posted
My understanding of the difference was that the Clinton/Gore plan focused on developing newer and more decentralized power technologies, whereas the Bush plan emphasizes utilizing existing technologies and infrastructure more efficiently.
If I remember correctly, the Gore plan would encourage the automobile industry to further develop and advance fuel cell and other low-pollution / renewable energy technologies with a variety of tax incentives (in contrast to the tax penalties he'd proposed in his earlier book) for businesses engaged in research and production of this type. This would provide the incentive to encourage the maturing and installation of the infrastructure (including safety/legal considerations as well as the physical and corporate aspects of refueling stations, etc.) which would be necessary to implement real-world consumer adoption of these technologies. The language also seemed to focus on a more distributed / decentralized energy system (which I'm sure terrified the energy industry to no end) which could provide more reliable and plentiful power with fewer hand in the pot.
I haven't explored the Bush/Cheney (well, Cheney really) plan in too much depth, but it seems to pay lip service to the concept of renewable energies, without getting down to the industry hand-holding that will absolutely be necessary to make this happen. The focus seems to be largely on improving and expanding our current energy systems, with an emphasis on centralized power from more and better plants (be they the subsidized 'clean-coal', natural gas, or nuclear). I suspect that his motives are not entirely pure here. By removing the need to migrate to the new and more fuel efficient engines in the mean time, the automotive industry is saved the time, expense and effort to do more than token research for transitional powerplant production, and the oil industry need'nt worry about any dimishing demand. This can be viewed as being somewhat short-sighted, (and in my opinion it is), but on the other hand, these industries do have very real and legitimate concerns about the ways in which this new technology will effect their way of life. That cannot be ignored. Obviously it is easier to stick with the status quo, but adressing these issues now may turn out to be less expensive (and therefore more profitable) down the road. There are a lot of ancillary advantages beyond the purely financial: Less dependence on fossil fuels will mean increased isolation from the inherent instability of a global energy market in addition to bluer skies and cleaner rivers. I think that's something we could all agree is something we all want. It's just that it can't be a pie-in-the-sky idealism because industries, particularly the conservative industries of energy and automobile manufacturing do not work like that. They need to see very clearly how this is in their best interests, and how these advances will provide a sustainable advantage. I don't think that's an entirely unreasonable thing to ask.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
