If an American President used a JFK-style call for action .......

[Stinky The Clown]

Poll question: If an American President used a JFK-style call for action .......

If an American President used the same style and encouragement as JFK did in calling for a man on the moon, how long would it take for the US to be energy independent?

For bonus points, but not included in the poll ...... could such a call be a driving force to reviving the economy and our employment base? What, if any, other fallout benefits might there be?

[tocqueville]

1. it's impossible

because it would mean that the components to produce energy are available in the US and this indefinetly (or 100% recycled).

[blm]

2. Kerry did that constantly since 2002 - media ignored, downplayed, editted

it out completely, or mocked his words. They were still in ullblown Protect the Bushboy mode then.

Almost every speech and rally I saw on Cspan Kerry would say that America should works towards alternative energy with the same commitment it made to go to the moon.

[Ready4Change]

3. Can be done, more than 10 years.

Every President since JFK has attempted to make similar calls to action. Very few have had even limited success.

The difference, I feel, is an inability, or unwillingness, to back up their words. Back up with continued attention. Back up with funding.

Take, for example, our current Presidents call for a mission to Mars. He made one announcement, and barely a peep about it since. Nevertheless, he deposited it as a mandetory task onto NASAs doorstep, and has yet to provide any additional funding. To meet this demand NASA is scrapping decades of valuable research programs. It's a tremendous debacle, all for an unfunded whim.

I'm all for a major, national energy self reliance initiative. I can think of few more essential things we should spend our money on right now. It is an investment for the future vitality of our nation. And failure to do so is a guarantee of our future downfall.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I agree with everything you said except

I think it can be done in less than 10 years.

[Ready4Change]

6. I'd love to see it.

I'd love for us to develop it, then make money marketing it to the rest of the world. It's an opportunity we are currenly ignoring, but which the rest of the world is getting to work on.

My grandmother (I am told) had a saying. "You've got to take your cookies when they are passed." The cookie tray is passing us right now. When it comes back around, it's going to be empty.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. your gramma was right

[napi21]

5. I think it could be done by the RIGHT President.

Shrub couldn't do it even if he tried because too many people distrust him as a person.

The other problem would be turning against what appears to be the best interests of the oil, gas, and auto industries. I believe they could be forced, via tax laws and fines, to make complete changes to what they use as raw materials, and what powers their cars, and subsidies on the inentive side, but the President AND the Congress would have to have the trust of the majority of Americans to pull it off.

I have NO idea who that Prsident might be, or what congress would have to do to change their popularity, but it could be done, and I think it could be done in about 10 years.

[karynnj]

7. I think that any President who sincerely believed

that it was needed for the future of the country could succeed. Kerry had an excellent speech that spoke of the fact that finding the future alternative fuels would makes us indendent of the ME, would create good jobs - if we are the first country to develop the technology, and it would help the environment. The interconnectedness of all these elements is why the right President could push this. If Kerry would have won, he would have.

As to time frame, I would assume that research on promising technologies would procede in parallel and that there would be a goal to spin off helpful by-products of the research even as research goes on to create more complete solutions. There are likely many things that could happen very quickly that would help build support as well as deal with the problem.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Al Gore's been singing that song, too .......

.... so of course they couldn't allow him to take the office to which we elected him.

[karynnj]

12. Definitely true - I wasn't intentionally ignoring Gore.

I don't remember him running on alternative fuels, but the environment was a huge issue - so it clearly would have been an obvious thing he would do. As I said, almost any president will be pushed to do so now, because it's necessary. The mention of Kerry was to do answer the question of how you get support - which Kerry's connection of alternative fuels to the other 3 issues make it compelling.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. I agree .... and I wasn't arguing at all

And you're right. Kerry has been the most clear so far. But I also know that virtually all of the 04 primary people mentioned it ...... except maybe Graham ... but he pulled out early, so maybe that's unfair to even mention.

[blm]

21. This world is gonna need a Gore/Kerry style knowledge and commitment in

this area.

The job cleaning up after BushInc is getting way too big for any one person. They need a TEAM of our best, most honest minds to work at every level of concern around the world.

[kestrel91316]

9. We went to Europe and defeated the Axis in 5 years.............we went

to the moon several times in 10 years. We are certainly capable of becoming energy independent.

Google "New Apollo Project". Kerry was on board with this idea, but the media completely ignored it. Doesn't mean we can't do an about-face and get on board RIGHT NOW. Well, we could if we didn't have a complete moron in charge of things.........

[iconoclastNYC]

11. Even a 50% reduction would have a huge positive impact

If we started pumping major money into research.....for example...double the number of Universities with energy research programs.... I think we'd be to take nascent technologies such as making ethanol from fast growing feedstock such as switchgrass. Another idea is to using C02 emmisions from fossil powerplants as a feedstock to grow algae to turn into biodiesel. Right now we have a few small companies with the patents on this tech who are trying to commericialize it. I say have the federal government start buying out patents and then fund some startups with seed capital to commericilize it. We have the have the federal government step in and act like a venture capitalist.

