Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 8:08pm
No Energy For An Energy Policy
Column: Spiritual Psychology
An alarming announcement on August 22nd reported that satellite images showed a crack seven miles long and about half a mile wide in the Peterman glacier in northern Greenland –an area so far north that it was thought to be immune from global warming. In mid July a chunk half the size of Manhattan broke off. Some scientists think this event forecasts an acceleration of rising sea levels sooner than predicted.
But we may not have to worry about icebergs, climate change, or the explosive rise in fuel prices. A group of scientists in Switzerland are getting ready—perhaps as soon as September— to test a gigantic particle accelerator to study the smallest known particles. In recreating the conditions right after the big bang the Hadron Collider is expected to advance our understanding of the universe. Critics, though, say it’s a dangerous experiment with unknown consequences that could go awry and swallow up the entire universe in a black hole. Our mundane concerns would evaporate—along with us— in a nanosecond.
But no such luck. When Scientists took a fresh look they concluded that the risk is miniscule. So it’s back to pondering the melting of the icebergs and the high cost of fuel. The presidential candidates can also breathe a sigh of relief as they jump on the oil rigs to back more drilling to bring down the price of gasoline at the pumps. Few commentators think that politicians actually believe that drilling with solve the energy crisis. They assume that politicians are just drilling for votes from a pubic blinded by thirst for some relief at the pumps—a classic example of playing to the crowd in a penny wise and tons foolish fashion.
At the same time, almost everyone endorses Al Gore’s call for a crash program for clean energy that would free us from fossil fuel. Why then did Congressional Republicans recently block the Democrats from forcing a vote on legislation to stop the speculation on oil futures that many suspect is feeding the rise in fuel prices? New York Times op-ed columnist Tom Friedman (Aug. 13, 2008) revealed another piece of duplicity. John McCain, he said, addressed a motorcycle convention a few weeks ago and called for Congress to cut their summer vacation short and return to Washington to act on the energy crisis. But McCain failed to tell the bikers that just days earlier on July 30th he didn’t show up for the Senate vote on an important bill to extend the investment tax credits for solar energy, wind turbines and other energy saving technologies—and the bill was defeated for the eighth time. Barack Obama did not vote on the bill either. Yet both candidates are stomping the country championing clean energy—and no doubt will continue that theme at their national conventions and later campaigning. Whether the Republicans simply didn’t want to give the Democrats a congressional victory in this election year or were acting for special interests their action exposes a lack of sincerity on energy policy. Corruption of one sort or another sadly takes precedence over the national interest—and surely over the planetary interest.
The duplicity, though, should convince us that an “Energy Manhattan Project” with teeth won’t happen until someone with the necessary vision and skills steps forward—someone who can initiate the project without pandering to special interests. Of the numerous possible candidates for that role none is more suitable than Al Gore. He rang the alarm and raised our consciousness about global warming in his prizewinning film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” And he has all the qualities essential for establishing an independent agency or corporation to shepherd an “Energy Manhattan Project.”
Why independent? Because a government run operation will not work. You might challenge that by pointing to the stunning success of the original “Manhattan Project” to create the atomic bomb and the Apollo moon landing program. Both were government supported. But there are important differences.
The original Manhattan Project was controlled by two iron fisted men with a single-minded purpose of beating Germany to the bomb: General Leslie Groves and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The prospect of Adolph Hitler’s dream of a thousand year German Reich was a frightening prospect that energized a fierce drive to succeed. They enlisted the best minds and best companies to solve the thorny problems at the outer limits of scientific knowledge. The project was immersed in a virtual no man’s land of science and technology. The key pieces had to be discovered and invented. There were no competing companies or technologies to lobby for favoritism. And once we entered WWII, American industry was totally absorbed in production for the war effort.
Similarly, the moon landing project was driven by fierce competition with another enemy: Russia. We feared that Russia might beat us to space where they could launch nuclear warheads. The program was also directed by managers and scientists groping in dark areas of science. When John F. Kennedy boldly proclaimed that we would land a man on the moon within a decade, no one had yet flown in space. Lobbying and influence peddling was limited by the very revolutionary nature of the project.
