Government has a role in future green economy

There are certainly some assumptions underlying the push toward green energy exhibited at the fourth annual National Clean Energy Summit at the Aria hotel-casino.

Sen. Harry Reid -- who started the summit four years ago -- summed it up most succinctly: "We're going to move away from fossil fuels," Reid says. "It's not a matter of if, but when."

Reid's reasons are myriad: Fossil fuels are running out. We get most of them from countries in unstable areas of the world, which raises national security questions. The costs are not predicable. And the consequences to the environment are harmful.

Another assumption: Government will have to play a role.

"We need incentives for these companies to be successful," Reid says.

At a time of huge deficits and even bigger debt, high unemployment and calls for austerity and not audacity from the government, those assumptions are most certainly not universally accepted. But what can't be denied is this: The government has done it before.

Speakers at the summit from Energy Secretary Steven Chu to Vice President Joe Biden pointed out that government has always played a role in new technologies.

From buying muskets with interchangeable parts to fight the Revolutionary War to development of the telegraph and Transcontinental Railroad, to spurring investment in aviation by allowing airplanes to carry the U.S. mail to buying computers and semiconductors that eventually led to the Internet, the government has always been a player in emerging technologies.

In fact, some of those developments came at times of great national stress and peril: the Transcontinental Railroad came about during the Civil War, and the race to the moon (along with the technologies that came about because of it) happened during a roiling national fight over the Vietnam War.

"The government played an incredibly intimate role in all the technologies ... in the United States and we must not lose sight of that fact," Chu said.

Biden cast the energy challenge in terms of national greatness. What previous generation even had a debate about whether the U.S. would be a world leader in cutting edge technology, he asked.

"This isn't science fiction. This is within our grasp. This is possible," Biden said. "When in America has this nation concluded that we cannot and should not lead the way in innovation and change and revolutionary thought?"

It's a fair question, and one that others are asking, too. On the season finale this month of the HBO talk show Real Time with Bill Maher, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson traced the drop in performance in U.S. schools to the post-Vietnam War point after manned moon missions stopped. It was then, Tyson suggested, when American youth stopped dreaming about the future.

As far as rallying cries go, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth within a decade is much more stirring than creating smart energy grids or a more efficient electric car battery. But the implications are far more profound, especially on a planet where people will be in ever-increasing competition for energy resources. And, like those moon missions, the discoveries we'll make along the way can't be imagined today.

From the standpoint of fiscal conservatism, two points: One, the so-called seed money proffered by the government leverages billions in private-sector investment, and advances technology that will be useful for the population at large.

And two, let's not forget we already subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions, subsidies that congressional Republicans defend with fervor.

We're going to move away from fossil fuels, if for no other reason than they'll eventually run out. That assumption, at least, is true.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.