Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

George vs. Jimmy on Energy

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted October 3, 2005.


There's a stark difference in the way the U.S. confronted an oil crisis when Democrats were in control, compared to the way it has now that Republicans dominate.
Advertisement

The image of George Bush asking Americans to save oil by driving less brings to mind another image, that of Jimmy Carter wearing a cardigan sweater and asking Americans to save oil by turning down our thermostats.

Carter delivered his speech in February 1977. In July 1979, he gave another energy address that came to be called the "malaise" speech because he seemed to be blaming our unwillingness to stem the rising tide of oil imports on a national melancholy. Both speeches, most observers believe, contributed to Ronald Reagan's decisive victory in 1980.

Today the Democrats are ridiculing Bush's lame appeal for Americans to spend less time behind the wheel. The last thing they may want is for someone to point out that 30 years ago their own party's leader made a similar request.

They should want people to understand the similarities. And the differences. Because there is a stark difference in the way this nation confronted an oil crisis when Democrats were in control compared to the way it has now that Republicans dominate.

President Carter was indeed asking for individual sacrifice; but as a small part of an aggressive, national campaign. President Bush is asking for individual sacrifice instead of an aggressive campaign.

By the time Jimmy Carter gave his first energy speech, the Democratic Congress had already (under Gerald Ford) imposed fuel efficiency standards on cars. That law single-handedly doubled the fuel efficiency of new cars from 1975 to 1987. In 1978, Carter and a Democratic Congress enacted five individual energy laws that launched the commercialization of alternative transportation fuels and renewable electricity sources. And they imposed efficiency standards on an array of major appliances.

In 1980, Carter and the Democratic Senate and House passed energy legislation that contained a credible and coherent strategy for reducing our dependence on imported oil.

Few Americans remember the Democratic response to the doubling of oil prices in 1979 and 1980. One reason is that within months Ronald Reagan came into office and Republicans gained control of the Senate. They immediately tried to overturn all major energy legislation. That initiative failed. But the executive branch effectively dismantled virtually all renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.

Twenty-six years later, it might be instructive to review what Jimmy Carter said in 1979 and compare it to any energy speech George W. Bush has ever given. President Carter began,

Ten days ago I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- energy. For the fifth time I would have described the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you. Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

He had set his speech aside, he noted, and met with hundreds of individuals. He quoted from many of them, and concluded that Americans had lost confidence in their capacity to act collectively to solve their problems.

But Carter was not there to dwell on our malaise but to present a strategy for overcoming it. He turned to the issue at hand.

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny. ... It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.

Digg!

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
They divide and conquer
Posted by: ScottP on Sep 30, 2005 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But we shall overcome!

Bravo for reminding me of the good old days when the government helped us conserve and develop alternative energy. Keep the dream alive, and let's make it reality in 2006.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great analysis.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 30, 2005 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad we don't have citizen voters who can comprehend the distinctions. If we did, we wouldn't have Bush in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Boy do you have that right! Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Remember all the energy saving devices that had got tax credits?
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Oct 3, 2005 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At a time when there are not enough jobs and energy costs are out of sight, it seems like the right time to encourage new industries that reduce our dependence on gasoline and crude oil. We need new jobs and tax credits that help the inventors out there. We need to remember there is a race that is run every year, coast to coast that only burns organic fuels from veggie and stuff. Methane is the by-product of rotting food. One city gets all its natural gas this way. When people start to hurt financially, then it will be safe to present new ideas without the inventors being bought off by oil interests or quietly disappearing from the face of the earth. It is time of the people to rise up and say no more high price, oil driven machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

