Bush SOTU: Decreasing Energy Security and Fronting for Climate Change

“… clean energy technology … advanced batttery technology … new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions … new international clean technology fund…. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change, and the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.

For Bush/Luntz energy/climate policy, “Technology, technology, blah, blah,” the State of the Union never, ever changes.

That was Bush’s only use of the word “climate” in the speech — though he did also say, “let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.” Potential! This is the last friggin’ year of your second term and your big plan for dealing with climate is the potential of new technology and an agreement that has the potential to reverse emissions trends — which itself is just doubletalk since you’ve spent 7 years working to block any international (or domestic) agreement.

I propose a new drinking game: one shot when Bush says something that isn’t true, and a double shot when he says something that is actually the exact opposite of the truth. Unfortunately for me, before the actual SOTU, the White House released its State of the Union energy talking points, titled “Increasing Our Energy Security And Confronting Climate Change: The Administration Is Taking Steps To Reduce U.S. Dependence On Oil, And To Advance U.S. Leadership In Developing A Global Response To Climate Change.”

And I passed out shortly after finishing the headline.

It is a laugh-til-it-hurts (and I mean root-canal-without-novocaine hurts) document, as the speech was.

Lets see. After 7 years:

  • Record oil imports. Check.
  • Record oil prices. Check.
  • Record trade deficit in oil. Check.
  • Endless war in the Persian Gulf. Check.
  • Iraqi oil exports below pre-war levels. Check.

Now that’s what the White House calls “Increasing Energy Security.” I’d hate to imagine what it would take for the White House to say we were Decreasing Energy Security.

And don’t get me started on “Confronting Climate Change.” The thing to always bear in mind:

President George W. Bush doesn’t just fiddle while the planet burns, he actively fans the flames and thwarts the fire-fighters.

Thank goodness this is the last Bush SOTU we’ll have to endure.

4 Responses to Bush SOTU: Decreasing Energy Security and Fronting for Climate Change

  1. Raymond R says:

    RE: “I propose a new drinking game…” If you drink every time “W” lies, you will get drunk pretty fast

  2. Sorghum Crow says:

    Fiddle? Bush has smashed the Stradivarius and used it for kindling.

  3. Daniel Bell says:


    Watching the State of the Union last night, my friend suggested that we play a drinking game where we drink every time Bush said something that was true. His reasoning? “I’ve got to get up for work tomorrow.”

  4. Ronald says:

    I can just imagine a coal, oil or methane gas company executive being interviewed after the state of the state speech, saying that Pres. Bush’s program is just making it hard to impossible to sell fossil fuels to anybody and more talk of technology is about putting them out of business.

    Can we imagine what would have to be said for the speechwriter to tell the truth? “Our programs to appear that we are doing something to reduce greenhouse gases and actually doing nothing at all is working much better than we could have dreamed. We still have people making arguments that there isn’t such a thing as global warming caused by greenhouse gases, we talk about technology saving us from global warming and some news organizations actually report that and we have held up all legislation that could have done anything what so ever. The program is working.”

    It’s a wonder that heads don’t explode when the speechwriters write that stuff that they do write. But the old saying “the paper holds still” is true, anybody can write anything. The part that I have a hard time with is all the news organizations who will just record what was said, but doesn’t spend anytime really questioning and explaining what was said and the non-truth of it.

    One has to question why the democratic response was so non-existent. They need somebody giving their side of the story who could actually be watched. I could not stand to listen to more than 3 words of the response.