It's Not Just the Technology, Stupid

    It has been nearly a half-century since President John F. Kennedy proffered one of the most audacious challenges in all human history: to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely to earth -- and all within a single decade.  Imagine that: nearly a half century!  Where has the time gone? 

   For many Americans, Kennedy's bold challenge -- and its very success -- became the gold standard for national pride and optimism.  Indeed, for nearly two generations now, America's "can-do" attitude has been perhaps best expressed in that well-known construction, "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."

   Over the years this formula has been used almost to the point of exhaustion.  At any given point in time the "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . . " construct has been the "A-side" of such varied challenges as:

• Ending world hunger
• Eliminating poverty
• Conquering cancer, and now 
• Making America energy self-sufficient

   Ever since Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins reified JFK's bold vision, America -- as many would have it -- has suffered from the lack of a great national challenge; that so-called "B-side" of the "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."formula. Oh yes, we've occasionally been subjected to such rhetorical devices as the "War on Terror," or the "War on Poverty," but these are not national challenges in any real sense of the term. In recent memory, the challenge has been to "go shopping," or to accept constraints and abridgements of personal freedom as a way of safeguarding and maintaining personal freedom.  [Anyone who understands the logic of this, please get contact me ASAP.]  

   This past Thursday, Vice President Al Gore issued what is easily the boldest, most audacious challenge since the days of JFK: national energy independence within ten years.  In a speech to the bipartisan Alliance for Climate Protection Gore, the alliance's chair, issued a challenge to totally remake the way America generates and uses power.  The Gore challenge would see the country moving to "renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources" to power the nation's homes, plants and transportation.  And all within a single decade!

   Talk about a supreme national challenge.

   Already, we can hear both "side-A" and "side-B" coalescing into that marvelous construction: "Any country that can land a man on the moon can definitely create energy independence within a decade."

   Well, as the old Yiddish expression goes, Fuhn dein moyl adztu gaht's oyren -- "From your mouth to God's ears."

   Although both Vice President Gore and his far-reaching proposal have received a lot of positive press in recent days, there are those who are questioning, lampooning and even denigrating. ("Once again, the Goracle speaks!") Despite the fact that most thinking people both appreciate and understand the incredible importance of Gore's challenge, there are, nonetheless, lots of folks who think that what he's proposing is unobtainable, undoable --and not just because he's calling for it to be accomplished within the next ten years.

   Sadly, these folks are probably correct -- but probably not for the reasons they think.  The problem with the "B-side" of the equation is not -- indeed has rarely been -- within the realm of science or technology.  Indeed, if the flip-side of "Any country that can send a man to the moon can . . ." was technologic or scientific, poverty, hunger and cancer -- to name but three of humanity's most pressing ills -- would have been eradicated long ago. Rather, it is precisely because the "B-side" generally resides in the realm of government, politics and economics that Gore's great challenge is going to take far, far longer than a mere ten years.

   Kennedy's great challenge -- unlike Gore's -- did not require radical changes in the way the nation's signal industries did business.  Neither Gemini nor Apollo required the Big-Three automakers to retool; the space program was never a threat to Exxon, Mobil or Shell; it in no way altered international commerce or our balance of payments. It is precisely because Gemini and Apollo were creatures of cutting-edge science and technology that Kennedy's challenge could be met  . . . and on time. 

    Al Gore's challenge for energy independence is not just a question of science or technology.  If it were, we could reasonably expect success within a decade. Sadly, the greatest impediments to energy independence are neither a lack of brains nor a dearth of technological know-how; rather, it is a stunning lack of will and an overabundance of shortsightedness. To wit, it's not just the technology, stupid; it's the macro-economics and geopolitics.

   Oil -- and its many, many byproducts -- isn't just used for the fuel that goes into automobiles, trucks, jet airplanes or ships.  From oil we get plastic and literally hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of products in daily use.  A total shift from a petroleum-based economy to one based on solar, wind, geothermal -- and who knows, perhaps one day even anti-matter -- requires nothing short of a social, political and economic revolution.  Its advantages are both many and obvious:

• A cleaner, healthier, more sustainable planet.
• Far, far fewer dollars going from our shores into the pockets of Middle Eastern tyrants.
• Millions of brand new jobs in brand new industries.
• A renewed sense of national purpose and optimism.

   As I see things, there are a couple of major obstacles standing in the way of meeting Gore's great challenge. 

   First, is industrial intransigence and shortsightedness.  Whether it is right or wrong, most corporate CEOs are far more concerned with the next quarter than with the next decade or century.  American tire manufacturers, as an example, have had the ability to market tires good for 250,000 miles or more for many years.  They chose not to of course, because were they to do so, customers wouldn't be purchasing tires nearly so often.  Likewise the oil industry which, so long as there is black gold to be explored, drilled, imported, refined and sold, are loathe to revamp, retool or rethink their future modus operandi.   

   A second major obstacle is what historian Rick Shenkman calls our national stupidity. "We the People" may well be "outraged" by high prices at the pump and "concerned" about global warming; nonetheless, we still seem to spend far more time casting blame than supporting solutions.  If Al Gore's great challenge is to have a snowball's chance of success, it will require an immense investment on the part of "We the People."  We will have to make our demands for renewable energy as loudly heard as has been our pique at high prices.  We will have to make our desire for energy independence real through tangible acts, whether it be using far less gas, giving our precious votes only to those who, like Al Gore are up to the challenge, or above all, by coming to realize that we are as much a part of the problem as we are of the solution.

    Can Al Gore's challenge be met within a decade?  If technology were all that stood in our path, I think the answer would be a resounding "YES!"  For, "Any country that can send a man to the moon CAN become energy independent."  But it's not just the technology, stupid.  Its also economics, geopolitics and, dare we say, human nature itself, that stand in the roadway.

   As JFK used to say -- borrowing a page from Confucius -- "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."

   Al Gore has taken that step.  Its now up to all of us to join him on the long trek.

   It's not just the technology, stupid!

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

     

Comments

[Douglas Hall]

I like how this debate is often focused as a national issue - something out of touch with the everyday person. A thing of statistics, not substance. It is great that T. Boone Pickens has joined in as an oil man and encourages us to help by going to his website in lieu of asking local legislators to take action and electing dynamic local mayors who aren't afraid to install solar panels and wind turbines in their own little towns.

You neglected to mention that the money going to the middle east is going from a dark-age style monarchy of womanizers (Saudis) to islamic extremists who plot the demise of our democracy.

I think that should be one of the more louder things Obama has to say on the campaign trail. Oil independence is a national security concern. And McCain likes Saudi Arabia.

[Stan]

If oil prices come down a bit people will start driving again and all's forgiven.

And, Talk about stupid; how about the Ford Motor Co. announcement today that they're going to start concentrating on producing small cars.

Thirty some odd years ago, when the Japanese car makers started making inroads into the market dominated by Detroit the answer was heavier and bigger cars. "We'll tell the market what kind of vehicles they want".

Just think where the Country and the world at large would be today were it not for the "chads"!