In 1962, President John F. Kennedy energized the imagination and aspirations of this nation with a challenge that was, for its time, simply fantastic. At the dawn of the space age, President Kennedy made it a national goal to send a man to the moon and return him to Earth safely. No matter that such a task had never been undertaken. No matter that space travel was still the stuff of science fiction. In plain language, he laid out his hopes that American technological and industrial innovation would rise to meet his challenge. In his now famous speech, Kennedy told Americans that this goal would not be easy or cheap or even a guaranteed success, but that it was worth doing and worth doing to the best of our ability. He spoke about the need for America to lead the charge into space, not just for us, but also for the advancement of all humanity. He talked about the urgency he felt to achieve this goal by the end of that decade, not because the moon was going to disappear, but because it was there. Sure, he wanted to beat the U.S.S.R. in the space race, as well as boost American morale, but his desire to visit the moon went beyond such things. He felt that America was the most capable nation on Earth, and thus had an obligation to advance human knowledge and development. America seemed to agree, and in turn rose up to meet his challenge.
In the 21st century, space travel and exploration is old hat. From space shuttle missions to long-range probes, our knowledge of our solar system and the universe in general has expanded exponentially. So what then is the next great challenge for us? What pressing need could benefit most from the concentration of our scientific and industrial prowess? The answer, my friends, is energy. Our modern world requires an increasing amount of energy to fuel our cars, to warm our homes, to light our nights. As we grow more and more technologically oriented, our need for reliable energy grows too. And with more developing nations striving to join the industrialized world community, the need for energy will become even more acute.
The bad news is that most of the world’s energy is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. These resources are called non-renewable for a good reason- once they are gone they can’t be replenished, and if we are still dependent upon these resources for our energy when that day comes, you can plan on going back to the days of candlelight reading, walking to the store, and huddling around the fireplace for warmth. I’m not naturally an alarmist, and I can’t say with any certainty when that day will come, but common sense dictates that it will come eventually. Isn’t it better to be prepared before then?
There are other negative aspects to our use of fossil fuels like pollution or the environmental damage caused by the extraction of these resources from the Earth. Our national security and economy are tied to our need for these resources, leading us into areas of the world that are filled with strife and draining our taxes. And our need to compete with other nations for access to those resources is costing ordinary citizens more money to meet the needs of daily life. Yet there are other ways for us to obtain the energy we need in this modern world, if only our government and business interests would challenge themselves to develop them. Unfortunately, business looks primarily at profit, and the amount of money they have tied up in the current energy production and delivery cycle keeps them from leading the charge towards better energy options. Their financial entanglement blinds them, and they ensure the status quo by keeping pressure on the politicians, keeping our country tied to fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.
I say that the time has come to issue another challenge. Much as President Kennedy did in 1962, American leaders should issue a call for new energy development that precludes the use of fossil fuels in favor of cleaner, renewable energy sources. We should do this not only because it will one day be necessary, but because of the benefits to our air, our water, our land, and our people. Kennedy’s speech recognized that to achieve his goal, things that did not yet exist would have to be created and failures along the way would occur. He told the public that the task would be expensive, but it would be worth it. The drive for new energy has these same problems, but it too is worth it.
We already have alternate sources for energy that come from renewable resources. Hydroelectric energy, solar energy, biomass energy, wind energy, and nuclear energy all exist at some level of development, but the problem with their proliferation lies in the profit margin for business. True or not, the claim that these energy sources are too expensive to develop en masse or not sufficient to meet our needs goes unchallenged. I say that the business interests that control our fossil fuel dependency don’t want to lose their hold on our wallets. To them energy is not a public necessity, it is a cash cow. From development to distribution, their greed not only creates false energy scarcity, it hampers modernization and innovation. It is time for business to either join in the search for new energy sources or to be left behind altogether.
I see a future where energy is no longer considered a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The fact of the matter is that reliable and cheap energy has become a necessity of daily life. When something becomes a necessity, it should not be out of reach for people, it should become available to everyone. I see a future where every home has its own energy production plant, supplied by clean, renewable sources of power. I see a future where transportation is powered not by fossil fuels, but by clean, non-polluting energy. I see a future where our cities are not rimmed with power lines and smokestacks. I see a future where countries don’t go to war over oil or make deals with treacherous regimes just to gain access to fuel.
