I haven't wandered too much into non-solar specific topics, but since national energy policy affects us all, and of which solar is a part, the solarDweller shall indulge.
It's hard to keep up with all the pro-oil policy headlines of the current administration, which leads me to doubt the sincerity (duh) of an alternative energy commitment, at a time when we need a "green energy" Apollo program. Today's Washington Post for example: "Energy Program Trumps Wildlife,"
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A01
PINEDALE, Wyo. -- The Bureau of Land Management, caretaker of more land and wildlife than any federal agency, routinely restricts the ability of its own biologists to monitor wildlife damage caused by surging energy drilling on federal land, according to BLM officials and bureau documents.
The officials and documents say that by keeping many wildlife biologists out of the field doing paperwork on new drilling permits and that by diverting agency money intended for wildlife conservation to energy programs, the BLM has compromised its ability to deal with the environmental consequences of the drilling boom it is encouraging on public lands.
Any Presidential attention to green energy, or a comment on "addiction to oil" or a photo-op at a thin-film solar production company, seem more and more like cynical, focus-group planned events and not true to this observer. Who can expect an oil dynasty administration to cut off the oil? Do they really have solutions or just enough sound-bites until the next election?
The answer is cutting down our total use of oil, which is a more accurate way of saying "reducing our dependence" on oil. Hybrids, drive a lot less. Our car society just doesn't want make such a lifestyle change or know how to. Couldn't a leader/politician step in here to make the argument about less fuel consumption = less oil dependence, and tap into people's desire to "do what it takes" to use less oil?