Rantle

By Eric E. Anschutz

The term “national security” is for most Americans synonymous with military strength. I would argue for a broader definition of the term. Americans are not secure when they are unemployed. Nor are they secure when they cannot afford health care for a sick child, or college tuition for a healthy and intelligent one. They are most certainly not secure when their sons and daughters are embroiled in military misadventure. But, perhaps the greatest source of America’s insecurity, particularly as we look to the future, results from our dependence on an unstable and essentially hostile Middle East for oil to provide the energy that sustains our transportation, our homes and our industry.

A solution to this problem, it seems to me, can be found in our bloated “defense” budget, which, exclusive of the war in Iraq, exceeds the combined defense budgets of every other nation in the world. Much of this budget represents overkill and thus sheer waste. We have the fastest and stealthiest and most heavily armed military aircraft ever devised. We maintain thousands of nuclear tipped missiles, all on instant alert, many hidden in nuclear powered submarines in the deepest parts of the world’s oceans. At enormous cost, we are deploying a missile defense system that has never worked against a non-existing threat. None of this enhances our security against attack by pajama-clad insurgents or improvised explosive devices or suicide bombers.

So, here’s an idea: take 10% off our $450 billion military budget (that $450 billion, by the way, does not include the costs of the Iraq war) and spend it on a 21st Century Manhattan Project, aimed at development of fully matured, technically viable and economically feasible alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, bio-diesel and nuclear. The original Manhattan Project, conducted in Los Alamos during the early 1940’s, led in just three years to development of the atomic bomb. The 21st Century Manhattan Energy Project, proposed here, would resemble the Los Alamos project by assembling our country’s best scientists and engineers, but this time for the noble purpose of perfecting clean, renewable and domestically available sources of energy needed to power our automobiles, our factories, and our homes.

Each of the renewable energy sources listed above is already proven technology. All that is required is to refine each of these technologies to make them economically competitive with oil as an energy source. Recent work on wind turbines, for example, has optimized our ability to control the production of energy on a more sustained basis. New composite materials have led to lighter blades that can be made to produce on a larger scale. In the last ten years, turbine efficiency has been multiplied by a factor of ten. It is this kind of further development that needs to be funded on an urgent and massive basis for each of the renewable energy alternatives.

The overall purpose of our proposed 21st Century Manhattan Energy Project would be fivefold:
• free us from dependence on foreign sources of oil,
• reduce hydrocarbon emissions,
• stimulate our technological base,
• enrich our farmers,
• and turn our balance of trade from its current massive deficit to a surplus.

Now, that collection of positive outcomes is what I would call a meaningful contribution to our national security.

Let’s look at these several purposes of our new Manhattan Project:

Energy independence: By freeing us from dependence on foreign sources of oil, we can extract our soldiers from the Middle East. Now, here’s the paradox: by lowering our military profile in that part of the world, and by eliminating our dependence on its oil, our political clout will be enhanced as we transition from our current position as oil-supplicants (and perceived occupiers) to the role of high-minded superpower, moral leader, and democratic role model.

Reduced Hydrocarbon Emissions: The reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses achieved through the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydrogen and ethanol, in place of hydrocarbon fuels, will lessen the threat of global warming and will reduce toxic emissions that poison our air. Global warming has grown to the point where, if something is not done in the near term, our coastal cities could be submerged by rising levels of our oceans. Toxic pollutants from hydrocarbon fuels cause respiratory and other diseases, a further drain on our economy and the well- being of our citizens.

Technological Base: A massively endowed Manhattan Energy Project would bring renewed vigor to our science community. Just as military and space research have given us computers, radar, silicon chips, modern communications and the internet, to name just a few of the wonders of our age, our proposed 21st Century Manhattan Energy Project would spawn a new generation of technological wonders with application across the breadth of our industry, our economy, and our lives.

Agricultural Enrichment: There are three farm-related sources of alternative energy: ethanol, made from such crops as corn, barley or wheat; methanol, made from sugar beets or animal waste; and bio-diesel, made from vegetable oils or animal fat (or from restaurant grease). Those of our states heavily dependent on agriculture for their economic health (Nebraska, Ohio, the Dakotas, Idaho, et. al.) are eager to embrace the vast new markets for their farm products that would result from the use of farm products as a base for renewable energy fuels.

Balance of Trade: The US buys more from other countries than it sells to them, to the tune of about $700 billion annually, causing disruptive monetary effects to our economy, and resulting in job loss for American workers. America is not the only country that would welcome relief from oil dependency; all of Europe and much of Asia import oil and are also burdened by the costs and uncertainties of oil dependence. Our proposed Manhattan Energy Project would result in development of a family of “green” technologies and products that could be sold worldwide. The effect on our balance of trade could be substantial, possibly taking us form our current massive deficit to surplus.

There is wide agreement in America, and worldwide, that our dependence on oil is, in the long term, not sustainable, both for the reasons I have listed above, and also because there will come a day when oil reserves will be depleted. American leadership in conversion from our oil-economy to one based on renewable sources of energy is so obviously desirable that one wonders why it has not been embraced as a highest priority national goal.

