Breaking a promise: thoughts on energy independence.
When I started this blog I said I would at almost all costs avoid talking politics. But I feel I have to say something about the NH debates last night. I'm going to try to avoid the politics as much as I can.
I saw some of the GOP debate and all of the Democratic debate (not by design, BTW, just by accident. Much of it was expected and typical. I was impressed by some candidates, disappointed by many and I remain completely uncommitted.
One topic rankled me in what little I saw of the GOP debate: the idea of energy independence. I have heard things like this before, but I believe Mike Huckabee (for whom I honestly do not see me voting) suggested that our country undertake a space-race like mentality toward becoming energy-independent within ten years. It seemed like the other GOP candidates all but laughed at him, saying it was impossible.
No, no, NO! Stop thinking like that! I'm sorry, but the guy is right. And I'm not thinking about this from a global warming perspective -- again, I am not trying to get political here. But if we invest, really invest, in technologies that will make us less dependent on the Middle East and people like Hugo Chavez, is that not a good thing? Will it not be good for our trade balance and our economy? And might it spawn technologies that we cannot even dream of just like the space race did? (No, not Tang.) Won't it make the dollar stronger in the long run, perhaps stop a job drain and improve property values? (There, here's a dirt connection.) If there are tangential benefits such as greening then all the better, but I'm not advocating doing it for that reason.
I was almost sick to my stomach when I heard potential presidents say that we "can't" do something. This is the United States of America, the greatest nation-state in the history of this planet. To simply say "it can't be done" without even really trying is almost un-American. We've done the impossible before and we can do it again. And while I understand we must also have other priorities as well, I see nothing wrong with the idea of investing in ourselves and our nation's future and our nation's independence. Left, right or center, I hope we can all agree on that.
One topic rankled me in what little I saw of the GOP debate: the idea of energy independence. I have heard things like this before, but I believe Mike Huckabee (for whom I honestly do not see me voting) suggested that our country undertake a space-race like mentality toward becoming energy-independent within ten years. It seemed like the other GOP candidates all but laughed at him, saying it was impossible.
No, no, NO! Stop thinking like that! I'm sorry, but the guy is right. And I'm not thinking about this from a global warming perspective -- again, I am not trying to get political here. But if we invest, really invest, in technologies that will make us less dependent on the Middle East and people like Hugo Chavez, is that not a good thing? Will it not be good for our trade balance and our economy? And might it spawn technologies that we cannot even dream of just like the space race did? (No, not Tang.) Won't it make the dollar stronger in the long run, perhaps stop a job drain and improve property values? (There, here's a dirt connection.) If there are tangential benefits such as greening then all the better, but I'm not advocating doing it for that reason.
I was almost sick to my stomach when I heard potential presidents say that we "can't" do something. This is the United States of America, the greatest nation-state in the history of this planet. To simply say "it can't be done" without even really trying is almost un-American. We've done the impossible before and we can do it again. And while I understand we must also have other priorities as well, I see nothing wrong with the idea of investing in ourselves and our nation's future and our nation's independence. Left, right or center, I hope we can all agree on that.
Comments
Post a Comment