Steven Chu has been nominated and looks to become the Secretary of Energy. This is a very significant role within the US government. He will have the final say on the single largest budget which could be devoted to alternative clean energy research. It is the governments largest influence on energy outside of legislation. Lack of funding / legislation are the only hurdles to spur such a large amount of technological innovation only comparable to the computing boom of the 90's. Most people don't realize, but the US is being out spent on clean energy research by the Chinese and a lot of other countries around the world. If American's are not the innovator's who will be?
Who is Steven Chu?
Long story short: He is an educated man whom looks at our energy portfolio as a system, for which vast improvement can be made in the areas of efficiency and using more of what is really abundant and free- The Sun, Wind, & Tide. I have high hopes for him to make the tough decisions and upset senators from coal producing states. To simply regain America's standing as the leader in research. High order for Steve Chu right? well he has the support of the most iconic & morally powerful man since John Kennedy or FDR.
While I fundamentally believe that the US has setup itself to seize leadership regarding clean energy, energy efficiency and energy independence; we must systematically go through all policies and funding to direct our efforts. What shall our underlying principal be? How about: Our planet is 1 single system that can't get any bigger. The economy is a subsystem of that planet. There is x amount of resources available to sustain life and grow the standards of others which will only last x years. Why not use what is clean, abundant, relatively free (if carbon had a price) and just morally good for society to make our children future better than ours? Well, almost every generation believed this notion except the previous. I don't hold it against them, by any means. The previous generation setup all which is good today, while using a form of energy(oil) as a cheap form of growth. Which it was and still is. We only recently fully understand that the complexity of global climate problem. Heck, 10 years ago we didn't the computer power to comprehend civilizations impact. And when you build a civilization over 100+ years reliant on a cheap form of energy to sustain life, it will be difficult to change that. I do not wish to state a laundry list of facts on how and why global climate change is occurring, it would take way to long. I will let you look at the world's foremost independent expert on the state of the planet: IPCC REPORT. The previous link will send you to their home page, scroll down to view last years report. Over arching principal: Human civilization is causing our planet to heat rapidly which is disrupting numerous systems on this planet.
I really didn't want to go in that direction, but the plug was needed.
Point of this rant- Steven Chu is a good candidate, and any progression that happens in our economy & society will inadvertently go through him. This is because: what one thing do we use that affects every part of our life.
Answer: Energy.
Your thoughts about Chu are right on. He seems to be the right guy - I think perhaps Obama's best cabinet choice - at the right time. We just can't ignore the enormous head winds (excuse the energy allusion) against him. Ideally he will be able to overcome some of them, but not most I'm afraid. But I so admire his background and what he wants to accomplish. ANy progress will be great.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. although- this moment in history, due to the economy we have the ability completely restructure our economy systems. Why give subsidies to dirty fuels, large scale agriculture, etc. They need to be restructured to what they were created for- to have a competitive advantage to other countries by way of emerging industries. To stabilize, structure, and provide long term incentives for companies to invest. How can we subsidize Fossil fuels, promoting and slowing innovation? Fossil Fuel subsidies in 2006 were: $6.5 Billion, compared to wind: 500 million. If we know that some of these clean energy resources are the direction for the future, why are we supporting the past?
ReplyDeletePoint being we have the moment in time to really jump forward in our nations thinking. I hope Steven to be one whom pressured Barack Obama to address these issues in his $850 Billion package (and counting).