30 years of missed opportunity
Posted by: SBK on Oct 3, 2005 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get so frustrated when I realize most of the energy issues we are dealing with were first discussed in the 70s. The fact that the US knew we would have to change our ways and Reagan chose to ignore it and dump all that cash and power into war and corporate profits is unforgivable. My generation is picking this debate up from square one and that is so unfair. Technology, research, and momentum have all been stalled. War is not an energy policy and the hurricanes will continue. I can tell you this generation has the balls to make the transition! And it all starts with education and organizing for every soccer mom, office park dad, and 16 year old new driver. Conservation is a way life and this country can achieve it, we just have to push for it. Like Carter says, it starts with us--small habits, small steps. Bring your friends to a biodiesel demonstration today!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is Peak Oil in this discussion?
Posted by: sd333trop on Oct 3, 2005 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wimpy measures proposed by Carter and the even wimpier measures proposed by Bush in no way make up for the physical reality of the situation: we are rapidly approaching global Peak Oil, or the irreversible and accelerating physical inability of oil supplies to keep up with growing demand. No array of half-baked measures designed to preserve our capitalist system of ceaseless expansion and the privileged positions of the wealthy will enable us to survive. The only viable strategy is to convert our ravenous and insatiable financial economy to one based on the actual physical resources necessary to meet more of our needs and less of our frivolous, corporate-induced wants. Technocracy introduced this approach in the 1930's. Where are we now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't blindly trust LATOC Posted by: nickptar
Bio fuels....You can do it.
Posted by: crusty on Oct 3, 2005 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have seen several of the local farmers around my region using bio fuels in a variety of ways. For them it is a financial boon because most of these such fuels are cheaper. THey did not need any specific legislation to do this.... they just did it. My point is that instead of waiting for the government to introduce legislation on this subject, that it makes sense to just do it. If the concern is there we all have the ability to change our lives. If enough people do this on thier own the government will see a way to profit and then it will act. Thats the way it is. Example of this is the organic standards recently implemented. The government reealized it was not going away... so they jumped on the bandwagon. Of course it is not as simple as that, but thats the gist of it. It is truly unfortunate that it is this way, but this is how things are. So Get on it and do it. Stop whining about it and waiting for someone to hold your hand. You can do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Energy Sector and Conservation
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Oct 3, 2005 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it really surprising that the Bush administration has ignored the environment and is embarking on a campaign to destroy it further? It is oil that drives the Bush administration.

When Cheney held his discussions to develop a new energy policy only members of the oil industry were invited. When subsidies are doled out to the the energy sector, the lion's share goes to the non-sustainable sector. No bid contracts worth billions of dollars have been offered to Haliburton, a gaint oil servicing corporation. The Bush family has ties to the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Bush has staffed all the major environmental agencies with enemies of the environment.

So do not expect more than a hollow sermon from the mount from this president who believes that politics is about serving your friends and not the public. Also, I think it is safe to say that Bush has not read widely on environmental issues. The only way in which Bush excels at saving energy is by taking many long vacations and not working too hard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carter Doctrine
Posted by: Pooty T on Oct 3, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no real difference between what Carter did and what Bush is doing now. It's funny that the author quotes from Carter's 79 state of the union speech, which came to be known as the Carter doctrine (and later "The War on Terror"). This is exactly the policy Bush is carrying out today. Listen again:

On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

You think he was speaking figuratively here? How about here (same speech):

An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Carter said we need a huge commitment of tax dollars "to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas". Who do you think those tax dollars were going to???????? How is that different from what Bush is doing today? (Huge payouts to EXXON and the rest to expand their business)

Yeah, Carter talked a good game -- maybe he even tried to do the right thing. But at the end of the day it was the same: the Wall Street / CIA - military industrial complex was, and still is, in control of the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Carter Doctrine - But ... Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Carter Doctrine Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Carter Doctrine Posted by: Pooty T
» RE: Carter Doctrine Posted by: Ljay
» RE: Carter Doctrine Posted by: ShaSpirit
Alternate Energy
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 3, 2005 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cold Fusion. It will save us. It will stop a lot of the violence. It will solve the energy crisis.

So, why aren't we developing cold fusion?

anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternate Energy Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Alternate Energy Posted by: Pooty T
car culture
Posted by: Halaby on Oct 3, 2005 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every alternative to cars has been soft peddled, ridiculed, or dismissed out of hand. During our military adventures in SE Asia, cars killed almost as many Americans in one year as died during 15 years of war. Cars continue to kill over 50,000 Americans outright per year, and many more indirectly through the pollution produced by manufacturing, driving, and maintaining cars. Bicyclists are at best tolerated as nuisances, public transportaion is scorned, and passenger train service is rendered laughable. (We did build a demonstration high speed train, such as functions in crowded Europe and Japan, but we built it on the East Coast where it could only get up to speed on an 18 mile stretch; why wasn't an effective demo biolt in the West?.

I never bought into the car Culture, and in the last few years, I have come to strongly oppose it. Last year, I considered that the car culture in America tended to reinforce arrogant behavior. However, any culture arises to express a given people's values. Car culture is the culture of an arrogant people. Americans generally hold alternatives to their commercial culture in contempt. Conservation, the humility of adjusting to your local climate, recycling, modest lifestyles, and especially WALKING, RIDING A BUS, OR RIDING A BIKE are despised as "unreasonable" in today's world, but basically because these actions are perceived as the actions of the poor and weak.

