Except the moon shot was purely a US government controlled initiative and the only competitor was the the USSR. Technological nationalism was at the launching pads of both countries.

Today, with respect to renewable energy, every country and several hundred of industries, both national and foreign ,compete now for the patenting and commercialization of clean energy technology, and a great many of the innovations are being led by private sector investments.

For these reasons I see the "moon shot" as a poor analogy.

yes and no... yes the moon thing is only between 2 competitors, but it's the patriotic and pride thing that really set the stage for funding and speedy space progress. If people would make sustainability into a pride thing (and a way of life rather than a temporary diet) - then private funding (in all corners of the world) would get a serious boost from demand (and hence breakthroughs).

We don't really need an Apollo program, just common sense and reasonable regualtion/taxation of energy consumption, the adjustment of our lifestyle patterns to cut energy consumption, and the incremental improvement of existing technologies.

The Apollo program cost as much as the Vietnam war, and gave us...Teflon. That's about it. And the integrated circuit, which was already being developed anyway. And the protoype for the fuel cell, which even now isn't close to being useful.

During the last two moon moon missions, the tv stations wouldn't even interrupt their programming to show live events, there was so little public interest.

We have enough technology now, we just need to incrementally improve it, and make it affordable.

What Dr. Jaffe is calling for is basically socialism.

What Dr. Jaffe is calling for is basically socialism.

Red-baiting without basis.

Anon,
you call what Rob says baseless red-baiting. I think you need to be careful here. A very consistent fear on the part of conservative America is that the environmental movement really is just a front for thye introduction of Communism. Any talk of 'Big Government Solution™' to any problem will be instantly linked as such, with consequent hostility.

In truth, I see the current problem as being a case too much government interference already. Too much corporate welfare and silly anti-freemarket regulations (not all) helped make the situation we are in. Introducing more top-down government action, certainly without addressing existing silly aforementioned things, sounds manifestly innefective; and already mentioned, if this path is taken people will come to expect that 'government will take care of it...so why sould I'. That attitude is bad.

my 'Big Government Solution™' is basically for our governments to require itself to be carbon neutral, and to put an end to the corporate welfare state.

Anyone with sufficient cash can pick up the phone and order solar hot water heater, tank less water heater for the dead of winter, solar photo voltaic panels, inverters (grid tie or off grid).

So what technology do we need to develop?

The solutions are here, just more expensive than most are willing to pay.

Saying the Apollo missions were useless is a bit like saying Columbus never really got anything done.

you call what Rob says baseless red-baiting. I think you need to be careful here. A very consistent fear on the part of conservative America is that the environmental movement really is just a front for thye introduction of Communism. Any talk of 'Big Government Solution™' to any problem will be instantly linked as such, with consequent hostility.

Right-wing paranoia is independent of anything anyone says or does.

"Right-wing paranoia is independent of anything anyone says or does."

Not when the 'Right-wing" is in Congress and in the White House.

which brings up another good point:
whichever politcal sphere is in charge is also in charge of whatever 'Big Government Solutions™' are around. Witness the pathetic state of NASA, space climate science, the EPA; all suffering from either politcal and/or administrative indiference or hostility. The Apollo Program was a rare exception, and only then for a short while. The next administration/congress might be better, but for how long?

If you want the permanent solutions a sane global climate will requrie, don't rely on Big Government Solutions™.

'What Dr. Jaffe is calling for is basically socialism'
---I find such a statement inappropriate.

'A very consistent fear on the part of conservative America is that the environmental movement really is just a front for thye introduction of Communism. Any talk of 'Big Government Solution™' to any problem will be instantly linked as such, with consequent hostility.'
---First, conservative America is not a monolithic block. There are conservative Americans who care deeply about the environment and those that don't. Just like there are liberal Americans who care deeply about the environment and those that don't. The environment isn't a left-right issue. Yes, there is a segment in both the left-wing and the right-wing who see it as a left-right issue. But that is as twisted as saying liberal Americans don't care about security or that conservative Americans use security issues as a front for taking away our civil liberties and introducing a Fascist regime. It doesn't help anything to misinterpret reality and try to propogate a non-existent stereotype of American society. Second, both parties endorse and attack 'Big Government' in different ways and at different times. This conservative presidency, under the previous conservative Congress, passed into law the biggest increase in 'Big Government' spending and welfare programs of any any administration since possibly FDR with their prescription drugs benefits entitilements. Clinton's administration greatly cut federal government programs and spending. Again, it is a distorted and non-existing stereotype that Republicans favor small government and Democrats big. To make such an argument, one has to be extremely prejudiced, subjective and picky in taking historical facts to back it up. Republicans are as guilty of pork-barrel politics and over-regulation as Democrats. Third, both parties support laws, regulations and restrictions. It is just that they support different laws, regulations and restrictions at different points in time. Some Republicans may support tough laws against drug use but lax laws on smoking, while some Democrats may support laxer laws on marijuana use and tougher on smoking. Key words being SOME and MAY. The stereotypes represented in your comments are both inaccurate, inappropriate and detrimental.

