The Best of Both Phone, and Tablet
- Related Stories
-
Coming soon: Cars that get 100 miles per gallon
April 25, 2006 -
Bush shows support for tech industry
April 21, 2006 -
A long road to a clean planet, academics say
April 21, 2006
Bush opened his talk at Cisco by suggesting it would be an "issues discussion" focused on how to secure the nation's energy independence and improve competitiveness. He said he wanted to engage in a conversation about "how America intends to shape our future and not fear the future."
I was prepared to pay the price of admission--suffering through an hour's worth of political posturing--if he'd make good on the rhetorical promise. Sad to say, somebody now owes me a refund.
Jumping from one talking point to another (those speechwriters back in Washington know how to earn their keep), Bush provided little follow-through and little depth to his comments. The audience heard a lot of standard stump lines about lowering taxes and being optimistic, but the president disappointed when it came to offering a big vision or specifics on how to mobilize a technology industry that's itching to help solve America's perennial energy crisis.
After six years in office, Bush and his administration are finally waking up to the fact that U.S. dependence on oil is bad news. Until now, Washington has been content to let the oil companies drill more holes in the ground. If that polluted pristine nature reserves, well, such is the price of modernity. If that contributed to the burning of more fossil fuels and resulted in more atmospheric pollution, well, the evidence about global warming is inconclusive. But with his popularity ratings skidding to new lows, Bush is changing his tune. He's now talking about ethanol and electric hybrids as if there was something new under the sun, and he's even paid lip service to hydrogen. Better late than never. So, welcome--seriously.
Unfortunately, the president let slip a golden opportunity to galvanize Silicon Valley into action.
Venture capitalists and CEOs say the search for energy alternatives could become the hot area. But their efforts to date have been sporadic. The commander in chief had one heckuva bully pulpit with which to issue a call to arms. Instead, he came across as genial and sometimes endearingly goofy, but utterly in over his head about the topic being discussed.
"Interestingly enough, tomorrow I'm going to be riding my bike in Napa Valley. I can't wait," Bush said. "I'll be plugged into an iPod. A lot of the reason the iPod exists is because of federal research dollars." Umm, Steve Jobs would surely remember history differently. But I think Bush's mangled reference has to do with government funded support for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that led to the creation of the Internet.
Video:
President Bush visits Silicon Valley
President speaks about competition during visit.
And yet compared with previous decades, DARPA's been starved by the government for the last six years. Mendel Rosenblum, a Stanford professor and founder of VMWare, recently bemoaned the state of government funding. And fellow Stanford prof Mark Horowitz noted 2007 will be the first year he won't receive DARPA help for one of his projects. Jim Clark, who helped start Netscape and Silicon Graphics--hardly a screaming Trotskyite--has described the situation as grim and now urges people to tell their friends to vote for the Democrats.
The president talked about how it's in the national interest to diversify as quickly as possible away from our reliance on hydrocarbons. But that takes research money and brainpower. Unfortunately, the administration hasn't done much to nurture the lifeblood of the U.S. tech industry. Thousands of foreign students are getting turned away, and research grants ain't what they used to be. Who could argue that Silicon Valley has not thrived by attracting the creme de la creme from around the world? But if the U.S. becomes less attractive to foreign graduate students, that's going to affect the quality of the work done in the technology industry.
OK, I've spent three-fourths of this space whining about what the president didn't say. What would I have wanted him to say? How about a Manhattan Project for energy independence?
The one good idea Bush offered during his talk was a pitch to make permanent the research and development tax credit. Don't stop there. The government should rewrite existing tax and investment regulations to favor the search for sustainable energy alternatives.
Create special incentives and tax breaks for start-ups and venture capitalists that set out to help break this logjam. At the same time, enlist the best brains private industry has to offer and provide them with the authority to shepherd the various projects through to completion.
In other words, bring technology to bear on the problem. But if this is to work, government can't sit on the sidelines like a spectator with its fingers crossed.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
Silicon Valley, president, Stanford, energy, Steve Jobs
23 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
- a $1 Billion prize for the business, group or individual that produces a vehicle that can seat four adults (at least Honda Civic size) and gets 150 miles per gallon of fuel - preferably bio-diesel, and when put into production would cost within the average price for similar vehicles (roughly $25,000).
- a $10 Billion for the business, group or individual that develops a vehicle that uses NO fossil fuels, and has a net zero pollution output. Again, it would have to seat four adults, and cost within the average price of similar vehicles.
Of course other requirements for safety and other vehicle standards would also have to be met.
Where to get the money? A tax to be shared among windfall profits for the oil companies, military suppliers and we little folks.
The size of the prize is to get people moving on actually solving the problem, instead of just talking about solving the problem, or making tiny, incremental steps (like moving from 24 to 27 mpg in CAFE standards).
Thinks its expensive?
Both prizes would cost less then three months of warfare in the Middle East, and no one has to do die trying.
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving
the goal, before the next decade is out, of making North
America energy independent. No single project in this period will
be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-
range economic security of our continent; and none will be so
difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate
the development of the appropriate technology. We propose to
develop alternate fuels, much different than any now being
developed...
If President Kennedy could lead us to putting a man on the
moon in the 60's, President Bush could/should lead us to energy
independence in the 2000's. If not, then some other president
will have to.
