On May 25, 1961, John F. Kennedy focused this Nation on the next great frontier for American exploration and urged the United States toward facing the challenges attendant to that frontier's exploration. He said, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." He later stated, "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
It was not JFK's original idea to send a man into space. Indeed, NASA had been formed a few years prior to JFK's famous pronouncement with the mission to "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research." Moreover, the Russians had already beat the Americans to the punch with the launch of Sputnik in 1957. In fact, it was the launch of Sputnik, and the perceived national security threat to the United States resulting from the Soviet Union's technological feat, that spurred the Nation into action.
Notwithstanding the "Sputnik Crisis" and the establishments of NASA a few years earlier, it was no doubt JFK's leadership that breathed life into the issue of space exploration and imbued the endeavor with a concrete and attainable goal. A few short years later, on a warm summer's evening in 1968, America delivered on JFK's challenge and sent a man to the Moon. The accomplishment was great and bears a lesson for today's disenchanted generation: a focused and dedicated American machine faced with the greatest challenges of its day -- even in the modern era -- can accomplish that which seems unattainable, and do so better and faster than any other nation in the world.
And so we face the next frontier of our day: the quest to find an alternative energy solution for the modern age. Much like the Space Race of the 1960s, America is faced with a national security issue of paramount importance. The rising costs of oil along with the increasing turmoil in the Mid East region, place the United States in a precarious position of reliance on those that on one day are allies, but on the next day, are enemies. It is nearly beyond dispute that the singular (but not at all simple) result of freeing this country from a dependence on oil energy would mean near total economic and consequently political independence from a region of tumultuous upheaval and of unpredictable radical (not to mention anti-American) sentiment. This independence would free the United States from partnering with political regimes and leaders with which it shares little political and social common ground. Indeed, an alternative energy solution may well be the greatest advancement for America's long-term national security and give it an invaluable leg-up on every other industrialized nation on earth.
But, if the issue is so critical and the reward so great, where is the urgency for action? Why is Congress not scrambling to find a solution as it did in 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik? Why is there no person, legislator or executive or otherwise, willing to issue the challenge to American ingenuity and focus the Nation on a concrete achievable goal for alternative energy? Why is every solution a backward-looking band aid, when what is most needed is a forward-looking cure?
Similar to the 1960s and the issue of space exploration, alternative energy is not a new idea. Hydro power has been around since the days of the water wheel. There have been huge advancements in solar, wind and nuclear energy. New concepts such as wave technologies are developing every passing day. Honda has already produced a completely gas-free (and emissions free) vehicle, which is available in southern California only because of a lack of infrastructure to support the burgeoning technology. Indeed, new technologies yet to be discovered await on the horizon. Yet, the advancements have been slow in the coming because the technology is in the hands of private industry, which looks for profits above all else to spur its research and development.
And therein lies the problem. On this issue, it is simply not enough to rely on private industry. Instead, with an issue of such paramount importance to national security and the long-term sustained and future prosperity of this Nation, the United States Government must enter the fray. It must lead the charge, issue the challenge and focus the Nation's enormous potential for technological advancement and creativity. And it must be willing to assume the incalculable economic risk of failure for the betterment of the country which no private industry would ever rightly undertake.
I like to believe that if JFK were with us today he'd utter these words: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of developing a viable alternative source of energy which would free it from every reliance on foreign oil. No single energy project in this era will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range security, viability, and prosperity of this nation's peoples; and no endeavor will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. Nonetheless, as we have done so many times before, we must once again face the challenge of our age; to choose to develop a source of energy for the future of this Nation and to do so not because it is easy, but precisely because it is hard." It is my hope, as a humble citizen, that some servant of our current government has the courage and leadership that JFK had not so long ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)