Energy Rhetoric, and Reality
    The New York Times | Editorial

    Thursday 25 January 2007

    For six years, off and on, President Bush has been talking about the need for alternative fuels and conservation to make the country less beholden to unreliable sources of foreign oil. Yet all he has to show for it is a growing dependence on foreign oil, a growing climate problem and an increasingly cynical public. Mr. Bush talked the same game on Tuesday night, offering several impressively specific goals. But whether these new pledges turn out to be as empty as the old ones depends on his capacity for follow-through, and history is not encouraging.

    Mr. Bush was true to form on one subject. The White House had promised nothing on global warming, and he delivered nothing. He mentioned "global climate change" but showed no sense of urgency on the issue. Nor was there any sign that he had even heard the ever-louder entreaties from Congress - and from many of his friends in the business community - that he support a national program of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

    At one point, he did suggest that his proposals for alternative fuels and more efficient automobiles could also help reduce greenhouse gases. But these gains would be marginal - passenger vehicles account for only one-fifth of these gases. And even these gains will greatly depend on what alternative fuels are chosen.

    Mr. Bush's enthusiasms mainly involved energy independence. He called for replacing 35 billion gallons of gasoline with renewable or alternative fuels by 2017, and for modest but steady improvements in the efficiency of cars and light trucks, a category that includes SUVs.

    But he offered no specifics on where these 35 billion gallons in alternative fuels are going to come from. Corn ethanol, a favorite of farm state politicians, cannot be expected to provide more than 15 billion gallons without driving up food prices. Cellulosic ethanol, made from grasses and woody material, shows great promise. But there is no commercial refinery in operation today, and there is not expected to be one for several years. Hydrogen, a longtime Bush favorite, is even further down the road.

    That leaves gasoline derived from coal, a method now being championed by governors and senators from coal-producing states. The technology is well established. But refining and then burning a gallon of gasoline derived from coal would send nearly twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a conventional gallon of gasoline and would thus be a disaster for global warming. Trying to sequester the carbon dioxide underground during the refining process would be hugely expensive.

    Which raises the next question about the Bush plan: Where's the money coming from? Despite growing interest among venture capitalists in environmentally friendly technologies, it seems unrealistic to depend on the private sector alone. Washington must help. But federal research and development spending on energy has been in free fall for more than 20 years. And even after Mr. Bush made a big deal about cellulosic ethanol in last year's address, he came up with only about $30 million in new money to help move the technology forward.

    Once again, we have heard this president make big promises about energy independence. Once again, we fear that very little will change. It would be nice, for once, to be surprised.