The space race was paid for with public funds and the knowledge gained from the space missions belongs to us all. The advancements in technology derived from space exploration was paid for with public funds, and the proliferation of that technology now touches every aspect of our lives. In this vein, the development of new energy should be paid for with public funds, and the benefits of our research and development should be returned to the public through cheap, reliable energy. And our reliance on foreign nations for our energy could be reduced or eliminated entirely, saving us even more money by avoiding conflicts and expensive security measures.
We must move to elevate the types of renewable energy we now have from second-class status and begin to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. At the same time we must turn our scientists and industries towards developing new energy or increasing the viability of the renewable sources we do have like wind and solar and biomass. We should look towards the future of energy not from the prospective of profits for businesses, but from the prospective of prosperity for all. Energy supplies should not be fought over or suppressed. They should be clean, and plentiful, and cheap.
In 1962, America decided that going to the moon was worth the cost and the sacrifice and we met the challenge. Meeting this goal saved no lives, fed no hungry, cured no ills, but we did it just the same. Finding new and better energy sources is more important than going to the moon ever was. It’s time to meet this new challenge too.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005 at 4:33 am and is filed under Common Sense, energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Reform, Science.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Another fine post Ken. I had mentioned this back in January. Well into the Iraq thing. There must be numerous high quality programs and initiatives besides a war we could have spent the cash we have dished out in large heaping buckets on the Iraq conflagration.
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/01/200-billion-dollars-one-false-premise.html
One of those things could have been a new Energy Commission, not unlike the formation of NASA (which is really getting squeezed by W, Rove and Co, by the way), that did pioneering work in the field of clean and green energy.
I like you notion of each home sustainable unto itself. A number of solar homes in sunnier climes even sell their excess back to the power grid. How’s that for a Capital idea!
Before we trash our non-renewable old growth forests in the hunt for non-renewable energy sources, you are right on for the call for the President (not likely this one), any President for that matter, to put this in motion.
Our dependency on OPEC and other foreign oil is an adiction to which we have sold our collective souls to many a devil (including the one, the only, Saddam Hussein). Like addicts on crack, Let’s Just Say NO! and move on to better sources of energy.
March 25th, 2005 at 5:39 am
(response)
windspike- I know that I’m not saying anything groundbreaking in this essay. But the admonition to lawmakers to act now and for citizens to demand action is what makes this post different. Most act as if this is a problem we’ll never have to deal with, but the longer we wait, the worse off we will be.
March 25th, 2005 at 7:18 am
I am new to blogging and explosion, you have allready earned a blogmark in my files. I would like to link to you. Now here’s be business where did you get the Idea for this entry. Did you read the February issue of ‘The SUN’ the article “can the left get if right”? Did you find the works of Michael Shellenberger own your own? You seem to be writting about the “Apollo Alliance” or New Apollo Project where we are to treat the finding of clean energy sources like JKF sent us to the moon. I am also in the process of gathering information on the same and plan to blog on the Breakthrough Institute, and the above stated. I plan to take a less suportive view.
March 25th, 2005 at 7:23 am
please forgive some of my type O’s. I either now need glasses, or those pills that ex-acctress sells on late night radio. thanks !
March 25th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Good essay Ken, no matter that it isn’t “ground breaking” the message is important to listen to. I’m not a “green nut” but there has to be a better method than relying on “cheap foreign oil” to supply the shops. Think of the economic revolution the enrgy situation will cause -one way or the other. If we get to sustainable, renewable energy then we take a huge leap over everyone else. If we don’t then the economy will crash one day.
It needs to now. We don’t need to wait to perfect the science to move forward. That’s a chicken and egg scenario. If the backing is there, the tech will bet better. We could already reduce most of our gasoline consumption by moving to mixed fuel\hybrid cars. It will cost money – but so do all investments. The bigger question is what is the cost of doing nothing?
March 25th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
While I completely disagree with your closing paragraph, I do agree with the overall sentiment. The Apollo missions were not meant to cure the world’s ills, if anything, they was meant to provide hope for the future. We are a curious lot, and the moment we stop exploring, the darker the future becomes.
March 25th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Uhm, they “were.”
March 25th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
I look forward to your posts, Ken. An energy race is indeed what we Earth-bound people, all could use. That’s the tricky part. Could you see China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. giving up fossil fuels at this stage in their ‘developement’? Not likely. America (this ‘resident) won’t even endorse the Kyoto Treaty. How do we address the conflict-of-interest between Lawmakers and energy producers? I still like Ross Perot’s idea of barring lobbyists from D.C. Short compelling vows of poverty from our executive and judiciary branches, Fossils fuel magnates, like the resident’s family, own all our dumb asses (dumb only partly because we reelected Nimrod.) So how do we tackle sustainable energy markets gobally?