We should give loan guarentees to turbine and solar panel manufacturers to build massive new factories. We should double production every 18 months. Economies of scale would lower costs.

We should double the subsidies given to wind and solar. Energy companies would build even more wind and solar farms.

If we gave tax incentives for the auto manufacturers to sell hybrids you'd see every car being sold have a hybrid drive train within 5 years.

We need a comprhensive plan but all we get from the president, the GOP, and the corporate democrats is talk.

We spend 100 billion a year to secure the middle east.... lets put 50 billion a year towards other sources of energy.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Bingo! We Have A Winner

The answer is a **comprehensive** energy policy.

Everything you cite is spot on.

I've always felt that electricity would be generated differently in different parts of the country with a grid structured more like the rural electric coops than the large corporate robber baron grid we have now. Solar where that makes sense, wind where that makes sense. Tidal, when that's developed. Hydro. Even nuke power.

A part of any energy plan must be mass transit. Gutting Amtrak was exactly the wrong thing to do. Trains are still the very cheapest cost-per-pax-mile transportation there is .... except maybe for sailboats or bicycles.

I'm in the DC area. When I go to NYC, I have three choices. Drive. that's the cheapest, but takes 7 hours or thereabouts. Fly. Today that takes almost as long when you count time to and from airports and both ends and the time spent with TSA hands down your pants. And the train. That's the fastest. Less than three hours downton to downtown. But sadly, it is also the most expensive! Incredible, huh?

[iconoclastNYC]

17. Totally.

The reason Amtrack is so expensive is because they have this stupid National Mandate from Congress to remain a "national rail network" so they have all these hugely loss making lines.

Since Congress refuses to subsidize Amtrack to the extent we subsidize road building or airport control towers Amtrack has to raise the price on the profitable routes.

Congress either needs to raise subsidies to where they need to be for Amtrack to be a national rail network or they need to let Amtrack have shut down lines that will never be profitable.

DC<->NYC should be no more then $100 but its more like $300. It's ridiculous.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. You're so very right about AMTRAK and the 'why' of it.

But to add to the notion of a comprehensive energy policy, it seems to me it should also inlcude certain behavioral incentives. Like a 4 (10 hour) day work week to cut commuting costs by as much as 20%. Or more incentives to work at home, even when employed by a brick and mortar company, thereby eliminating completely a certain percentage of commuting. Put more cargo on intermodal transport and reduce OTR truck miles to local transport from local rail terminals to local destinations. Encourage more local 'main streets' at the expense of regional megamalls. Pedestrianize the suburbs. Where I live, the grocery/cleaners/post office type strip center is less than a mile way. but there are no sidwalks and no protected crosswalks to encourage walking.

These things could all be done with targeted tax incentives or modest subsidies to get them off the ground.

The down side is that none of this good for the usual big bidniss culprits.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. More good ideas.

And you are right about why this won't get accomplished.

Concentrated power prevents progress.

[Sinti]

13. The technology already exists

It could easily be done in less than 5 with existing technology, however it does not benefit business to do so. The project would have to be government run, and government funded like the Moon missions.

They need to stop tossing money to the petroleum and other energy companies expecting that they're going to use it to eliminate their source of profit, it's a ridiculous concept. If I make money from a disease, I sure as hell ain't going to cure you.

[NoPasaran]

16. I don't know how many years

But... we built the Bomb in less than five years, we went to the Moon in less than 10. In my opinion, Bush squandered one of the greatest opportunities ever handed an American President by failing to launch a Manhattan Project-style effort to achieve national energy independence after 9/11. I think Americans would have accepted just about any sacrifice---high prices, rationing, whatever---at that time as part of a national effort. Instead he urged us to go shopping while he prepared to invade Iraq. That, and that alone is all it takes to make him the Worst President Ever.

[iconoclastNYC]

20. My guess is that Exxon would have

Come forth with some interesting things to say about 9/11 had they tried that.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. Does other include, "Shit, I don't know"?

Cuz that's my vote.

I don't know if the US can ever be completely energy independent. Eventually we will have to be oil independent, cuz the oil is gonna eventually run out. But I think the trend in our world is for all nations to become more and more interdependent. On everything. Economically, with health/pandemic issues, the environoment... even military and "national" security.

But that doesn't mean we should try to become as oil independent as possible as soon as possible. If a president were to demand it, and demand that Congress fund the research, I think the American people would get behind him or her. And whether we were ever completely successful, nothing but good could come of the effort.

Didn't several of the 2004 Democratic candidates promise to do something along these lines? I'm pretty sure I remember Clark doing so. I would imagine some of the others did to. Probably needs to be even more front and center for whoever becomes our nominee in 2008.