"What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road? The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated. The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fully equipped hospitals, 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. "
General Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fully equipped hospitals, 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. "
General Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953
Recently, I have been excitedly researching everything related to energy technology hoping that I might be able to communicate something of interest that may not have captured the public's attention. Well, with the current economic climate, gas prices and strong funding, research, ad campaigns and leadership from organizations like: Al Gore's Wecansolveit.org , T. Boone Pickens self-enriching Pickens Plan, SetAmericaFree.org, ensec.org and the Center for American Progress this issue has been rightly thrust into the public eye and receives plenty of policy attention. Policy proposals from organizations listed above provide an excellent starter as well as Rep. Randy Forbes proposed New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence. The bill proposed in June to create a series of "X" prizes provides funding to the private entity that completes one of seven tasks related to achieving energy independence. Total funding includes 14 billion dollars in prizes and 10 billion dollars in grants along with the establishment of a summit to discuss the challenge of energy independence and a commission to create a set of recommendations to fulfill the goal of becoming 50% energy independent within 10 years and fully independent in 20 years. The general thrust of everything proposed here explicitly outlines the goal of energy security, increased economic growth prospects and efficiency(both in terms of consumption and productivity).
Similarly the primary focus of foreign policy activity also extends directly to the issue of energy security. Nato summits, Russian and European Union relations, China and Sudan, Iraq and the Middle East consistently the thrust of current foreign affairs all have this one common element. The argument that Iraq was an attempt at securing the largest known reserve of oil for the US regardless(of its validity, to which it is clear there is none) has proven to be the wrong extension of military power in modern times. So in terms of foreign relations, energy security issues currently provide a major impediment to peace and security without actually being able to provide for a solution in modern times.
How do governments adjust to this new reality? Decreased returns from military spending with increasing energy consumption/demand for natural resources. The only thing that I might add to the discussion is how the heirarchy of government institutions should receive redress in light of this current reality. What I feel is the appropriate ascension of the Department of Energy as a force for economic growth and public policy. Because if energy security is so important where is the Energy Department?
Remarkably, the Department of Energy was only formally established in October of 1977 after the 1973 energy crisis. Previously, federal agencies established around aspects of US energy policy, including the Manhattan Project and as a result the Atomic Energy Commission. This still remains the primary responsibility of the department: nuclear safety, nuclear weapons programs, radioactive waste disposal and production. DOE does sponsor more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency; most of this is funded through the National Energy Laboratories. All this with a meager $23.4 billion budget in 2006.
If we are going to really make a go at this then we need to elevate the Energy Department to equal status as the Department of Defense. The Center for Defense information reported that in 2008 51% of the US Federal Budget will go to defense. For 2009, the budget rose to US$515.4 billion, with a total of US$651.2 billion when emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending are included. Add to that total many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as Veteran Affairs ($33.2 billion) as well as the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan($170 billion in 2007). Economist Robert Higgs estimates that all up we will spend over $1 trillion on defense this year. This includes $8.8 billion for missile defense and $1.1 bilion for space-based infrared systems. While President Bush requests $25 Billion for U.S. Department of Energy’s FY 2009 Budget just to put it in perspective.
The speech given by President Eisenhower highlights the alternative paradigm through which defense spending needs to be viewed. I have always been troubled by what Eisenhower first refered to as the "Military Industrial Complex" in part because of his understanding of its inefficiency and capability to steer resources away from more pressing responsibilities. At the same time the reality is that it is difficult to deny the structural hold that it has over our economy and public policy that is without a substitute. Energy policy and a new Energy Industrial Complex has the opportunity to replace this structural hold while providing citizens with a common good and economic growth engine.
While Barack Obama has rightly come out first with his Economic and Defense teams my hope is that he will save the best for last. Whomever gets the job as Energy Secretary I hope they get a budget consist with the primary national security issue of our day securing our energy domestically.
No comments:
Post a Comment