Kudos Ken!
March 26th, 2005 at 6:01 am
Until the future you describe comes along, we are stuck with a situation where our government is so in cahoots with the energy industry that those energy companies are writing policy. Ugh.
March 26th, 2005 at 9:11 am
(responses)
John Galt- Thanks for the compliments and you’re more than welcome to link to my blog. The more the merrier, I say. (And don’t worry about the typo’s!)
I actually develop my posts from my own thoughts and concerns, based upon the practical experiences of my life, my interactions with others, and Common Sense. I have not read the two sources you cite, but am an avid reader of many topics. My references to the JFK speech were more to indicate that leadership requires the courage to plainly state your goals and then inspire the country to achieve them.
Cranky- Good to hear from you again. I’m not really a “green nut” either, but I do feel that we need to do better by the planet if we want to continue to enjoy it for many generations to come. As for the economic benefits of finding a new energy source, of course there are many. However, I don’t necessarily put forth this essay from an economic standpoint. True, the need for new energy sources will directly affect our economic situation at some point, so why wait?
The cost of doing nothing is failure.
Todd- I don’t think that I implied that our space missions were meant for any other purpose than to further mankind’s knowledge. However, since you mention it, the indirect benefits of the advancement of technology due to the space program has undoubtedly benefited the medical business along with all the rest.
If the missions to space were to foster hope, than the quest for new energy should also offer that same hope, in addition to all the other benefits I mentioned.
Thanks for the comment and for stopping by.
Mac- If alternatative, clean, cheap sources of energy existed outside of fossil fuels, then yes, I think other nations, especially developing ones would jump on board. Why would they spend more money than necessary when better options were available. Also, with some courage, the developers of this new energy, whether it is the U.S. or not, could share their newfound knowledge with the our allies.
As for the problem with the lawmakers and oil barons, that can only be changed through the election process, which requires education, information, and participation. This is the longer way to get there, but the legal way. It’s not impossible…it’s sometimes amazing how a few voices can stir the pot. Just take a look at the fundamentalist religious coup d’etat of the current administration and its party.
To amswer your final question, we start by leading the charge in finding or adapting new energy sources. Then, we share our knowledge with others. If so many who signed the Kyoto Treaty are sincere in their resolutions, they should be all too willing to make a change when an alternative becomes available.
SheaNC- Again, let’s vote ’em out. Let’s get the word around and spread some Common Sense so that people will make more informed choices. No one likes to get screwed, they just think they have no choice. With enough voices, we don’t have to get screwed any more.
March 26th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
As others have noted, it doesn’t matter if your essay is groundbreaking. What matters most is that you’ve written about an important, much ignored issue in an engaging and accessable way. The connection between the public support and understanding of the race to the moon and the need for that same support in the world’s quest for new energy sources is clearly stated. Thanks for such a nice piece, and I look forward to reading more of your articles.
March 26th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Great discussion Ken. All this talk about the future seems like a clue within itself. Last year, for the purpose of college scholarship selection, I asked a group of HS seniors to write an essay about “the world their parents have left them”, and ALL 28 kids wrote about energy and fossil fuels without any prompting. It’s where they see our largest problems for the future. Their ideas were no-nonsense and down to earth, along with some mud slinging at the parents, and were more than compelling~ very much mirroring many of the thoughts I’ve read here. These “kids” have a better grasp on the realities of foreign oil and draining the earth of its resources than most adults that speak on the matter do. My point is, we’re not the answer. THEY ARE. We need to reach out to the younger generation(s) and help them understand that this is the torch they’re being handed, while we all continue to spin our wheels. We should be preparing THEM to do a better job than our voters and political mongerers have done thus far.
March 28th, 2005 at 4:28 am
(responses)
Anemone- Thanks for dropping by and for leaving a comment. I’m glad you found this essay valuable and hope that I can continue to be a voice of reason.
BonJ- It’s good to hear that the younger generations are recognizing the need for this kind of advancement. We must foster those sentiments and help them grow. But I don’t think that they are the only hope. It is incumbent on all of us today to not only encourage their interest, but to begin the quest for new energy sources today, so that they will have a base from which to continue.
Glad to have you drop by again.
October 2nd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Nice Blog!!! I thought I’d tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW