Syriana, Kyoto and Hybrid Cars

So, the Montreal climate conference resulted in a 150 Nation agreement for further meetings that won't include the U.S. (more). The Bush administration won't sign onto the Kyoto Protocol because of fears that mandatory emissions cutbacks could have a negative effect on the U.S. economy.

While I support the Kyoto Protocol, I think Bush does have a point about the economy, but I think he has an even greater point when he demands that Kyoto must include India and China. Nonetheless, in the midst of ever more global warming evidence, I think serious action is required, and Kyoto might be a good step because it gets the U.S. to stop talking about global warming and to start doing something about it.

So, what is Bush's answer to global warming, technology.

While I agree with Bush, I don't agree with his process for bringing forth such technology. The Bush future is the hydrogen economy, which I believe in, but I also believe we can't wait for it. We must start taking action NOW.

Ironically, one of the main contributors to global warming is also one of the main contributors to terrorism - oil dependency. Yet, even after 9/11, after Iraq, after Katrina, the U.S. is still taking little action to really change America's dependency on oil.

If Bush believes in technology, then why doesn't he seek oil independence the same way Kennedy sought the moon in the '60s?

The technology just isn't there yet?

Baloney!!!!!

While many criticize hybrid cars for their costs and for their failure to meet EPA fuel efficiency ratings, the truth is, if every American drove a Toyota Prius hybrid today, we would end foreign oil dependency today.

But the best part of hybrid cars isn't what they can do today, but what they can do tomorrow if we invest. Experimental hybrid cars demonstrate that the technology to drastically reduce America's oil consumption exists right now, and it really isn't that expensive. In fact it is incredibly less expensive and incredibly more feasible than hydrogen vehicles.

Is it more expensive than conventional vehicles, yes, and that is why the government needs to get involved. Still how expensive is the war on terror, or the costs of pollution and global warming?

Recently, Bill Ford lobbied the government to provide more tax incentives to help Detroit reduce foreign oil dependency and to regain its sense of automotive innovation.

The government has said it isn't interested.

Isn't this exactly what Bush was talking about when it comes to better alternatives to Kyoto? But it isn't just Kyoto, its the war on terrorism as well.

"I'm involved in this because most of the world's oil reserves are owned by countries that finance people that want to kill us, that finance radical Islam," Anne Korin, co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

While Mrs. Korin doesn't believe in global warming, she is joining with global warming activists and using the movie Syriana to bring attention to the dangers of America's oil dependence (more).

Yet, GM is set to roll out model after model of gas-guzzling SUVs and neither Ford nor GM seem to know how to be profitable in a fuel efficient world.

What better opportunity for the government to get involved? This isn't about interfering with free markets, it's about protecting the people from the proven dangers of terrorism, while also protecting the environment and the 'possible' dangers of global warming. If global warming isn't a national security issue, terrorism certainly is.

And, speaking of the economy, if America is the fuel efficient, greenhouse reducing technology leader of the world, what could be better for the economy?