Only nixon could go to china and only Bush can go to Mars. I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I'll need to see it very carefully. (We should always remember, of course, that one of the reasons why only Nixon could go to China was that Nixon helped make it impossible for anyone else to go.)

If Bush's evolution is anything like his Intelligent Design of foreign policy, we'd better be prepared for bupkis.

An adviser said Bush's views about global warming have evolved.

I wish this said "Bush said 'My views about global warming have evolved.'"

Bush's views about global warming have been Intelligently Designed.

My sources tell me he is deploying a contingent of Space Marines to neutralize and destroy the Ozone Layer of Evil.

Oil dependency results in two apparent evils. The first is global warming (assuming the threat is both real and man-made). The second evil, which is both real AND man-made is that we spend a lot of our treasure on it, and the oil is pumped, to a large degree, by countries run by unpleasant people whom we would rather not be dependent on.

Democrats are afraid of global warming. Republicans are afraid that folks like Chavez, Ahmedinejad and the Saudis will have increasing influence or power over us.

There should be a consensus that we must reduce our dependence on oil. The President is to be complimented for appealing to the concerns of his opponents in trying to build a consensus for this obviously necessary policy.

And some of the snarky commentators demonstrate by their remarks how much less wisdom and intelligence they have than does the President.

Bush had a Nixon-goes-to-China opportunity with No Child Left Behind -- enacted the law, blew the implementation. He had a Nixon-goes-to-China opportunity with his first, secret, energy plan, but chose to keep it among Cheney's friends. He had a Nixon-goes-to-China opportunity after 9/11: he could have said, this is a real war, and rescinded tax cuts in order to pay for it, showing that we would all be called upon to sacrifice.

With a track record like that, why would any thinking person, let alone a thinking blogger, waste their readers' time with idle speculation of this kind? Can you say, "I supported an administration that turned out to be both incompetent and criminal on an unprecedented scale?" Well, start practicing.

The Nixon/China/Bush analogy is off.

The real analogy would be Nixon/China/Democrats. Its the democrats, whose policies have choked off domestic energy production, whether its oil, coal, nuclear or wind generated, who need to change their ways.

Its the democrats, whose policies have choked off domestic energy production, whether its oil, coal, nuclear or wind generated, who need to change their ways.

Really? Name a single bill offered by the GOP for opening up ANWR for exploration that didn't include royalty forgiveness and tax credits. Or for that matter, name a single oil exploration company willing to develop ANWR without the tax credits and royalty forgiveness?

Who refused to open up the Destin Dome area on the Gulf of Mexico for exploration? (Bush, at the behest of his other brother Bush, that's who)

Or are facts irrelevant to you?

It would be a good thing to divorce worries about warming, which is a hoax, from questions about energy supply, which is not.

The very first question, which no one ever asks, is: what scale of replacement production do we want?

The choices range from distributed systems (every man's rooftop his power station) to fusion reactors.

My own view is that distributed generation advocates have not even addressed the maintenance issue. The giant power station advocates (fusion or any other) have not really thought through the environmental issues, principally local waste heat problems.

So I'm a middle-of-the-roader.

It is possible to waste serious money in a hurry in no-commercial-potential energy schemes. Been there, done that, didn't benefit.

I'm dating myself - but I remember the first gas crisis in 1973, and afterwards all of the talk about alternate energy, and all the money in research grants and tax breaks spent on it that resulted in, basically, nothing. We will get useful alternate energy sources when there is a viable market for them, not by government trying to force it.

In the mean time, I say we pump those unpleasant countries dry to deny them a future revenue stream (from sales to nations which won't have our magic alternatives). Oh yes, and keep your hands off ANWR (for now), I view it as a strategic reserve.

Perhaps the deal in California with Schwarzenegger and the Dems to enact a long term CO2 market-based emissions limit is a trial balloon for the President to some degree?

Is it lead?

Wash Post Story

...The California bill requires a 25 percent cut in carbon dioxide pollution produced within the state's borders by 2020 in order to bring the total down to 1990 levels....The California legislation also provides a statewide market system designed to make it easier for heavily polluting industries to meet the new limits. They would be able to buy "credits" from companies that emit lower emissions than the caps allow, rather than having to invest in cleaner new technologies....

Now, that is carbon dioxide, not one of the pollutants such as NOX, SOX, particulates, HC's.

Exactly how, I wonder, is California going to get that 20 percent reduction without addressing the automobile carbon dioxide emissions?