Would you indulge me and allow me to join in the cacophony of complaints? We are all frustrated with the economy. Many reading this have lost huge sums of retirement money – or have lost wages or insurance coverage, and hearing about executives going on half-million-dollar junkets while we are bailing them out doesn’t sit too well.
And we’ll elect a new president in a couple of weeks. Both say they represent change from this, but I don’t think either one is going to be able to accomplish what they are promising. Every presidential candidate since Richard Nixon has promised to bring about alternative fuel sources. The only one being widely used is corn for ethanol, and it turns out that is not such a good idea after all.
I thought the one person who said something useful during Tuesday night’s debate was Moderator Tom Brokaw when he asked if either candidate was interested in putting together a team of scientists, like we did with the Manhattan Project, to figure out an alternative fuel source.
Think about it, in the early 40s we put a team of the world’s best minds, sent them to New Mexico and said, “Don’t come back until you figure out how to make an atom bomb to end this war.” And they did it! This was in the mid-forties, before television, computers, the internet, cell phones, plastic, antibiotics, and for half of America – indoor plumbing. Country people didn’t even have a telephone or electricity. But in less than a year we figured out how to split an atom and create a nuclear bomb.
Are you telling me we couldn’t put a team together today to create a hydrogen fuel cell? Take the top minds in the field, set the budget at one trillion dollars (Why not? we’re spending that to bail out Wall Street Fat Cats), send them to the desert and tell them to stay until they figure out how to safely and cheaply run cars on hydrogen fuel cells. That would end our dependence on countries that are using our money against us. It would change the whole world order. It would end carbon emissions, and could cost much less than gasoline, which is a commodity, changing prices and ruining budgets every day.
And when they accomplish this, make them heroes, rewrite the history books, then send another team to conquer cancer, then diabetes, right down the line. Come on, we’re Americans, we can do this!
Instead, the candidates are talking about issues that they cannot even change. They can’t reform health care without complete backing from Congress. Good luck with that. They can’t bring our soldiers home. They can’t offer tax breaks without Congress. They can’t do any of the things they are talking about without majority votes in Congress. That’s why we hear the same promises year after year and they are never fulfilled.
Who we elect is very important, don’t get me wrong, but his powers are limited, and they should be. That’s the idea. But he will appoint judges, so we need to elect a person with our worldview. And we need to consider with whom he will surround himself.
Fresh ideas are good, but I want to hear some that they can actually enact.
And we’ll elect a new president in a couple of weeks. Both say they represent change from this, but I don’t think either one is going to be able to accomplish what they are promising. Every presidential candidate since Richard Nixon has promised to bring about alternative fuel sources. The only one being widely used is corn for ethanol, and it turns out that is not such a good idea after all.
I thought the one person who said something useful during Tuesday night’s debate was Moderator Tom Brokaw when he asked if either candidate was interested in putting together a team of scientists, like we did with the Manhattan Project, to figure out an alternative fuel source.
Think about it, in the early 40s we put a team of the world’s best minds, sent them to New Mexico and said, “Don’t come back until you figure out how to make an atom bomb to end this war.” And they did it! This was in the mid-forties, before television, computers, the internet, cell phones, plastic, antibiotics, and for half of America – indoor plumbing. Country people didn’t even have a telephone or electricity. But in less than a year we figured out how to split an atom and create a nuclear bomb.
Are you telling me we couldn’t put a team together today to create a hydrogen fuel cell? Take the top minds in the field, set the budget at one trillion dollars (Why not? we’re spending that to bail out Wall Street Fat Cats), send them to the desert and tell them to stay until they figure out how to safely and cheaply run cars on hydrogen fuel cells. That would end our dependence on countries that are using our money against us. It would change the whole world order. It would end carbon emissions, and could cost much less than gasoline, which is a commodity, changing prices and ruining budgets every day.
And when they accomplish this, make them heroes, rewrite the history books, then send another team to conquer cancer, then diabetes, right down the line. Come on, we’re Americans, we can do this!
Instead, the candidates are talking about issues that they cannot even change. They can’t reform health care without complete backing from Congress. Good luck with that. They can’t bring our soldiers home. They can’t offer tax breaks without Congress. They can’t do any of the things they are talking about without majority votes in Congress. That’s why we hear the same promises year after year and they are never fulfilled.
Who we elect is very important, don’t get me wrong, but his powers are limited, and they should be. That’s the idea. But he will appoint judges, so we need to elect a person with our worldview. And we need to consider with whom he will surround himself.
Fresh ideas are good, but I want to hear some that they can actually enact.
2 comments:
Excellent points. So much good sense here! Will they hear? LOL
I've always been interested in the invention Nikola Tesla created and probably patented that would power things for free. If he did it way back then, why are we still using fossil fuels?
Well said, Craig. Beautifully written, and so true. So many of the "issues" being discussed are not issues at all, and even if they were, the President cannot unilaterally make changes.
I truly like your idea about a Manhattan Project for alternative energy, and you have correctly focused on fuel cells. Ethanol cost more in energy to produce than we gain by burning it, and the environmental costs are staggering. Wind power is great, but I don't want my beautiful mountain ridges in WVa destroyed to build turbines. Clean coal is a non sequitur. Nuclear energy is another possibility, if it could be done right, but it hasn't, and the failures have poisoned the minds of the public.
The energy issue is apolitical. Let's hope whoever is elected recognizes this and takes action. I'm not holding my breath, however.
Post a Comment