In their recent town-hall style meeting, Dan Nocera and Angela Belcher present a very negative world outlook based on an ever-increasing demand for energy. Unfortunately, the future they put forth is alarmingly realistic. Third world populations are increasing exponentially and many of those same third world countries are also drastically improving the average standard of living. This increase in the standard of living almost always corresponds to increased energy consumption. Although reports do say that conventional energy sources have the reserves to feed this quickly growing energy demands for the next several decades, the fossil fuel based energy sources around the world are contributing to unparalleled increases in various greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that help contribute to new types of climates that endanger biodiversity and change the global landscape. In order to combat this ever increasing crisis, we need a combination of strong leadership from the top and newfound commitment from the top minds in science.
Economics, rather than moral imperative, still dominates the landscape when considering energy policy. This is evident in the current push for ethanol fuels to replace gasoline. This offers nothing in the way of energy savings, but it offers a great deal of wealth for those who exploit it. In order to make a concerted effort to change the way we power the world, we need a strong leader that can inspire people to bring about great change. Large-scale scientific advancement has not happened many times in recent history, as John F. Kennedy was the last president who channeled his charisma to the advancement of science with his creation of NASA. Despite the lack of a significant amount of research in the area, Kennedy simply proclaimed that we would get a man on the moon and we, in fact, did so in approximately a decade. Great scientists can come up with great ideas, but they mean nothing if they are not met with a leader who is committed to seeing them through. Although it is unlikely that any great change should happen that quickly again, the important idea to distill from that age is how a great leader like Kennedy was able to galvanize a nation to be so wholeheartedly committed to one area of research.
Although Obama might not be the savior people make him out to be, he has some politically revolutionary ideas concerning alternative energy. With his charisma and public speaking ability, he has the potential to make alternative energy a mainstream idea with widespread support. Much like Kennedy, Obama can make alternative energy a national security priority. Many people do not understand the impact of global climate change and a loss of biodiversity, but hearing the words “national security” makes the pursuit of alternative forms of energy a much more serious endeavor in many eyes. The areas under the most direct assault from changing climates are currently the arctic regions, which are too far away from most people, so the issue does not feel personal. However, if someone is able to get people to realize that new energy sources will prevent us from having to fight to defend fossil fuel reserves around the world, the challenge takes on a new meaning. When the public unites strongly behind an idea, the legislators are effectively forced to support and sponsor new measures to increase funding. The promise of increased funding is critical in luring the best minds to the field of alternative energy and sustainability related technologies.
Because there is so much promise for change in alternative energy policy, it makes the job of a scientist that much more important. While policy makers can appropriate funds, nothing is possible without great scientific minds pouring fourth innovative ideas. As a scientist-in-training, it is nice to know that my technical ideas have the possibility to bring about great changes to the way we obtain and use energy. Alternative energy is an area that encompasses many fields and thus can attract the great minds from all scientific disciplines. The opportunity to learn so much from so many different people makes the field very exciting and helps breed new ideas. Innovation comes from combining seemingly disparate fields, and bringing people together with different interests changes the way we look at problems. Having the knowledge to contribute to the sustainability challenge and moving into another field starts to feel irresponsible to a certain degree because it is simply a lost opportunity. This ties in to another excellent but controversial point that Nocera makes in his talk. He alleges that American are more interested in “not dying” than sacrificing oneself for a greater good. The sacrifice is not unthinkable either, since average life spans in the United States are in the late 70s. Essentially all research in medicine is simply prolonging the inevitable, whereas research in alternative energy has the potential to lessen the effects of centuries of anthropogenic destruction. This is not to say that those doing research in other fields do not have noble and high-minded purposes, but there is simply a larger problem at hand that requires the best of every field to combat. Nocera and Belcher, are extremely important for the field of alternative energy, but the public does not yet understand the importance of the field and will likely never give them the credit they deserve for dedicating their rare talent to an area that is about progress rather than individual accolades.
