Text 5944, 91 rader
Skriven 2004-12-07 13:07:24 av Alan Hess
Ärende: a national alternative energy project
=============================================
 The New York Times
December 5, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Fly Me to the Moon
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the
Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than
the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2
percent, or $105 million.

Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering
education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were
spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the
challenge by President John Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly
retiring.

But because of the steady erosion of science, math and engineering education in
U.S. high schools, our cold war generation of American scientists is not being
fully replenished. We traditionally filled the gap with Indian, Chinese and
other immigrant brainpower. But post-9/11, many of these foreign engineers are
not coming here anymore, and, because the world is now flat and wired, many
others can stay home and innovate without having to emigrate.

If we don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion," Shirley
Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going
to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15
or 20 years.

Instead of doubling the N.S.F. budget - to support more science education and
research at every level - this Congress decided to cut it! Could anything be
more idiotic?

If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a
national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash
science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America
energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American kid, in every school,
were galvanized around such a vision. Ah, you say, nice idea, Friedman, but
what does it have to do with your subject - foreign policy?

Everything! You give me an America that is energy-independent and I will give
you sharply reduced oil revenues for the worst governments in the world. I will
give you political reform from Moscow to Riyadh to Tehran. Yes, deprive these
regimes of the huge oil windfalls on which they depend and you will force them
to reform by having to tap their people instead of oil wells. These regimes
won't change when we tell them they should. They will change only when they
tell themselves they must.

When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When did
the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot topic in
the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was also
happening then? Oil prices were collapsing.

In November 1985, oil was $30 a barrel, recalled the noted oil economist Philip
Verleger. By July of 1986, oil had fallen to $10 a barrel, and it did not climb
back to $20 until April 1989. "Everyone thinks Ronald Reagan brought down the
Soviets," said Mr. Verleger. "That is wrong. It was the collapse of their oil
rents." It's no accident that the 1990's was the decade of falling oil prices
and falling walls.

If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up
revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take
the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil -
strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing
something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to
inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's future
by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not just a
win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum.
"This is a win-win-win-win-win."

Or, Mr. Bush can ignore this challenge and spend the next four years in an
utterly futile effort to persuade Russia to be restrained, Saudi Arabia to be
moderate, Iran to be cautious and Europe to be nice.

Sure, it would require some sacrifice. But remember J.F.K.'s words when he
summoned us to go to the moon on Sept. 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon
in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because
they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of
our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to
accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Summoning all our energies and skills to produce a 21st-century fuel is George
W. Bush's opportunity to be both Nixon to China and J.F.K. to the moon - in one
move.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |
Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

--- Msged/2 TE 05
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Home of the POL_DISORDER echo. (1:261/1000)