I have seen the future, and it is the past.
The folks who did the Energize America blueprint for energy independence had a good start, but weren't thinking big enough.
They were thinking bigger than Clinton, which is good.
They weren't thinking even as big as LBJ though.
They need to think bigger than FDR.
And you know what? With Bushco in charge now, people will clamor for a bigger pan than an FDR New Deal. More below the fold.
While I laud the intentions of these folks, and agree with their goals and objectives (and even didn't think I had a better idea until a few days ago), the seriousness of Iraq, the lack of follow-through on the part of the Repubs (they're too chicken to impose a draft), and the words of Jimmy Carter (who called the energy crisis "the moral equivalent of war" back in the 70s) has been playing in my head for several days.
And it hit me.
If it really was a moral equivalent of war, then we'd be gearing up our economy for full war. And I thought of WWII. And I thought of how the US economy didn't recover from the last bout of Republicanism without full mobilization of the economy - "on a war footing." And then I realized:
- Bush is tipping us back to Hooverism,
- It really is war, a war for energy independence
- And if it's a war, we should construct the economy for full war.
That would mean, among other things, "full mobilization" of the economy.
That would mean things like factories being directed to make solar cells, alternative hearing systems.
That would mean initiatives to override state and local initiatives (such as HOA regs) that forbid the use of certain kinds of structures (such as windmills) from being installed.
So instead of "venture capital and a federal grant program" for Alternative Energy Demonstration, DARPA - yes DARPA- would be funded to reduce the costs of solar, biomass, biofuel, ocean thermal, geothermal and other energy sources, within 10 years, with results to be publicly available and patent free.
Instead of "tax credits" for pollution, and things like that, energy inefficient industries' products - would be rationed.
Instead of "By using incentives for end users and guaranteeing a market to manufacturers, ..." the Federal goverment would simply buy - yes buy- this stuff for the post office, the Armyed forces etc.
Instead of being silent on suburban sprawl, the Federal goverment, because of the National Energy Emergency, will have to mandate that towns with a certain definition of density provide low energy consuming mass-transit to all points in the town according to some measure or accept Amtrak into that town, which will be greatly expanded.
You see, this "long emergency" is the tipper into the next Great Depression, and the Repubs don't see it, and most Dems are trying to play it safe, and be incremental, and I'm afraid we've internalized that to some extent.
But the only way out is bold. This is an order of magnitude bigger than the trans-continental railroad; and is about the same size thing for a nation than the mobilization of WWII and should be treated as such. It potentially affects every aspect of society. Agriculture. The Interstate H'wy system. How we live, eat, play.
Air travel. Shipping.
And all of these need to be examined fundamentally to see how they can be made more efficient to use less energy, or better still how to make the land use "redundant" so that regions of the country are resistant to energy disruptions.
And the only way to do that is to say "the invisible magic hand of capitalism won't do this on its own, because left on its own the 'free market' of the world will simply turn its back on energy hogs."
Moreover, it's a Democratic plan.
The Repubs will never, ever consider the use of big government to achieve energy independence (and our friends the Chinese have no such problem).
How to pay for it?
Just like Roosevelt said: Tax and spend, tax and spend.
You know what you get for it?
Full employment. Guaranteed jobs. And yes, energy independence.
Finally, it's the bold kind of thing that is the exact response to Bushism: You want to dismantle Social Security? We want something to dwarf Social Security in terms of its transformation of American society.
See what I mean?