The two main architects of the car culture are Ford and Hitler, and the two were a mutual admiration society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Arrogant, selfish and ignorant too Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Give Me Carter
Posted by: davidt on Oct 3, 2005 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice little piece.

Does anyone remember what kind of reaction Carter got from this speech from the media?

"Amercans don't like to be told what to do" "This will never fly, Americans like their cars" "America has plenty of oil and always will, Carter is a fool!" "Just like a liberal Democrat, wanting to waste money on another useless spending program while hurting American business."

Now George-boy tells us not to drive so much and conserve fuel while his compassionate gods-on-earth patriots in Big Oil tear up Alaska to help alleviate the energy pinch. How does he get away with it? Why we are at war, we all have to make sacrifices. Some WE dudes.

Peak Oil has passed and every second we dither about where to drill for more puts another nail in our coffins.

BTW, our energy salvation aka the Caspian Basin is a big bust. The oil is low quality, low quantity, over-dispersed and UNprofitable--BP has PULLED OUT AND GONE HOME!

Peak Oil means that we are now in deep shit. We are on the way down to the end of the cycle of extraction. In America it happeded about 1977. In the Middle East it happened this year. All of the oil companies know about it, that is why they are merging, hence Exxon-Mobil, BP-Sunoco etc. This is the only way that they can maintain shareholder premiums. They are buying up diversifieds like scared rabbits.

This is also why we have a co-dependent relationship with the Saudi royals. We let them fund terrorists in our own country and launder their millions while maintaining an extremely unstable monarchy with our military and they guarantee us oil as long as it can be pumped.

FDR cooked up this Pact with the Devil when Great Britain went bankrupt fighting WWII. He secretly met with a Saudi Royal on a small boat in the middle of nowhere. Another Typical Nowhere, anyone know where Bretton Wood is? New Hampshire.

However, we can take some simple steps to postpone the inevitable: drive at 50 mph, walk when possible, eat with a conscience to stay healthy--mitigate the salt, fat & sugar.

Oops! Pardon my sermon, America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Give Me Carter Posted by: h2oaso
» RE: Give Me Carter Posted by: h2oaso
» RE: Give Me Carter Posted by: davidt
Burn republicans...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Oct 3, 2005 9:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider the amount of methane produced by any number of pie holes opened to decry the menace of the left.

Grind them all up and burn the squeezins.

Global production of sweet crude peaked in 2001.

Refineries are geared to cracking sweet, not med/heavy sour.

But since this bunch of assholes has more or less thrown science out the window, I guess we're stuck with some sort of intelligent design, or perhaps it will just create itself, and if we are all nice, perhaps even God will fucking kick in.

GFL.

I pray for an ice age whereas the entire Bush family and all of its supporters are crushed under an ice flow. Mashed for millions of years under the tumbling dirt of time, encased in anticlines for some future Chellmobexico exec to exploit for Cheneys ribald family of spooks to proffer from yet again.

I would love to be burning bushaline in my Hummer. Such a great branch chain hydrocarbon as that! A thousand miles to the gallon due to the complexities of the shit that created it. A cracking problem, but prayer will fix it.

Methane for a million years, just think of it. Intelligent design taken to its absurd conclusion in the search for another source of fuel.

I think I’ll just sit here and light my own farts for a while, perhaps something better will strike. And excuse me for wasting your time, it was just a flash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am one of the eight people who still admit to voting for Carter twice!
Posted by: Ljay on Oct 5, 2005 10:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carter was the only president who took our energy needs and the political and economic implications thereof seriously. Carter's energy policies, if kept in place, would have put us in great shape now energy-wise. The windfall profits tax (WPT) on the domestic oil industry, by itself would have solved many of the continuing problems we face.
Ronald Reagan, repealed it along with other 'taxes' as a tax cutting measure, however, he misled the people. The WPT was designed to become revenue nuetral over time. It was designed to adjust the incentives of an oligopolistic market, to more a rational basis.
At this time, there is a definite incentive to produce less of everything when it come to oil, because the less produced, the more money the producers make. Under the WPT, the less propduced the less money the producers make.
We now have reduced refining capacity. And the hurricanes knocked a lot of the existing capacity. So the oil companies are able to jack up the price of refined oil and gasoline with impunity. If the excess profits made by the windfall was taxed away and profits of the oil companies would fall when the refineries were off line, you can bet that we would have plenty of back-up capacity. Those greedy oil companies would never allow their profits to fall simply because they couldn't get refined products to market.
Where is Jimmy when we really need him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]