Total investment in just renewable energy (a subsector of the green industry) was $211 billion in 2010 (see also, here at page 35). To give you a sense of size, the entire US pharmaceutical industry R&D budget for new medicines and vaccines in the same period was $67.4 billion.  For every $1 a US company spends trying to cure cancer, Parkinsons, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and diabetes, the world spends $3.10 inventing, manufacturing and selling panda-shit burners, solar panels, corn-based gasoline and wind farms.

Not enough money is not the problem in the green industry.  For one thing, you cannot sell something for $3 when it costs $6 to make and expect to continue for long.  Talk about unsustainable.  Natural economic failure, the lack of a real threat, bad science and politicians trying to pick winners is the problem in the green industry.  Moreover, less than half of Americans believe that Global Warming™ is caused by man, if at all.

But this reflex response is not limited to the green industry.  Liberals have the same reaction when it comes to spending money on education. But there is no evidence that simply increasing the budget will improve results.  Even the uber liberal Center for American Progress, in their exhaustive, district by district review of educational spending, had to admit that “without clear controls on how additional school dollars are spent, more education spending will not automatically improve student outcomes.”  Not a ringing endorsement for more spending.

Indeed, increasing investment in a company, an industry or even a school can have unintended consequences.  When a budget is tightened, management has to make harder choices.  If you run a business and have an unlimited budget, you will never need to decide whether it’s better to send your account manager, Mark to Denver or your business development lead, Kim to San Diego.  You can send them both.

But when spending is limited, choices have to be made.  An effective manager (with accurate information) is one who can make the right choice and put every dollar spent to the most productive use.  If you think this is all theoretical, it’s not.  No well run company will invest in a start up until it is big enough to know what to do with the money.  In addition, a company with a tightened belt will comb its expenses reports, accounts payable and accounts receivable and ferret out fraud, waste and abuse.  All of these factors will increase the productivity of every dollar invested.  In other words, more money doesn’t buy better results.  Just ask the Philadelphia Eagles.

“We here at EventRoots believe that it is the moral duty of hotel owners and convention centers to provide us a forum to express our vitriol against them,” noted Hope Okrasy, spokeswoman for EventRoots.  “We are a nation of laws,” she continued, “and those laws should require private businesses to provide us with a public forum to air our ideas, no matter how condescending, hypicritical or idiotic.”  The group’s website states that it is in favor of defending individual rights, intellectual property and personal freedom, “even if it means seizing hotel and conference room space at the point of a gun.”

Ms. Okrasy is calling for EventRoots supporters to join the EventRoots Congress in Providence, Rhode Island next year.  “We want our supporters to come out of their parents’ basement and show their support for the cause.”

The conversation started over why, as Jon Stewart so eloquently pointed out (start at the 7:00 mark), that every President since before I was born has tried to solve our foreign oil problem, and yet, it keeps getting worse.  The problem, I explained, was that the government cannot mandate ingenuity.

Obama’s plan, as all “green” projects in the past have, is to shove money at the problem and naively Hope™ that bureaucrats and politicians can pick a winner from primitive, undeveloped versions of future technologies.  Of course, these people have their own biases, and often find that the only projects that will work are ones in their own district or ones from which they or their union friends will personally benefit.  Even assuming you can level the playing field, you are asking people with little or no background in physics, engineering or astrology to decide which technology will, after billions of dollars and decades of false starts, be the one that pays off.  This is a lot like asking a 2 month old infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

This is a lot like asking an infant to pick your mutual fund–it may work out, but chances are you’re just pissing money away.

The stick in all of this, of course, is that the government will fund this bad idea on the backs of taxpayers and energy consumers.  Just as they did in Spain, Germany and Denmark, “green” initiatives will increase the cost of energy, including low cost existing sources like oil, coal and natural gas.  A cap and trade program is a way to mandate an increase in the cost of existing fuel.  Even Obama admits that his policies would “bankrupt” the coal industry.

So I began to think what a carrot would look like.  By far, the most palatable incentive for free market types is a tax break–but “green” policies already provide tax incentives to “go green.”  In the context of our current energy issues, this is very much like giving a $5 off coupon for brass polish to the captain of the Titanic.  What is needed is an incentive to innovate that cannot be turned down.

Here is my two part proposal:

First, drill, baby, drill.  Access all of our natural resources domestically until that Texas tea cannot be found anywhere under American feet or swimsuits.  Start an immediate program to bring to market every ounce of oil under American control, shale, natural gas, ANWR–everything.  As Krauthammer pointed out last month, we are only drilling in deep water because environmentalists won’t let us drill where it is safe.  This is absurd and self defeating and needs to stop.  Cut the red tape, bar the law suits and start drilling.