In re: my calling a NASA-style project "socialism"

I apologize for my tone! Friday afternoon!

I am actually a strong enivornomentalist. And this undertaking too important an obejctive to be left to an anonymous, unaccountable government agency.

Since the moon shot had NO commerical objectives, of course the government was the lead player. That's not the case with energy development. So it should be left to the private sector. Would you trust the government to NOT screw up the design of your next car? Your next house? They'd screw it up. There's no accountability, no "customer-pleasing" expertise, no market discipline.

I APOLOGIZE for my snarky tone above. For the record, I think there should be MORE regulations on fuel consumption and HIGHER taxes on fuel. Both of these objectives, which government IS competent at, would eliminate our crippling dependence on petroleum and would encourage market development of more energy-efficient technologies and modes of living and working.
But I don't think a new agency a la Synfuels would suffer any better a fate than the old one.

We have about a dozen great big government labs , and dozens of university labs, plus the rest of the world is working furiously on this too. Plus private industry. Let's raise fuel taxes and CAFE averages before we start building more centralized government agencies.

If you ever desire to put your brain on cruise control, become a libertarian.

I did not say that 'Conservative America' was a 'monolithic block' I said there was 'a very consistent fear' on their part...not all of them are so concerned. Note too that I said 'Conservative America' not Republican or Democratic America...needless to say many Republicans are quite disenchanted with their party leaders on the points you make.

I do not beleive I was propping up stereotypes I apologize if it came accross that way. The reson I hold the beleif that 'Conservative America' is generally concerned with environmentalism being a front for communism is because that is what they say on various conservative blogs and news sites. 'They' being the loudest opinion leaders of said blogs and commentators. Whether it is true or false, that is what 'they' seem to beleive. 'They' claim that many of the same people promoting environmentalism have also promoted communism...many of these claims are patently ridiculous, and it takes much energy on my part to politely correct them; and that's when I have time to bother.

Whenever there is conflict there is very often at it's heart some sort of fear. Fear of Communism is what I think is the root motivator of the generic Climate Change Denier. The more the 'Global Warmers' (that's us) sound like 'BIg Government Solultioners', the more ammunition you hand them.

And all that is besides whether big government solutions are even practical, which I doubt for reasons given already.

I have no idea whether the left or right or liberals or conservatives would have the best approach for you in the US. To me it seems you just always want the techno-magic bullet. As Rob says the solutions are here already.

I don't think it's called Socialism though. It's just about 1 simple question - Can Americans get away from the attitude that 'Bigger Is Better'???

The US militairy have a research budget that boggles the mind. But if a fraction of this budget would be set aside for renewable energy research suddenly this is dangerous Big Government?

For the record I think the military research budget should definitely be cut too. I think the military in the US is very professional and full of decent people, but our military is way too large. Americans are a commercial people, not a conquiring people. We're a creative people, not a combative people.

I just think the idea of creating a massive government program is folly, when all we have to do is use the tax system and regulations to make energy wastage too expensive a choice for all of us. We make laws every day, we impose taxes every day, and we can make our petroleum reserves last 100 years more if we stop the SUVs and air conditioning over-use and half-empty planes and highway building and all those other things that don't do us any good anyway.

if we stop the SUVs and air conditioning over-use and half-empty planes

Average load factor for airlines is around 80%, not 50%.

I am not sure if the U.S. military is too large, but it's practices are too inneficient...made so in the name of not wasting tax payer oney too. Basically, a commander has to spend all the funds his/her unit is alloted, and return the difference; spend too little too often and his initial funds are reduced. The systme they are in promotes spedning as much money as possible. Change that system and money for research can be found without impacting the size of the military the optimum of which is a different discussion. Additionaly, the military is a big customer of energy research and various other things of use to the envirnomental movement water reclamtion etc.

"To me it seems you just always want the techno-magic bullet. As Rob says the solutions are here already."

nail hit on head

" Can Americans get away from the attitude that 'Bigger Is Better'???"

nail hit on head again!

Eliminate corporate wlfare, especially for fossilfuels and agriculture and you will see a big change for the better.

"when all we have to do is use the tax system and regulations to make energy wastage too expensive a choice for all of us."

another nail hit head!

The current regulatory and tax structure is holding back environmental benefits that a properly regulated freemarket could provide, permanently, without fickle underfunded govt programs.

"I am not sure if the U.S. military is too large, but it's practices are too inneficient...made so in the name of not wasting tax payer oney too. Basically, a commander has to spend all the funds his/her unit is alloted, and return the difference; spend too little too often and his initial funds are reduced. The systme they are in promotes spedning as much money as possible. Change that system and money for research can be found without impacting the size of the military the optimum of which is a different discussion. Additionaly, the military is a big customer of energy research and various other things of use to the envirnomental movement water reclamtion etc."

Nothing Sam says here is much different from any large corporation. I know as I work for a large company and have several friends in the military. It's scary when we swap stories of waste and incompetence all our stories sound the same. I think the issue is how to manage a large multilevel organization. I don't know the answers but see the problems at companies attempting to maximize profit.