First, a disclaimer: I am among the 64 percent of Americans [1] who disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job. I wish I could be objective about his energy policies, but I can't.

That said, I tried to listen to last night's State of the Union speech [2] with an open mind, especially since he addressed need for renewable resources and alternative fuels.

It's fair to say that Bush presented an ambitious energy proposal. Some of the highlights include:

• Reduce the projected use of gasoline [3] by 20 percent by 2017.
• Mandatory increase in production of ethanol [3] and alternative fuels.
• Mandatory production of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels per year by 2017.
• Increase fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks by 4 percent a year, or about one mile per gallon.

Sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, I find it tough to be optimistic. For one thing, he continues to rely heavily on solutions that are essentially still pipe dreams, such as hydrogen cars and cellulosic ethanol.

For another, I just read an insightful news analysis [4] on the Bush administration's miserable track record when it comes to energy policies. It reviews his energy proposals dating back to 2000, along with their generally unsuccessful outcomes.

Critics have noted that Bush completely ignored [5] a few big issues. Why, for instance, didn't he call for electrical power plants to reduce carbon dioxide? What about a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions?

Bush barely acknowledged global warming [5]. He failed to ask Americans to be more energy-conscious and efficient. His legacy -- at least when it comes to energy -- will be that instead of improving matters, he made them worse.

Good thing that the 2008 election is just around the corner.