Second, for the carrot–call it the federal X-prize: the first company (or individual) who patents and brings to market either of the “new energy technologies” listed below will not have to pay federal taxes for the next 25 years.  The President will, in his infinite wisdom, set out the basic objective criteria for a “new energy technologies” in direct power and power generation.  The criteria must be vague enough to allow for unforeseen solutions, and specific enough to be used to determine success objectively.  My suggestion for the direct power criteria are;

1. A source of energy (e.g. a battery or a motor) that can power a standard size SUV for 300 miles at highway speed without stopping to refuel.
2. Weighs less than 25 gallons of gasoline or provides sufficient additional power to compensate.
3. Is renewable or reusable (a battery or a primary source).
4. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
5. Is marketable (price point without subsidies) to ordinary consumers.

The argument, of course, will be on the definitions for the above.  For power generation, I suggest the following criteria:

1. A source of energy that can provide energy on a large scale (at least 500 MW) at or below the national average cost per kWh (currently, about $.15 per kWh) with the builder recouping construction costs.
2. Is renewable or reusable.
3. Is non toxic to the environment and its users.
4. Is capable of mass production and use in large and small markets.

So these are the product criteria.  If you bring a product to market, you won’t owe Uncle Sam a dime for the next quarter century.

This would spark a search like none other since the Holy Grail.  Every company in the world, technology companies, aerospace companies, oil companies, credit card companies, would make massive investments to win the brass ring: a 60-70% increase of after tax profits for 25 years.  [For the math inclined, a corporation pays roughly 35% in federal taxes out of a total tax burden of 40-50% for most companies.  If you take off the 35% federal tax, after tax profits (the percentage the company keeps) will go from 50-60% to 85-95%.  85%/50% = 170%; 95%/60% = 158%.]

To give this some real world numbers, Exxon, the largest U.S. company by revenue, pays about $5-7 billion in federal taxes each year.  So at the maximum, this would be about a $175 billion “investment” over 25 years.  Of course, unlike Obama’s $50 billion plan, not a penny of this would be wasted–we would only make the “investment” after the goods were delivered.

For perspective, all of the world governments combined spend $500 billion per year on “green” subsidies that are largely a waste of money.  So for a maximum of 1% of that price, the United States could revolutionize the energy industry and solve our foreign oil problem.

Looking at it a different way, the U.S. imports 9.73 million barrels of oil per day.  That’s about $980 million per day going to stalwart allies like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Venezuela.  That’s $357 billion of American money exported per year.  I know liberals hate the idea of even one corporation not paying taxes, but we get very little tax revenue from the $357 billion we send over seas.

This idea may seem extreme, but (1) no government subsidy has ever worked to move the needle for oil consumption and (2) it is completely cost free if it works.  Moreover, it is not unprecedented.  Many countries provide low or zero tax agreements to companies in order to spur local economic growth.  Singapore and Dubai, for example, have economic development councils that encourage multinational corporations to build their regional business there.  The company gets a massive tax break and the host country gets higher employment, ancillary economic growth (workers need food, lodging and entertainment) and bragging rights.

Under my plan, companies would be given the incentive to expand their R&D departments, hire more employees and develop technologies that, even if they do not win the prize, will at least be taking us in the right direction.  (We might not have digital thermometers or cordless tools if not for the space program.)  If the research resulting in a dead-end, the cost is borne by the private company, not the taxpayer.  And no technology would have a defacto advantage through bureaucratic endorsement.  The government would be encouraging risk and innovation, rather than underwriting it, or worse, stifling it.

Just before 10:00 p.m. Houston time on July 21, 1969, after six agonizing hours of preparations, Neil Armstrong climbed down the ladder and uttered those historic words “That is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”  Over the next three years, ten other men would join Armstrong and Aldrin in the smallest fraternity on Earth.

We outsourced exploration to robotkind.

Sadly, following the last lunar landing in 1972, NASA stopped taking even moderately large steps, much less giant leaps.  The Space Shuttle, meant to be an interim development to interplanetary travel, became a station wagon, running errands in low and mid-Earth orbit far longer than its intended life.  Like a teenager with a restricted license, NASA never strayed too far from home.  Rather than stretching our legs further and exploring new worlds, mankind confined ourselves to a small sphere of crowded space around our tiny planet.  We outsourced exploration to robotkind.

I am aware of the irony and apparent hypocrisy.  An anti-government, anti-tax libertarian conservative is calling for a government-funded space program?  First, I am not, necessarily, calling for more government space travel.  If we could find a way to commercialize space, as Richard Branston is attempting to do, that would be ideal.

But making billionaires vomit in zero G, while amusing, is only a novelty.

