In past essays about global warming and alternate forms of energy, I’ve recalled the Manhattan Project that gave us the world’s first real weapon of mass destruction. It was a time of war, and the bomb was seen as a way to bring it to an end more quickly than we would without it. We would save American lives and materiel, shave months, perhaps years off the war, with this one awesome weapon. That we would obliterate two cities and countless lives in the process was an aside. It was a matter of national security.
Combating global warming is also a matter of national security, in that if we think of it as a war it would result in our independence from foreign oil and thus secure our energy needs forever. Never again would we face the threats of oil embargoes. Never again would we feel compelled to wage war to secure dwindling reserves of oil. But it goes beyond our own national security. It’s the security of humanity that’s at stake.
The original Manhattan Project cost $2 billion, and that’s 1940s’ dollars — about $20 billion in today’s dollars. Some 175,000 people were employed by the Project. It was an acceptable expenditure of American tax dollars. We were, after all, at war. The Manhattan Project could hardly be left up to the Free Market.
I would argue the same logic applies to the project of the new millenium, whatever name we give it. The Gaia project? What a great name that would be. The point is, we are in the midst of a war right now, and I’m not talking about Iraq. I’m talking about the war for energy independence, the war against global warming. Today, $20 billion is chump change, but it would go a long way toward getting our solar and wind industries way up off the ground. It would go a long way toward assuring that the United States were a leader among nations in the development and manufacture of alternative energy equipment. It would go a long way toward making is secure at last. And it would put a lot of people to work in decent jobs.
Liberal Buzz 