But that’s not true of an “Energy Manhattan Project.” We know a great deal about fuel and alternative fuels— much more than we knew about splitting atoms or space travel at the outset of those projects. That should be a plus. But in each category of alternative energy there are a plethora of competing players—some big corporations, some upstarts, and others looking to wedge their way into the arena. Add to that the existing fuel companies (oil, gas, coal—“we can make it cleaner and cheaper”) that want to keep a big piece of the pie. What a field day for lobbyists, payoffs, pork barrel concessions, and other creative ideas to subvert the national interest for personal gains.
A government operated “Energy Manhattan Project” could turn into a lobbyists paradise that will make Barnum and Bailey’s three Ring Circus look like a small town amateur amusement. America would be green with all the payola in greenbacks flying in every direction to whoever would deliver preferred treatment and contracts. In that process we can expect the bigger companies with deep pockets and their army of influence peddlers to be the ringmasters running the show and squashing small players and upstart innovative newcomers. The “edge of science thinking” that led to the success of the bomb and moon projects would very likely be short circuited by the heavy hitting deep-pocket players greedily protecting the field from intruders. Quite a different playing field from the bomb and moon projects.
Much of the scenario of influence peddling and special interests that would likely accompany a government run “Energy Manhattan Project” could be avoided if the project were an independent entity that made science, excellence and the national interest the priorities.
Congress should recuse itself from any management role based on its history of self interest, inertia on energy policy, and outrageous duplicity.
While we may be safe for the moment from being swept into a black hole by an errant nuclear physics experiment, we could be heading for a slower march to oblivion if we don’t take action now on an “Energy Manhattan Project.”
The planetary clock is ticking. The world is anxiously waiting for a leader to step forward and pick up the torch.
In case you missed the last five Columns on the “Energy Manhattan Project” click below:
Let’s Launch An Energy Manhattan Project Now: Open Letter To Lee Iacocca
The Suicide Bombing Of Science
Two Weapons Of Mass Destruction That Threaten Us: Ignorance And Inaction
Al Gore: This Is Your Destiny
Convenient Lies Trump Inconvenient Truths
— — —
(My recently published book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is published by Rowman and Littlefield (Oct. 2007) and is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches “Spirituality and Psychology in Film” at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio (“The Longevity Report”), he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the President of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.
But we may not have to worry about icebergs, climate change, or the explosive rise in fuel prices. A group of scientists in Switzerland are getting ready—perhaps as soon as September— to test a gigantic particle accelerator to study the smallest known particles. In recreating the conditions right after the big bang the Hadron Collider is expected to advance our understanding of the universe. Critics, though, say it’s a dangerous experiment with unknown consequences that could go awry and swallow up the entire universe in a black hole. Our mundane concerns would evaporate—along with us— in a nanosecond.
But no such luck. When Scientists took a fresh look they concluded that the risk is miniscule. So it’s back to pondering the melting of the icebergs and the high cost of fuel. The presidential candidates can also breathe a sigh of relief as they jump on the oil rigs to back more drilling to bring down the price of gasoline at the pumps. Few commentators think that politicians actually believe that drilling with solve the energy crisis. They assume that politicians are just drilling for votes from a pubic blinded by thirst for some relief at the pumps—a classic example of playing to the crowd in a penny wise and tons foolish fashion.
At the same time, almost everyone endorses Al Gore’s call for a crash program for clean energy that would free us from fossil fuel. Why then did Congressional Republicans recently block the Democrats from forcing a vote on legislation to stop the speculation on oil futures that many suspect is feeding the rise in fuel prices? New York Times op-ed columnist Tom Friedman (Aug. 13, 2008) revealed another piece of duplicity. John McCain, he said, addressed a motorcycle convention a few weeks ago and called for Congress to cut their summer vacation short and return to Washington to act on the energy crisis. But McCain failed to tell the bikers that just days earlier on July 30th he didn’t show up for the Senate vote on an important bill to extend the investment tax credits for solar energy, wind turbines and other energy saving technologies—and the bill was defeated for the eighth time. Barack Obama did not vote on the bill either. Yet both candidates are stomping the country championing clean energy—and no doubt will continue that theme at their national conventions and later campaigning. Whether the Republicans simply didn’t want to give the Democrats a congressional victory in this election year or were acting for special interests their action exposes a lack of sincerity on energy policy. Corruption of one sort or another sadly takes precedence over the national interest—and surely over the planetary interest.
