All this panic about energy is starting to get comical.
In a recent op-ed, we find one example of what they mean when they call for a new "apollo program" for energy.
link
Exerpt:
[ QUOTE ]
To stimulate the transition to this new industrial paradigm, Lovins proposes revenue-neutral "feebates" that would apply fees for inefficient vehicles and rebates for lightweight ones; he suggests a subsidized government program to lease or sell efficient cars to low-income Americans. To foster the new technologies, he proposes government measures that have worked well in the past: Pentagon procurement policies that drive innovation; federal loan guarantees to encourage retooling by automakers and others, and similar loan guarantees for the purchasers of new fleets of airplanes and trucks; and a $1 billion government prize (the "Platinum Carrot") to reward the most important innovations.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the exactly the kind of command economy disaster we need to avoid, and it's nothing like the Apollo program. They should stop calling it an "Apollo program" and call it a "cultural revolution" or a "five year plan". that would be more accurate.
The Apollo program did not attempt to reshape the american economy, and wisely so. It was merely an engineering project with a specific, measurable target for success. Yes they spent spent a lot of tax money on a rather frivolous prestige contest, but at least they only did that.
These calls for a new apollo program for energy would not be nearly so bad if all they called for was a research project to develop a specific, measurable engineering goal. That would be the kind of thing that a government program *can* achieve, although I say govt is usually not the best agent for this, least it *can* achieve some success.
When attempting to micromanage the economy with a smorgasbord of "incentives" and "credits" in order to achieve some committee's vision of our economy the only possilble result is a disaster.
If they want to suggest that the government should fund fusion research or fuel cell technologies, fine. Perhaps that can achieve success. Those who want to re-engineer the economy using comman-and-control techniques are fools who need to read more economic history.
natedogg