Energy Independence

[Subdude]

Dec. 5, 2004, 9:28PM

JFK and the moon, Nixon and China, George W. and ...

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

New York Times

Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2 percent, or $105 million.

Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly retiring.

But because of the steady erosion of science, math and engineering education in U.S. high schools, our Cold War generation of American scientists is not being fully replenished. We traditionally filled the gap with Indian, Chinese and other immigrant brainpower. But post-9/11, many of these foreign engineers are not coming here anymore, and because the world is now flat and wired, many others can stay home and innovate without having to emigrate.

If we don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion," Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15 or 20 years.

Instead of doubling the NSF budget

[tamtagon]

If Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform, which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil;

Word

[ssullivan]

I really agree with this. I'm starting to get scared about what's going to happen in this country in another 10-20 years because of the current administration's selfish and ignorant policies. Unfortunately the Republican Party these days has a problem with science and research in many areas, and the party, VP, and President are so tied to the oil industry that there is little incentive for them to take the leadership necessary to develop alternate energy sources.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I remember watching a PBS documentary a few months ago and they were talking about the search for alternative fuels for future energy consumption and one sobering comment I heard came from an executive for one of the oil distributors (can't remember if it was BP or the company that owns Sunoco). He said (not verbatim), "The energy companies aren't dumb. We realize that oil will be a tenuous commodity and it could become more expensive to drill for it than it would be profitable to sell it to the public. Who can afford $5 a gallon at the pump 20 years from now? So we need to look at other options but the federal government is acting as if only the oil companies have a responsibility in this. Where is the government support for this? We haven't seen it."

That really is scary when the government (if true) has a hands-off approach to this issue.

[tamtagon]

^Have Political Lobby groups had such an impact and come to occupy such a vital role in federal policy making that elected officials will not consider a course of action until the corporate/industry planners and power holders have identified and packaged a perferred implamentation?

It's like our politicians are saying, you guys decide what laws and regulations you need to deliver the working public a new energy industry which also holds economic control in your corporate hands as the gasoline industry is phased out. This is American Socialism, and I think our Republican and Democratic leaders need to admit the real decision to make on Capitol Hill is whether or not to embrace Socialism and take immediate steps to correct the economic balance between individual and corporation, OR, take immediate steps to remove federal financial industry support and illegalize the industry lobby so the government can get back to managing a Capitalistic economy.

[Subdude]

I had mixed feelings about that article. On the one hand I agree that our dependence on imported oil is a huge strategic weakness. But I think that the administration realizes that anything they could do to seriously reduce oil consumption (lower speed limits, very high gasoline/carbon taxes, stricter mileage standards) would have both industry and the public screaming bloody murder. I just don't think the public is willing to make short-term sacrifices for a long-term goal, and as long as that is the case it will be a political non-starter, unfortunately.