On the evening of July 20, 1969, I was a 10-year-old camper at Camp Conoy in Calvert County, Maryland, now the site of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear energy plant. It was an auspicious night for me and the rest of my cabin-mates; bedtime was usually at 9 p.m., but this night we would be allowed to stay up later and, indeed, watch TV (the only such occasion during my days at summer camp).
That evening, we huddled in the wood-frame dining hall and watched on a grainy, 12" black and white TV as Neil Armstrong took those first few steps, 100 of us staring at a now laughably tiny screen. We went to bed that night looking at the moon and the stars, aware that something substantial had changed. Anything was possible; one day we might see space travel to Mars. American ingenuity was limited only by our collective imagination.
The moon landing was the culmination of a multi-year effort by NASA, inspired by fear of Soviet political and military superiority following the success of Sputnik I in 1957. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy marshaled public support for the Apollo Program and challenged the American public, scientific and engineering communities to put a man on the moon by 1969, a daunting task on a seemingly impossible timeline.
Today's challenge is no less daunting and certainly more vital to our economic survival and political strategy: to develop energy-use systems that free us from dependence upon petroleum. The BP disaster in the gulf — a cleanup for which is now at least months away — as well as our tangled political obligations and alliances in the Middle East and the aggregate effects of climate change all illustrate that today's key race is not toward outer space. Rather, it is inward toward a better understanding of how to use our limited carbon-based resources and how to best exploit the energy alternatives: wind, hydrogen, geothermal and solar. Just as the space program's goal — a human presence on the moon — was achieved through innovation and the relentless application of America's best and brightest minds, so should we accomplish the goal of freedom from petroleum dependence.
At minimum, this would include reduced dependence on imported petroleum; developing vehicles with radically high petroleum-based-fuel efficiency; development of affordable electronic and/or hydrogen-based vehicles with government-subsidized infrastructure; improvement of mass transit based on clean energy technologies; and reductions in industrial and residential fuel usage.
The goal should be to reduce national dependence upon petroleum and coal by 50 percent in 10 years and 75 percent in 15 years. At first blush, these targets may appear beyond credible reach, but consider that in 1963 there had only been one manned space flight, and many crucial systems — rocket propulsion, computer guidance and human survival technologies necessary to complete a mission to the moon — had not been fully developed. These impediments did not prevent either setting the goal or committing public dollars to the Pioneer and Apollo space projects that led Americans to success just six years later.
The space program yielded many spinoff benefits, including the development of a wide range of technologies in computers, navigation, communication and propulsion that continue to benefit us today. A major commitment of time, money and technology to an energy independence program would almost certainly produce similar results. Who could have predicted GPS and Tang in 1963?
How to pay for this great national undertaking in a blighted economy? By revising the tax code and reallocating budget allowances. Congress needs to end the tax incentives and benefits now enjoyed by the oil companies: Eliminating royalty relief, the depletion allowance and the expensing of intangible drilling costs would result in billions of dollars of tax revenue. The oil companies — whose profits are in the tens of billions annually — should be taxed more aggressively at the profit (not the pump) level.
Congress also needs to examine the budgets for agencies and programs whose missions are in transition or stale. The Department of Defense's budget exceeds $900 billion; NASA's is more than $18 billion. Both could be reviewed and portions reallocated for decreasing reliance upon imported and domestic oil as a matter of national and environmental security.
In order to overcome industrial and bureaucratic opposition to these proposed changes, President Obama must seize America's imagination anew. He needs to send the message that we can have the most robust and best fleet of hydrogen and electric cars in the world, we can be better stewards of our environment and we can be a world leader in technological development.
In 1963, President Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and responsible members of Congress sought to free us from domination by a Soviet aerospace threat through technological innovation. We need now to be freed from the tyranny of petroleum dependence and all of its political, economic and environmental consequences. We owe the 10-year-olds of 2010 — and 2069 — no less.
Steve Awalt is an attorney in Baltimore. His e-mail is sba@kdattorneys.com.