Blog:

My interests are increasingly gravitating towards the rapid developments of green technology taking place around the world right now. When first exploring a new topic of interest, it's sometimes shocking to realize just how little you know, but I'm now subscribed to several eco-related news feeds and blogs. Living in the Bay Area, there's an incredible amount of activity taking place as local start-ups, research organizations and universities, and, to a much lesser degree, large corporations invest in cleaner ways of developing energy.

Two weeks ago I watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" and learned about a living legend named Stan Ovshinsky who, over the course of his life, has led the development of numerous, major scientific breakthroughs related to the creation of environmentally friendly technologies. His company developed the updated version of the electric batteries that powered the EV-1 featured in the film. In his lifetime, Ovshinsky has earned over 200 patents according to an article from MIT. Now in his 80's, the rate at which he continues to earn patents has only slightly declined. In the film, he emphasizes the importance of getting students to learn science and technologies related to green technologies.

Headquartered in San Carlos, California, Tesla Motors was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. According to the their website, one startup idea they considered before starting Tesla Motors was developing smart sprinkler heads to aid in water consumption. Instead, they wind up deciding to conserve oil despite that neither one of them comes from an automotive background. Though the company's initial product will be a sports car, they're already at work on a high performance four-seater sedan with a 250 mile range -- all electric (source Yahoo! Autos).

From reading the Tesla Motor's website, it's clear that this company, similar to Ovshinsky, has a different perspective on the world. At the top of the About Us page on the website it states:

"Whether you're more concerned about global warming or about national security, there's one thing we can probably agree on: our dependence on oil is dangerous and costly. Right now 58% of our oil comes from other countries, so it's practically inevitable our foreign policy principles will be held ransom by our need to maintain domestic economic stability. When you consider that 68% of our oil is used for transportation, we believe gasoline-free cars are an ideal solution to these issues. Even a hybrid car, which still burns gasoline and emits carbon dioxide, doesn't solve our oil-related problems, it just postpones them. If you look hard at the numbers, it's clear that an electric car is the cleanest and most efficient kind of car in existence. We have done exhaustive "well to wheel" energy and emissions analyses, and the numbers are undeniable."

Featured recently in a brilliant article titled Elon Musk Is Betting His Fortune on a Mission Beyond Earth's Orbit, Musk is making two large investments right now that are of great interest to me: one is SpaceX, a space-transportation startup company, and the second is Tesla Motors. The bold financial backers of environmentally friendly technologies deserve great recognition for their vision, contributions and patience. Musk has contributed over $37 million to fund Tesla Motors -- a significant share of the overall $105 million needed to fund the company. In 2006, Exxon Mobil Corp recorded a record breaking $39.5 billion in profit.

If one takes Exxon's profits of $39,500,000,000 and divides it by 365 days in a year the resulting amount is $108,219,178 of profit per day for Exxon. According to my calculations, it would take only day's worth of Exxon's profits to fund Tesla Motors. My fellow residents of the planet Earth: what is wrong with this picture? Imagine if you performed a similar calculation that combined the total profit from the entire oil industry? If this doesn't make you as "mad as hell" then can anything?

Now imagine if the government developed a special R&D tax designed to specifically target profiteers like Exxon and set aside just a couple of weeks worth of their profits to Silicon Valley start-ups like Tesla Motors. These funds could be distributed through an X-Prize style competition or an idea marketplace. Who would run it? One thought would be to form a team led by top NASA scientists as well as leading universities that have demonstrated experience and leadership in the fields of physics, electrical and mechnical engineering, and other related fields of research. Top universities such as MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, and Berkeley come to mind.

Of course, a few hundred million, even when provided to some of the smartest scientists on the planet, would not be enough to accomplish such goals. Who could require that such an organization form and what would the goals be anyway?

In my view, there is only one person that can make this happen: the president of the United States. Obviously the concepts I'm speaking about are incomprehensible to our current leader and I'd make the case that this was true of his predecessor as well (though less so). By comparison to the last several presidents we've had, I'm probably talking about someone who would be considered a true radical and visionary.

However, the American people were fortunate enough to have a president once that did in fact inspire a nation to achieve a goal that nearly all thought was impossible. There was a president who understood how important it was for America to affirm its technical and scientific leadership. There was a president bold enough to challenge every American to believe in a goal so grand that that they too would need to become bold in order to believe in it. And yes, he and his people succeeded.

When John F. Kennedy's presented his moon speech on September 12, 1962 at Rice Stadium, he not only outlined a mission to land on the moon within a decade of the day he proposed his goal, I believe he also provided a vision so inspiring that it can and should be applied to other seemingly impossible technical and scientific achievements for the duration of mankind. If you have not had the opportunity to see this speech or believe you have in the past but do not remember the specifics, please watch it now and listen to every word:

There are a few particular passages that are are especially important:

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

In a speech filled with stirring eloquence, JFK also states:

We choose to go to the moon. 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, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

Now consider this: imagine substituting out the mission from landing on the moon in ten years to eliminating our dependence on foreign resources to support our energy needs. That is to say, become energy independent. Nearly every aspect of Kennedy's vision could still apply. Would it require us to increase our national spending? Yes. Would it require a partnership between the private sector and government? Yes. Would it require Americans to make sacrifices and change their behavior? Yes. Would it require that laws be changed and atypical political bipartisanship? Yes and yes.

To put things in perspective, here's a telling summary that cites the cost of the moon race:

The US won the race to the Moon because, unlike the Soviet Union, it committed vast resources to a well thought-out "game plan" right from the start. NASA also stuck to that plan despite occasional technical and political problems. The foundation for Apollo's success was laid in 1962-67 when some 500,000 people from 20,000 companies built the spacecraft, Saturn carrier rocket and launch facilities. After this, the program was rapidly dismantled in just five years while the Apollo/Saturn system became operational, achieving President Kennedy's goal in July 1969 when Neil Armstrong became the first man on the Moon.

Though the costs of the moon race were high, this mission led to an era of great scientific discovery and technical leadership.

It concerns me greatly that I have not seen a political leader yet in my lifetime willing to take such a strong position on an important matter. The incredible environmental and political impact energy independence could have on this country is equally, if not more important, than the space race. And yet, our political leaders are either indifferent or oblivious, preferring to play political cat-and-mouse over moral issues.

The quality of life, both economically and environmentally, as well as national security depends on us taking immediate action. Though the president can drive this vision, it is a united people that share the vision I'm speaking to that must call it to his or her attention. It frustrates me that most people are not educated enough on this matter and that those that are passionate are not organized enough to assert their goals. I'm still optimistic that soon this has the potential to be addressed if the right people can come together. One needs only to watch JFK's remarkable speech in 1962, proclaiming a nearly impossible goal that was ultimately accomplished three years ahead of schedule, to know that nearly anything can be accomplished with the right leadership, motivation, people and resources.

If you have thoughts on this, please drop me a note.