The duplicity, though, should convince us that an “Energy Manhattan Project” with teeth won’t happen until someone with the necessary vision and skills steps forward—someone who can initiate the project without pandering to special interests. Of the numerous possible candidates for that role none is more suitable than Al Gore. He rang the alarm and raised our consciousness about global warming in his prizewinning film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” And he has all the qualities essential for establishing an independent agency or corporation to shepherd an “Energy Manhattan Project.”
Why independent? Because a government run operation will not work. You might challenge that by pointing to the stunning success of the original “Manhattan Project” to create the atomic bomb and the Apollo moon landing program. Both were government supported. But there are important differences.
The original Manhattan Project was controlled by two iron fisted men with a single-minded purpose of beating Germany to the bomb: General Leslie Groves and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The prospect of Adolph Hitler’s dream of a thousand year German Reich was a frightening prospect that energized a fierce drive to succeed. They enlisted the best minds and best companies to solve the thorny problems at the outer limits of scientific knowledge. The project was immersed in a virtual no man’s land of science and technology. The key pieces had to be discovered and invented. There were no competing companies or technologies to lobby for favoritism. And once we entered WWII, American industry was totally absorbed in production for the war effort.
Similarly, the moon landing project was driven by fierce competition with another enemy: Russia. We feared that Russia might beat us to space where they could launch nuclear warheads. The program was also directed by managers and scientists groping in dark areas of science. When John F. Kennedy boldly proclaimed that we would land a man on the moon within a decade, no one had yet flown in space. Lobbying and influence peddling was limited by the very revolutionary nature of the project.
But that’s not true of an “Energy Manhattan Project.” We know a great deal about fuel and alternative fuels— much more than we knew about splitting atoms or space travel at the outset of those projects. That should be a plus. But in each category of alternative energy there are a plethora of competing players—some big corporations, some upstarts, and others looking to wedge their way into the arena. Add to that the existing fuel companies (oil, gas, coal—“we can make it cleaner and cheaper”) that want to keep a big piece of the pie. What a field day for lobbyists, payoffs, pork barrel concessions, and other creative ideas to subvert the national interest for personal gains.
A government operated “Energy Manhattan Project” could turn into a lobbyists paradise that will make Barnum and Bailey’s three Ring Circus look like a small town amateur amusement. America would be green with all the payola in greenbacks flying in every direction to whoever would deliver preferred treatment and contracts. In that process we can expect the bigger companies with deep pockets and their army of influence peddlers to be the ringmasters running the show and squashing small players and upstart innovative newcomers. The “edge of science thinking” that led to the success of the bomb and moon projects would very likely be short circuited by the heavy hitting deep-pocket players greedily protecting the field from intruders. Quite a different playing field from the bomb and moon projects.
Much of the scenario of influence peddling and special interests that would likely accompany a government run “Energy Manhattan Project” could be avoided if the project were an independent entity that made science, excellence and the national interest the priorities.
Congress should recuse itself from any management role based on its history of self interest, inertia on energy policy, and outrageous duplicity.
While we may be safe for the moment from being swept into a black hole by an errant nuclear physics experiment, we could be heading for a slower march to oblivion if we don’t take action now on an “Energy Manhattan Project.”
The planetary clock is ticking. The world is anxiously waiting for a leader to step forward and pick up the torch.
In case you missed the last five Columns on the “Energy Manhattan Project” click below:
Let’s Launch An Energy Manhattan Project Now: Open Letter To Lee Iacocca
The Suicide Bombing Of Science
Two Weapons Of Mass Destruction That Threaten Us: Ignorance And Inaction
Al Gore: This Is Your Destiny
Convenient Lies Trump Inconvenient Truths
— — —
(My recently published book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is published by Rowman and Littlefield (Oct. 2007) and is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches “Spirituality and Psychology in Film” at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio (“The Longevity Report”), he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the President of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.