Towards a Democratic energy policy

[DemoVet]

Democrats and Energy

During the 1940's a Democratic president, responding to a war that threatened the survival of our civilization, started the Manhattan Project, which resulted in an atomic bomb (not even imagined a few short years before) and a quantum leap in science and technology. Twenty years later a Democratic president, responding to national anxiety about the growing Soviet space program and the perceived threats from it, spurred the country to put astronauts on the moon by the end of the decade, resulting in the Apollo missions, a landing on the moon in 1969, and another quantum leap in science and technology.

Who better, then, to initiate a Manhattan Project/Apollo level effort to bring us to energy independence from imported fossil fuels within 10 years, teamed with an ongoing commitment to reduce energy consumption in the meantime? This would seem to be a two-for in that it would reduce the production of greenhouse gasses while also reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil (and heading off the inevitable confrontation with the Chinese). Maybe even a three-for, in that the price of oil will go down in the interim as demand goes down, which is something that's easily understood by even red-staters (who are paying the same inflated prices for gas that the blue staters are).

The republicans wouldn't propose this in a million years, despite the desperate need for it. They don't do leadership, just demagoguery, they can't do policy (too reality-based) very well. Our strength is that we are able, on occasion, to dream big and pull it off. What's in their resume that matches either of the accomplishments mentioned above? Or any major accomplishment that benefits the people and not republicans and their donors?

What are the chances of seeing Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi standing on the steps of the Capitol and announcing a new Contract with (not on) America, which offers a vision of a future not dictated by Exxon-Mobil, et al, but one of abundant energy supplied by sources that don't tie us to unstable countries halfway around the world and ever-scarcer, increasingly expensive and ultimately harmful fossil fuels? Are there any Democratic leaders willing to step up here?

I of course have no exact idea of what these sources and technologies will be, nor would I expect anyone else to at this point, but did the managers of the Manhattan Project know in 1941 exactly how they were going to get to the point of enriching an adequate quantity of weapons-grade uranium or initiating and sustaining a fission reaction? Yet at the end of it they had two bomb designs. And in 1960, could anyone have predicted exactly how we were going to reach the moon? And yet we did, and the knowledge gained had effects far beyond the space program.

And people supported the space program, initially because they perceived a need to stay ahead of the Soviets but later as a matter of national pride. It was something they could understand and relate to. Would energy independence and all its benefits be any harder to promote?

And on a non-science-and-technology front, which political party is responsible for the most successful government-administered retirement and disability insurance program in history? And which party did the president who balanced the budget in the 1990s belong to?

Republicans have no vision, just "ideas". Privatize Social Security. Cut taxes for rich people. Invade Iraq. Their problem is that they don't know how to (or care to, can't decide which) realistically plan to carry out these ideas, or visualize what the implications of their actions might be. And their so-called-visions don't address real problems, just ones that fit their ideology. My 4-year old has ideas too, like the idea that she should eat dessert before finishing dinner, or stay up until midnight watching cartoons. Fortunately her dad has the vision that dinner is the most important part of the meal, that 4-year-olds need lots of sleep, and that a well nourished, well rested 4-year-old will grow to be a healthy adult.

Energy independence is a vital issue that a broad segment of the population can understand and relate to. Gas prices are through the roof, affecting not only the price of gas at the pump but that of anything that needs to be transported (Groceries aren't discretionary spending). Not only is the price going up, but it's possible that we may see a return to rationing as the rest of the world, especially China, competes with us for an ever-diminishing resource. If I'm correct, our economy depends more on imported energy than any other developed country (not an economist, though), which means that our hit is going to be harder. It's not too much of a stretch for any American today to realize that a good part of why the administration invaded Iraq was to exert control over its oil as well as that of its neighbors, so adventures of this sort would be unnecessary if we imported less. I'm sure that more knowledgeable people could expand this list considerably.

It's a winner. And it could be ours. But beyond that, we should do it because it's right and needed, far more than a tax cut or Private Accounts or a ruinous, unnecessary war of republican choice. And I think the people can and will understand that. Democrats do right and needed quite well, as history shows.


Just my $02.

[IrateCitizen]

1. The Dems aren't part of the solution, they're part of the problem.

Do the Democrats still believe, by and large, that we need to push for economic "growth" as a solution to many of our problems? I remember hearing that phrase from John Kerry a good bit during the 2004 debates.

Well, until the Democratic Party gets past the idea that essentially economic growth = increased energy usage, then the idea of them leading us out of the wilderness is a non-starter. In order to successfully address our energy problems, one thing we must do is to transition to a steady-state economy rather than a constant growth one.

Of course, the corporate world doesn't care much for steady-state economies. And the Democrats are still, whether you want to admit it or not, a corporate party. So, expecting them to lead on the transition to a steady-state economy that is necessary to begin to address our energy issues -- well, let's just say I won't be holding my breath.

[rfkrfk]

2. don't expect to see a breakthru

the energy field has been extensively studied

instead, expect...
conservation by airlines, aka bankruptcy
worldwide conservation, by the poor being priced out


at 60 USD crude oil, some things deserve another look,

electic cars
oil from shale
coal to synthetic fuel
heavy crude

enviro laws differ in every country, so different things
become economically possible


a comment about solar power...
my university had a 'solar lab', it was built in the 1950s.
in the 1970s, the space was used by teaching assistants
as an office.
the solar lab fell down a few years ago, now its
a parking lot

[pstans]

3. Check out the Apollo Alliance

http://www.apolloalliance.org/

[Kolesar]

4. We do live in a world of limited resources

And somebody does have to tell Americans that fact. Delaying it won't solve the problem.