“We need an all-out effort, a Manhattan Project, a man to the moon, to become less dependent on fossil fuel and the Middle East.”
– Rep. Chris Shays R.-Conn.
In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first Earth-orbiting, artificial satellite, called Sputnik. Its technological success shocked the American government into a massive effort to surpass the Soviet Union’s space prowess.
New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Thomas Friedman believes we should respond to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico with a new Apollo program for energy independence. Friedman said this would be our “moon shot.”
The American Energy Innovation Council supports Friedman’s position. It advocates a partnership of private industry and the federal government to cut America’s dependence on fossil fuel.
The AEIC’s seven members have first-rate credentials. It includes people such as Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft; Jeffrey R. Immelt, chief executive of General Electric; John Doerr, a top venture capitalist; and Ursula M. Burns, chief executive of Xerox.
The AEIC released its study June 10. It concludes that developing alternatives to fossil fuels would be catalyzed by:
Tripling government spending on energy research and development, to $16 billion a year. In stark contrast, our government spends more than $80 billion on military research and development and about $30 billion annually on health research.
Creating a politically neutral national Energy Strategy Board to provide a cohesive U.S. energy strategy.
Establishing centers of excellence concentrating on specific technologies, such as solar power, advanced energy storage, clean-vehicle transportation systems, carbon capture and fourth generation nuclear power.
AEIC’s proposal coincided with significant developments:
More than 100 million barrels of oil have spewed from the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Obama administration is pushing for a new approach to energy and climate policy.
The Senate is debating conflicting proposals from Democrats and Republicans and from different regions. Key senators from states that rely heavily on jobs related to both offshore oil and coal continue to block a “cap and trade” bill.
In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, Gates said America cannot reduce greenhouse emissions by 80 percent by 2050 with today’s technology or politics.
Marty Fridson, author of “Unwarranted Intrusions: The Case against Government Intervention in the Market Place,” argues that a top-down approach could concentrate research in unproductive areas. Fridson supported a diverse network of profit-seeking research organizations. He advocated that Congress could establish large monetary rewards for:
Inventing commercially viable methods of displacing imported oil.
Breakthroughs in technologies such as wind, geothermal and oil-shale power.
Fridson wrote, “It is not even clear that a wholesale shift toward domestic, renewable sources is a realistic hope. If significant strides are to be made, however, the solution will probably involve a combination of approaches, such as nuclear power, solar energy, biofuels, conservation and amelioration of the environmental problems associated with certain domestic fuels.”
Two months after the Gulf oil spill, America remains divided on how to promote clean energy. Do we rely upon top-down methods recommended by AEIC, or Fridson’s market-driven innovations to achieve our “moon shot?”
Friedman took a middle course, jokingly commenting that America should be China “for a day, but not two.” In this hypothetical single day of authoritarianism, Friedman felt we could eliminate all the impediments to becoming an energy innovation leader. We could then rely upon the private market place.
Friedman argued that “going green” in the long run will be a financial bonanza. It will provide Americans with longer, healthier and more productive lives, and companies that provide energy-efficient solutions also can produce millions of high-skill, high-income jobs.
Originally published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune
