Bush did publicly commit to support rebate programs for fuel cell-powered vehicles when they come out, but that's all I've heard from him on the issue.

Posted by: GEB on March 12, 2003 09:15 PM

---

 

The article makes a valid strategic point about the USA's dependence on foreign oil. But it avoids the trickest political issues.

In the short term (under 5 years) the quickest way to reduce oil dependence is to tax oil-based fuels. This will also provide some back-up cover against the risk that alternative-fuel development programs run into difficulties (as the nuclear power industry did long before Three Mile Island). It is not an easy solution politically:
* It will annoy US motorists.
* It will annoy US business, especially if aviation fuel is also taxed.
* There will be interesting legal problems if, e.g. some road-users convert their vehicles to run on aviation fuel or some other lower-taxed oil-based fuel.

But one of the striking things about Americans is that they will listen to reasoned arguments - until the 1970s the USA had higher mortality rate from heart ataacks than the UK, but now it las a lower rate because on average Americans now eat more healthily and exercise more than Brits like me.

The article also over-commits itself to one solution without considering the pros and cons of alternatives. For example alcohol is a workable and cheap road vehicle fuel but there is some concern about toxic emissions from alcohol-fuelled vehicles.

I think President Bush has also over-committed to one solution - a risky position. He might do better to use the "bully pulpit" to convince Americans of the need to reduce oil dependence and then let the whole USA apply its famous ingenuity to the problem.

Posted by: Philip Chalmers on March 13, 2003 01:23 PM

---