I have a real time miles/gallon indicator as part of my dashboard display. It keeps me aware of how I am driving and the resulting cost. How much extra would that cost?
I like the cash award incentive that someone suggested...think SpaceOne and what was accomplished.
Ed
1. It would go faster then anything the government could do.
2. We can push a tax relief or something to the companies that are doing this work and yes there is an alternative fuel tax credit already setup.
3. Waiting on the governement will add n to the inth time for something good to happen.
4. Embrace sunny areas pushing solar, windy areas pushing wind generators, and back it up with bio(corn) fuel everywhere.
5. Gas is reserved for all existing machines(car or whatever) and all new machines or cars are to be alternative fuel only.
These are simple things we can do as a people if we really care. The problem is we as a nation are fat and lazy. We want everyone else to do it for us and then complain about it and tear it down.
South Korea is about to eat our lunch and show us how in the "NEW" millenium you get stuff done. They will show us how a people get behind each other and then the government is told this is how we want things to be.
Where did we forget that we tell the government how its to be and as a large group we govern ourselves..
I will start a blog soon and I will allow anyone with intelligent comment to speak out. Thanks for reading my rant!
Coog
This has been a problem for the last FORTY years that hasn't succesfully been dealt with by ANY administration. The simple fact of the matter is that until the economics support it (like they do now) its far easier, read Politically Popular, with the masses to go with the status quo. Take a look at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html</a>
Look at averag gas prices from Bushe's first inaguration on. They started at around 1.50$ then dipped in late 2002 and early 2003 to around 1.25$ a gallon. It was only later they started climbing again. If you want to criticize weak policy please do so, but dont try blame this administration for the explosion in growth of china that we've known was coming.
I did write to one of the people involved with adding batteries etc. to the Prius with the result of increasing it's mileage. I told the person it was good to see good old American know how in action. Despite people criticizing America both inside and outside of it's borders re Iraq etc. the ability of the country to be creative and inventive is one thing that needs to be tapped into before it is too late. This is not about doom and gloom but now is the time for action to be taken.
I feel sad when you quoted what George Bush (Jr) the president had to say. He is barely up to the job of inspiring America. It is sad He may be remembered for likely starting a war he may not be able to finish.
There is greatness in America. It needs people like yourself and others to stir the pot and bring it to the surface.
By the way I am a Canadian observer who has of late watched events in the world and wished that the America that put Man on the Moon would wake from it's slumber and get to work.You are missing the opportunities. Things are a changing in the world and America needs to meet the challenge or fall back towards 2nd rate nation status. I do not think that would be good for the world.
with government funded support for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency that led to the creation of the
Internet."
Yes, but if Bush had claimed that funding DARPA led to
technology breakthroughs and tried to claim credit for that
funding, Declan MCCullagh would just have accused him of
pretending to "invent the Internet". (Of course, Bush just took
credit for inventing the iPod in the same manner, but you'll
never catch the access-starved press calling him on it.)
What? McCullagh did the same thing to Al Gore while writing for
Wired in 2000, and it cost Gore lots of votes in the 2000 election
- mostly because the tech-ignorant press (as well as those who
should have known better) couldn't stop repeating that Al Gore
"said he invented the Internet".
Why can't you be nearly as critical of the stuff Bush _doesn't_
say?
You can just imagine the whinyness in his voice ... show us your purple Geo Metro charles!
1) The Administration was very aware that abundant petroleum has been absolutely vital to military power for the last century.
2) Saddam announced that Iraq was going to sell its oil in Euros rather than Dollars which would have removed the US from Petrodollar recycling leading to a major banking and economic crisis. It was felt he had to be stopped in such a way that would discourage others from doing the same. A decade of observation led to the assurance that Iraq had no serious capability to strike back.
3) A rise in oil prices, if moderate, would not seriously damage US military capability, and would, incidentally, lead to considerable profits in certain circles.
I believe the game plan has changed somewhat. I am not sure why this Administration is threatening Iran. Most observers believe that a US attack on Iran would make present US Near Eastern difficulties look small by comparison. Also, rumors are that the Administration is planning on allowing the Dollar to devalue, which will further increase the Dollar price of oil, virtually assuring the continuance of the 100% per two year price increase we have been seeing.
One possibility is that the game plan is to put in motion such a disaster that the Democrats will win in 2006 and be thrown out in 2008 as the disaster progresses.
What is clear, and a little ironic, is that the greenest part of the US economy under this Administration is the US military -- which is absolutely dependent on oil to be able to project power.
The following statement:
"And yet compared with previous decades, DARPA's been starved by the government for the last six years. Mendel Rosenblum, a Stanford professor and founder of VMWare, says 2007 will be the first year he won't receive DARPA help for one of his projects. Jim Clark, who helped start Netscape and Silicon Graphics--hardly a screaming Trotskyite--has described the situation as grim and now urges people to tell their friends to vote for the Democrats."
is wrong on all counts.
First DARPA's budget has gone from less than $2B in 1999 to $3B in 2006--hardly a starvation diet.
Second it was Horwitz who said that and if you were to ask him now, he would admit that he was wrong--he didnt check his facts either.
Thanks