"Renewables" vs. Exxon

In Pres. Bush's State of the Union, he gleamed that:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. And we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

[my emphasis - who knows if that money includes nuclear, which is not alternative energy, not clean, not safe, not cheap if you include all the costs related to keeping the nuclear waste well handed for 10,000 years.]

$10 billion over 5 years stacks up... not so well against what Exxon earned (one company) in one year on just oil: $36 billion in one year [stockholder's and CEO's emphasis]. Exxon doesn't attempt other types of energy, and is trying to get out of obligations related to the Exxon Valdez too.

All this while most scientists are pointing to horrible consequences about climate change, that the U.S. won't deal with. Or will deal with it "on a voluntary basis." Because it's not possible/bad for the economy to mandate CO2 limits. But the UK has cut its emissions, and without adding nuclear plants. And what about the consequences of global warming on the economy, since that seems to be all some people care about?? Florida floods, more hurricanes (do those cost money?), more erratic weather, weed plant species increasing...

This is nothing new, however. Psalm 37 warns about not getting too angry over such evil, for that anger only leads to evil. "But the righteous will inherit the land forever..." but there will be a lot of work to do to fix the wounded land.