicles.
Is it more expensive than conventional vehicles, yes, and
that is why the government needs to get involved. Still how
expensive is the war on terror, or the costs of pollution
and global warming?
Recently, Bill Ford lobbied the government to provide more tax
incentives to help Detroit reduce foreign oil dependency
and to regain its sense of automotive innovation.
The government
has said it isn't interested.
Isn't this exactly what Bush was talking about when it comes
to better alternatives to Kyoto? But it isn't just Kyoto,
its the war on terrorism as well.
"I'm involved in this because most of the world's oil
reserves are owned by countries that finance people that
want to kill us, that finance radical Islam," Anne
Korin, co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute
for the Analysis of Global Security.
While Mrs. Korin doesn't believe in global warming, she is
joining with global warming activists and using the movie
Syriana to bring attention to the dangers of America's oil
dependence (more).
Yet, GM is set to roll out model after model of gas-guzzling
SUVs and neither Ford nor GM seem to know how to be
profitable in a fuel efficient world.
What better opportunity for the government to get involved?
This isn't about interfering with free markets, it's about
protecting the people from the proven dangers of terrorism,
while also protecting the environment and the 'possible'
dangers of global warming. If global warming isn't a
national security issue, terrorism certainly is.
And, speaking of the economy, if America is the fuel
efficient, greenhouse reducing technology leader of the
world, what could be better for the economy?
Comment
/ Blog on this article
|