I call on members of congress and aspirants thereto to begin a dialog, devise specific plans, and get on with this 21st century Manhattan Energy Project. Perhaps if we changed its name to the Texas Energy Project we could win the endorsement of the current administration.

By Eric E. Anschutz

Readers of this blog will recall that my Ten Point Wish List for America, published earlier, called for a “world-class” infrastructure, to include roads, railways, air traffic control, water supplies, electrical grids, communication systems, rail and airline service, waste disposal systems, flood control projects, and environmental controls. All of that is a tall order, will cost a great deal, and will take many years fully to accomplish. I would argue, however, that investments in infrastructure would yield massive returns – and that we need to get on with it.

America has always supported massive investment in “national security,” which we equate to military strength. It is important to understand that national security needs to be more broadly defined. We are truly secure only when (among many other things) we are supported by an infrastructure that keeps us safe from such things as hurricanes, drought, environmental contamination, gridlocked roadways, electricity brownouts, and when our economy is strong.

To illustrate the importance of infrastructure investment, consider the recent events in New Orleans, and the terrible losses to life and property inflicted there. It has been estimated that total costs of reconstruction there will exceed $200 billion. What is most instructive about this disaster is that most of the damage occurred because levee construction had previously been compromised to save money. As we know from press reports, existing levees had been built to withstand a fast- moving Category 3 hurricane, and were swamped by what turned out to be a slow-moving Category 3 hurricane. Estimated costs to rebuild the levees to withstand a Category 5 hurricane are about $32 billion. So far, however, the federal government has budgeted only $3.1 billion for that purpose, thus inviting another possible storm-related disaster in the future.

Protective installations such as levees are of course not the only components of a supportive infrastructure. Transportation is another. Virtually every industrialized country has built or is building a high-speed train network, including China, Germany, France, Spain, England, Italy, Russia, Finland and South Korea. America has chosen to sit out this entire area of infrastructure and technology, ceding to Germany and France the multi-billion dollar market in construction and export of high-speed rail technology, and denying to our citizens the economic and environmental benefits and societal conveniences of rapid rail transportation.

Communications is another place where infrastructure investment is required. South Korea is one of the most advanced countries in the world for wireless Internet coverage. Why not the United States, home of the Internet?

Governor Schwartzenegger, in his January, 2006 State of the State message, took an important step toward bringing California’s infrastructure into the 21st century with his proposal for a massive public works program. Priced at $222.6 billion over the next decade, and at $500 billion over the next 20 years, this program would rebuild our freeways, transit systems, schools, levees, water storage and transmission systems, and government buildings such as courts and jails. The Governor has argued, correctly I believe, that the proposed infrastructure improvement would greatly enhance California’s quality of life, and contribute in major ways to the state’s economic development.

Governor Schwartzenegger is not the first state leader to propose massive investment in our infrastructure. Former governors Gray Davis and Pete Wilson both appointed panels to study the problem, only to have their reports ignored when they were issued during periods of downturn. In addition, the California Business Roundtable issued a report in 1998 calling for major investment in infrastructure. I cite these initiatives only to note that investment in infrastructure is considered to be important by people across the political spectrum. The problem has always been how to pay for it.

Schwartzenegger has proposed expenditures of $86 billion in the first five years of the program, to be paid for in part by the issuance of new bonds totaling $54 billion. One of his innovations has been to explore public-private financing. It is proposed, for example, to impose fees on cargo containers, using those funds to pay for improved transportation from ports, an improvement that would also reduce air pollution. Another proposal is to assess fees of $3 for each household and $10 for each farm to help pay for water projects. To these suggestions for indirect taxation, the legislature might also give consideration to repealing some of the tax cuts enacted earlier by the Governor.

As a Democrat, I urge our Democratic-controlled state legislature to find a way, finally, to begin this work on our infrastructure. Schwartzenegger’s proposal must not be allowed to become the victim of political infighting; instead Democrats should embrace the posited proposal, refining and expanding it. Democratic legislators have already taken one positive step in this direction by their stated intention to add affordable housing and the strengthening of hospitals against earthquakes to the list of projects proposed by Schwartzenegger. Another desirable addition to that list would be provision of statewide wireless Internet coverage. Just as importantly, Democrats must insist that ways be found responsibly to pay for the plan. One proven strategy is to finance infrastructure improvements through long-term borrowing (bonds); this makes fiscal sense because such improvements are investments certain to pay for themselves over time by enriching the state’s tax base.

Senate President Don Peralta, Democrat from Oakland, has taken just the right tone for bringing Democrats and Republicans together. In a recent statement, he reminded us that the state legislature has been working on infrastructure improvement plans, and that it is “great to have the governor on board so we can get these overdue investments accomplished.” I applaud this widely supported infrastructure initiative as a most welcome political development. It coincides with a bumper sticker I recently saw that put it this way: “Make levees, not war!”