Declaration of Independence (The Hidden Friedman)

Mr. Friedman has some suggestions for President Bush's upcoming State of the Union speech, to be given next Tuesday, along the lines of reenergizing the spirit of the Kennedy Apollo project to today's biggest challenge--energy independence. In his Friday column State of the Union (full column access to Times Select subscribers), he writes the speech that he'd like to hear from President Bush.

My fellow Americans, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy gave an extraordinary State of the Union address in which he called on the nation to marshal all of its resources to put a man on the Moon. By setting that lofty goal, Kennedy was trying to summon all our industrial and scientific talent, and a willingness to sacrifice financially, to catch up with the Soviet Union, which had overtaken America in the field of large rocket engines.

"While we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first," Kennedy said, "we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last."

I come to you this evening with a similar challenge. President Kennedy was worried about the threat that communism posed to our way of life. I am here to tell you that if we don't move away from our dependence on oil and shift to renewable fuels, it will change our way of life for the worse — and soon — much, much more than communism ever could have. Making this transition is the calling of our era.

[...]

But to lead, we must impose the highest energy-efficiency standards on our own automakers and other industries so we force them to be the most innovative. I want to inspire girls and boys across America to study math, science or engineering to help our nation achieve green energy independence. President Kennedy said, Let's put a man on the Moon. I say, Let's make oil obsolete.

[...]

With all of this in mind, I am sending Congress the Bush Energy Freedom Act. It is based on ideas first offered by the energy expert Philip Verleger and it argues the following:

Transportation accounts for most of our oil consumption. And many Americans have purchased big cars and S.U.V.'s, expecting gasoline to remain cheap. That is no longer the case. Therefore, I propose creating a government agency that will buy up any gas-guzzling car or truck in America at the original new or used price, and crush it. This national buy-back program will be financed by a $2-a-gallon gasoline tax that will be phased in by 10 cents a month beginning in 2008 — so people know what is coming and start buying fuel-efficient cars right now.

By removing so many gas guzzlers, we will quickly reduce our oil consumption and create a huge demand for new energy-efficient cars from Detroit, which will rescue our auto industry. We have to do something drastic. The Harley-Davidson motorcycle company is worth more today than General Motors! But by sharply raising the gasoline tax, we'll also make sure that Detroit shifts its fleet to energy-saving plug-in hybrids and hydrogen- and ethanol-burning vehicles, which will force Detroit to out-innovate Toyota. And by generating so much income from a gasoline tax, we will be able to give gas-tax rebates to lower-income folks and have plenty left over to pay for new investment in education and scientific research.

Impossible? Read my lips: Nothing is impossible when Americans put their hearts and minds to it.

One last thing: I have accepted the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney, who felt he could not be a salesman for the Energy Freedom Act. I am nominating Jeffrey Immelt — the C.E.O. of General Electric, who has focused G.E.'s innovation around "eco-imagination" — as Mr. Cheney's replacement.

Ahh, that would be a dream come true. Regarding Mr. Verleger, here's a bit of background on him, and also some prescient remarks of his from back in August 2004 from the WaPo, when oil prices were hitting an "all-time high" of $48 a barrel:

But Philip Verleger, a respected energy economist, warns that over the next several years, the price pressure will probably get worse. "Prices may rise to $50 per barrel, or $60 per barrel, or even $70 per barrel," he writes in a recent report to clients. "They will likely remain there until growth in petroleum demand slows down enough to match available refining, logistical and productive capacity."
[...]
The energy economist bases his gloomy forecast on several factors. First, he notes that on the futures market, prices for delivery of oil two years from now have risen $13 a barrel since last May, almost as much as the $17 per barrel increase in spot market prices.
[...]
Another cause for Verleger's pessimism is Iran. He argues that Tehran is on a collision course with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program. As the West pressures Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment efforts, Iran could respond by cutting in half its current oil exports of about 3 million barrels a day. In this skittish market, such a cutback could drive oil prices to $60 a barrel, Verleger argues.

We also have the concept/reality of peak oil, staring us in the face. Daily Kos/European Tribune diarist Jerome a Paris has a great post noting that, with the announcement that the Kuwaiti Burgan oil field is exhausted and past peak, the world's four largest oil fields are now in decline.

It's time to get busy.