GM FORECASTS RADICAL CHANGE - The Founder
GM FORECASTS RADICAL CHANGE - The Founder
GM FORECASTS RADICAL CHANGE - The Founder
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MILLER & BENSON © BOB GROVES<br />
EDITORIAL & OPINION Monday 29 January 2007 thefounder<br />
& Opinion<br />
thefounder<br />
john@thefounder.co.uk<br />
Editorial<br />
POLITICS AMANDA FARRY<br />
Does the ‘Green<br />
Bush’ blossom?<br />
In the ‘State of the Union’ speech given by George Bush last week,<br />
some environmental issues were addressed... Does this constitute<br />
a change in American environment policy or were the statements<br />
made purely for the benefit of the popularity polls?<br />
<strong>The</strong> announcement last week from George Bush of a number of ‘environmentally<br />
friendly’ initiatives has caused quite a stir in the media. But what<br />
are the motives behind Bush’s announcements? Political popularity boost<br />
or can we really believe it’s for the greener good?<br />
In last week’s speech, Bush mentioned plans to reduce the US’s petrol<br />
consumption by 20% in the next 10 years, perhaps quite an ambitious target<br />
for the US, but nevertheless a step in the right direction. Bush’s other<br />
plans included more money, £808 million to be exact, to be spent over the<br />
next 10 years on research and development of renewable energy sources.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se figures did indeed provide a certain amount of hope for the optimists<br />
among us, but on closer inspection there are some cracks in Bush’s<br />
ideas.<br />
For instance Bush at one point says that ‘we must also step up domestic<br />
oil production in environmentally sensitive ways; perhaps a slightly<br />
contradictory statement? In order to rapidly increase any oil production<br />
without causing some harm to the environment is currently an unrealistic<br />
prospect. But this statement may have an underlying meaning; is it hinting<br />
that oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), currently<br />
fiercely debated among American conservationists, will go ahead<br />
in an ‘environmentally sensitive’ way? Or was this statement intended to<br />
reiterate Bush’s later comment; that the country is too dependent on the<br />
turbulent Middle East for their oil?<br />
After reading the entire ‘environmental’ sections of Bush’s speech, there<br />
appears to be an absence of hard policies and commitment to these issues.<br />
<strong>The</strong> biggest issue, carbon emissions, is not mentioned and even those that<br />
have are somewhat ‘glazed’. However, there may be some light at the end of<br />
the tunnel for American green policy: the technology route. Who said the<br />
Americans have to follow the direction preferred by many other nations<br />
of the world? George Bush’s ‘Technology not treaties’ approach to climate<br />
change may be the way forward. After all, technology got us into this mess,<br />
so why can’t it get us out? So perhaps the money spent on research and<br />
development may reap some benefits after all; only time will tell.<br />
<strong>The</strong> bottom line is that after taking an overview of Mr Bush’s speech, the<br />
conclusion we all expected still prevailed: the environment has not moved<br />
up the agenda, but has merely been used to create political hype, possibly<br />
as an attempt to boost Bush’s diminishing popularity with the American<br />
people. <strong>The</strong>re is however one positive outcome, albeit a selfish or unselfish<br />
motive, Bush has finally brought the environment some form of hope.<br />
For the full State of the Union address go to the BBC website: http://<br />
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3415361.stm<br />
Recycle!<br />
Recycle!<br />
Recycle!<br />
Bins located just outside <strong>The</strong> Hub<br />
(next to ‘Lake Medicine’)