But making billionaires vomit in zero G, while amusing, is only a novelty.  True commercialization involves real commerce, not just joyriding. Commerce has historically developed along the same path: exploration, mining, settlement, colonization, development, independence and trade.  We stopped at the very beginning stage of exploration, and we need to get back to it.  Until we find a commercial purpose for space travel, we will remain in the exploratory phase. Exploration has always been the most costly and most risky stage, and therefore usually underwritten by government (see Queen Isabella and Christopher Columbus).

Our minds tell us that our lives and our power are finite, but in our hearts, we know we can do anything.

People will argue that space travel is not a priority. We have two wars to fight an ailing economy and a healtcare crisis to deal with. Was 1969 a piece of cake? Substitute racial unrest for healtcare crisis and not much has changed. There is a logic in fiscal and military priorities that is hard to argue with. But space exploration always trumps that logic. First, for as long as humanity lives only on Earth, we are susceptible to extinction. An asteroid, a solar flare, a plague, any number of mass casualty events could extinguish the human race. If we establish a colony on one or more planets, no one event can end the human race.

Second, and more importantly, humans were designed in a peculiar way.  We were not made to plug along making widgets for 70 years and die content in our beds.  We were made to be unhappy.  We were programmed, from the outset to dislike our station, our environment, to such a degree that we want nothing more than to change them.  To make them better.  To fight against our place in life, to struggle against reality and reshape it to our will.  To move that mountain just a little to the West.  Our minds tell us that our lives and our power are finite, but in our hearts, we know we can do anything.  Our hearts don’t care about fiscal priorities, logic or limits, we know we can touch the face of God, and we are never closer as a race than when we reach for the stars. It was our hearts that took us to the moon.  We need to go back.  We need to go further.  Per aspera ad astra.

I know, break out the tin foil hats, everyone, Daily Danet is off his meds. But humor me and engage your brain for a minute. If Democrats really think that gasoline (or more precisely, internal combustion) causes Global Warming™ and believe, therefore that a tax will reduce consumption of gasoline, why do you need to know how many miles someone travels?  Gasoline consumption and miles traveled are independent variables.

Let me explain.  Take two hypothetical people: Dan, who drives a real truck, say a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 V-8 HEMI that gets 18 MPG, goes from zero to “what seems to be the problem officer?” in 6.8 seconds, hauls 1850 lbs of payload, tows 9,100 pounds up an incline and bangs your sister on prom night.

The second guy, let’s call him Albert, drives a 2008 Toyota Prius. that has two widdle itty bitty engines and gets about 36 mpg; has all the horsepower of a hamster on NoDoz and pees its pants when your sister’s name is mentioned.

Dan and Albert work together.  Dan lives about 10 miles from the office. Albert lives in a hippie commune 20 miles from the office.  On an average week, Dan drives about 100 miles, (10 miles to work each day, 10 miles back, 5 times per week).  Albert, however, drives 200 miles (20 miles each way, 5 times per week).  As Dan drives a real truck, he needs to buy 5.56 gallons of gas per week (100 miles divided by 18 mpg), while energy conscientious Albert who drives an Earth-loving hippie-mobile has to buy only 5.56 gallons (200 divided by 36 mpg).  (See what I did there?)

Under the current gasoline tax system, manly Dan and hippie Albert live their lives and use the same amount of gasoline, even though they travel different distances.  Assuming for the sake of clarity that the gas tax is $.50 per gallon.  Dan and Albert would pay $2.78 per week.

If, however, you follow the moron logic of the Democrats and tax people by the mile (let’s assume a $.03 per mile tax), Dan would have to pay $3 per week ($0.03 times 100 miles) and poor dumb Albert would have to pay $6 per week, even though they used the same amount of gasoline.

Just to pile on to this idiocy, you would have to add the cost of the infrastructure of reporting and enforcement, mandating GPS for all cars (not to mention the civil rights law suits that would surely follow) and on top of all of that, you would not do a damn thing to discourage the sale of gasoline.  If anything, people would now be free to buy old gas guzzlers without GPS receivers.  And on top of all of that, the first thing I would do (right after Con Ed raised my electric rates) is buy a diesel generator–and fuel it tax free!

As I said at the outset, if you assume (and I grant that this is a leap of faith) that these people are competent, the only reason to move from a per gallon gas tax to a per mile gas tax is to monitor and track you.  Sure, at the outset, we would be told that the government would just get a number per month.  But then we would learn that, with a warrant, they could access a criminals GPS, and then we would learn that they could store everyone’s GPS data, as long as they didn’t single anyone out.  Eventually, you wouldn’t think twice when you got in the mail your monthly notice:  “President for life Obama says you drove [17] miles over your quota last month.  Please report to reeducation class on [June 15th] at [Michelle Obama High School].  Resistance is futile”

Happy Independence Day.