Election 2008: the Uniting Issue

1) Irreversible global climate change and/or localized environmental issues caused by man-made greenhouse emissions

2) The threat of Middle Eastern based Islamic terrorism and/or trade imbalances funded by the purchase of oil from these sources.

Much has been written about these topics and there is no need to repeat any of that here. You either believe there is a threat from any one of these or you don't, if the latter you need not read on. While these problems seem large, the good news is that they all have the same solution.

The need for conservation and clean renewable energy has been in the news, venture capital firms are ramping up, and while it seems everyone is trying to find any way they can to help out, they are getting very little support from the political system. It is particularly surprising in this election season that it is not the overwhelming predominant topic being discussed. Living in New Hampshire, I get more than my share of calls and visits from campaign volunteers. When I mention this as my hot button they give me an answer such as "Yes, we know it's an issue, but there are so many other issues, bla-bla" and then go on to talk about the typical social issues that really haven't changed in a generation regardless of the beliefs of those in power. This leaves me with the impression that if they really understood the urgency of the clean energy issue, they wouldn't even mention the other issues in the same breath. The most ironic thing is that if they did focus on this issue, putting the statements above is the reverse order to their beliefs; they would actually gather support well beyond their usual circles.

Most candidates, if they give any specifics at all, will present goals of some sort of partial reduction of imported oil and percentage of energy from clean renewable resources over the next 20 to 30 years. Think about that they are saying. If you believe there is at least some climate change that we are responsible for they are basically playing Russian roulette with the environment, guessing that it is OK to wait this long to simply reduce our impact. If you believe that importing Middle Eastern oil is a security threat, they are basically saying that we will be continuing to fight the "war on terror" for at least 20 years, because we will be funding the enemy for at least that long. Is that really the best we can do?

In 1961, JFK made a bold statement, he challenged us to walk on the moon and safely return by the end of the decade. Think about the technology available at that time. In rocketry, we knew how to fire up a rocket beyond the pull of gravity and have someone steer it around the earth. We had little in the way of computational technology. In electronics, the transistor had barely been invented. The chairman of IBM didn't see the need for more than a handful of computers worldwide. Intel hadn't even been formed until 8 years later. We couldn't even foresee our advances, Moore's law, stating computer power would double for the same cost every year, was years from being stated and then the formula starts with 1962. High tech investment infrastructure was minimal.

We far ahead on clean renewable energy than we were with rocketry in 1961. We actually have the necessary technology today. Advances are being made every day to make it more efficient and cost competitive against our carbon based infrastructure, but what we are really lacking is the will. Sure, it would cost trillions of dollars and line large amounts of our landscape and seascape with solar collectors and wind mills, but does that make in unfeasible compared to the alternatives. Is the seascape more adversely impacted by having a few windmills in an isolated patch offshore or having oil tankers run aground near the shore?

So where are our "leaders" on this? The current energy plan being touted in Congress is being marketed as aggressive and already industry is complaining. It calls for an average automotive fleet fuel usage of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The current average in Europe, today, is 37 miles per gallon, in Japan its 45 miles per gallon and China will be at 35 miles per gallon by 2009. If our auto industry wants to compete in the international marketplace, it will need to massively exceed the standards put forth by congress. If not they will be designing and producing cars that cannot compete in the international marketplace, bring our country down yet another notch in international competitiveness and economic standing.

So what can WE do? We can send politicians the message that we are ready for bitter medicine. WE are OK with an additional gasoline tax. WE now know how silly we were to panic about a 50 cent a gallon tax when gas was $1 a gallon. WE can afford more spending on public transportation, solar and wind research and deployment, after all, WE were able to afford the massive amounts of military and security spending needed to preserve our current energy infrastructure. Let them know that this is the sacrifice WE want to make for future generations, that if WE could have one less soldier die in the Middle East, or one less civilian die from a terrorist attack in an oil funded terrorist attack, it will be well worth it. Of course, there are lots of other things WE can do, but over the next few months WE will be voting on our leadership infrastructure for the next four to eight years. Let's make it an intelligent choice based on the issues that matter most. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO SCREW THIS UP.