Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
reduce US involvement in the Middle East
undermine the Middle East's economics
duh!
Development and wide dissemination of an abundant renewable energy source would reduce our motives to meddle in Middle East affairs and reduce the value of their main source of wealth.
Perhaps with the focus and resolve created by this tragedy we can finally overcome the understandable but short-sighted resistance of the transportation and energy lobbies to large-scale government sponsored energy research. We put men on the moon, we're very close to curing cancer, and now we need to put the same muscle behind developing abundant renewable energy sources. Such a plan of "attack" plays to our strengths and their weaknesses. We are good at technology, research, and innovation. They are only good at pumping oil out of the ground (and, sadly, at terrorism).
Bush has talked about spending on technology to address our nation's energy problems. Will he put our money where his mouth is and spend on the basic research needed for abundant renewable power? Or does he really just mean better technology for using (more) oil, coal, and natural gas?
Echoing a post from/. about a week or so ago:
if we spent 10 billion dollars on fusion power research instead of on a missle defense, we are more likely to make a substantive difference in our national security over the long term. Sooner or later we *have* to find abundant renewable energy to sustain *our* way of life. Why are we procrastinating? If you're thinking "that's dumb, its gonna take at least 30 years", then remember that its that kind of thinking that got us to where we are today. The ~20K people that died on Tuesday are at least partly (and certainly indirectly) the victims of 30 years of misguided energy policy.
Slashdot Mirror
duh!
Development and wide dissemination of an abundant renewable energy source would reduce our motives to meddle in Middle East affairs and reduce the value of their main source of wealth.
Perhaps with the focus and resolve created by this tragedy we can finally overcome the understandable but short-sighted resistance of the transportation and energy lobbies to large-scale government sponsored energy research. We put men on the moon, we're very close to curing cancer, and now we need to put the same muscle behind developing abundant renewable energy sources. Such a plan of "attack" plays to our strengths and their weaknesses. We are good at technology, research, and innovation. They are only good at pumping oil out of the ground (and, sadly, at terrorism).
Bush has talked about spending on technology to address our nation's energy problems. Will he put our money where his mouth is and spend on the basic research needed for abundant renewable power? Or does he really just mean better technology for using (more) oil, coal, and natural gas?
Echoing a post from /. about a week or so ago:
if we spent 10 billion dollars on fusion power research instead of on a missle defense, we are more likely to make a substantive difference in our national security over the long term. Sooner or later we *have* to find abundant renewable energy to sustain *our* way of life. Why are we procrastinating? If you're thinking "that's dumb, its gonna take at least 30 years", then remember that its that kind of thinking that got us to where we are today. The ~20K people that died on Tuesday are at least partly (and certainly indirectly) the victims of 30 years of misguided energy policy.