Speech without Substance

In his speech at Georgetown the other day, President Obama made it very clear that we are too reliant on foreign oil. One of his main goals is to reduce daily oil imports (which total an average of 10 million barrels) by a third. However, the requirements that he laid out to reach this goal seem unrealistic and slightly misguided. In the USA Today Washington’s review of the speech, they listed Obama’s main objectives as:

1.       Tap into the nation’s large reserves of natural gas.

2.       Increase reliance on renewable biofuels.

3.       Decrease reliance on oil by making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient.

4.       Continue investing in high-speed rail and mass transit.

I’m not sure that simply shifting our reliance from one natural resource (oil) to another (natural gas) is an appropriate solution. Likewise, I have to take issue with his investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because they are still not very widely used or available in the United States, and I’m not sure that they would be able to an efficient use of resources.

Also, one of the huge issues facing environmental reform is the initial price tag. Understandably, there is a sticker shock associated with the start-up costs of “going green.” However, I don’t think that the President appropriately addressed this issue. Rather, he seemed to just barely gloss over it in his speech. His quote is that “we are already paying a price for our inaction…if we do nothing, that price will only go up.” Quite frankly, this doesn’t seem like a very convincing argument. If Obama expects the opposition in Congress to support the initiatives and citizens to shift their lifestyle habits, he is going to need to be more convincing than “well, we may as well.”

In the article on NPR’s website, they included an analysis of President Obama’s speech on Friday as well. It seemed very similar, except it had extracted a promise from 5 major companies (including Verizon and PepsiCo) to start incorporating fuel-efficient vehicles into their fleets. However grand this seems, a mere 20,000 fuel-efficient trucks is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed to actually make a difference – considering the US alone has over 3 million commercial vehicles alone. Honestly, as sad as I am to say it, this energy push does not seem to have the push that a true change needs, and I think Obama realizes it. Because there is not even a bill attached, the political clout is lowered; it is even possible that it is just another speech to give Obama publicity, a positive image, and some press for the environmental community without too much effort. It is good that the issue isn’t being ignored, but there needs to be more substance in the speech before it can become a rallying point for America and actually point them in a new direction.