A New American Clean Energy Economy

There were many important sections, moments, and turns of phrase in President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this week. Much of the speech revolved around the American economy and other domestic topics. In one section in particular, Barack Obama made a point that cannot be stressed enough. He talked about the US's place in the global energy economy.

For many reasons, investing heavily in scientific research across the board is a smart idea. Investing today in research for clean energy technologies is an even smarter idea. As Obama said,

The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.

In countless cases throughout the last several hundred years, it has been the access to energy that has dictated whether a nation's power grows or dwindles. In the 21st century it will be no different. If the United States does not become the dominant leader in new energy technology, it will gradually lose its edge militarily, politically, and economically.

Long gone are the days when the US could get most of its energy from domestic sources, and even harnessing all of the country's reserves without any attention to environmental preservation would not change that fact. However, the culture of assured access to limitless energy is pervasive and implacable. Replacing this with a new national identity of scientific progress through hard work and tough decisions is the right thing to do.

It's extraordinary how inventive one can be with ethanol right now
-Daniel Yergin

Right to Life?

The right to life is the preeminent right mandated by the American Declaration of Independence. Deeply ingrained in the psyche of the American people, there is no greater task of the government of the United states than to protect the lives of its citizens. Medical procedures with the potential to lengthen sharply the lifespan of American Citizens are therefore historically and practically important.

A recent study on mice controlling a particular protein genetically puts a potentially pressing matter into focus: what if only some people could afford this treatment? People have always received medical treatment and care in proportion to their power, wealth, and political status. The amount to which there has been outrage from the less well-off has varied in the past. However, if the future holds a series of procedures that can undeniably alter a select few people's lifespans by a dramatic amount, there will be discord.

If living in the "rich world" will mean living to 100, and everyone elsewhere knows it, what will happen? While clearly the separation is already quite drastic, imagine if the gap between the rich and poor countries doubled in a short period of time.

With reference to the current raucous noise about health care in the United States, what if instead of rising premiums and falling services, most Americans could be angry about the loss of their right to life?