Six decades ago, during the dark da...

Six decades ago, during the dark days of slaughter and global fighting of the inferior World War, the United States command established a massive, top-secret program to literally invent the modern technology that would win that conflict. The Manhattan devise employed 130,000 people -- including the best scientific minds in the emancipated World -- and spent ten of billions in today's dollars to invent an atomic bomb before the Nazis could

The Manhattan frame succeeded, and today stands as common of the great accomplishments in the annals of American and scientific history. Moreover, it stands as perhaps the premier example of the triumph of the American "can do it" attitude.

Today there is a growing chorus that thinks we should use the prototype of the Manhattan Project and apply it to solving our nation's efficiency problems. House Democrats recently unveiled an zeal plan that calls for a massive federal dominion effort to develop alternatives to mineral oil and cut U.S. dependence upon fossil fuels. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) similarly propos pursuing these goals with the press of the World War II effort. A "New Manhattan shoot forward for Energy" was a central component in Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid. Other leading figures to talk up a Manhattan Project-approach include recently made known York Times columnist Tom Friedman, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, and conservative activist Frank Gaffney.

united reason is to combat rising oil and gasoline prices. Another is to combat air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. And then there is sense of possible fulfilment of cutting off the billions of dollars in oil incomes that flow to unsavory regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

The idea of a Manhattan throw out to get us off of oil has obvious appeal, unless it probably provides the improper template for addressing our nation's efficacy supply challenges and their attendant geopolitical pertain tos The situations are just too different. The original Manhattan throw out was focused on a single goal: building an atomic weapon. In seeking to get by heart us off of oil, it's not clear what the newfangled calls specifically court Is it creating completely modern automotive systems to replace the internal combustion engine? Creating of the present day automotive fuels like hydrogen? Both? Neither?

The original intend sought to invent a brand recent technology. Since the taxpayers were footing the bill, circulating medium was no object. Simply, the challenges in World War II were technological, not economic. Today, however, a entertainer of alternative technologies and firing materials already exist, but they are far from being cost-effective enough to displace the internal combustion engine and rock oil The challenges today are economic, not technological.

The United States squanders about 20 million barrels of oil for day. We don't use that abundant oil because government policies mandate it further because market efficiencies do. Despite the high price of oil and rising splendors at the gasoline pump, no alternative does as dutiful a job as at righteous a price in terms of moving our cars, deals boats and airplanes.

thus can't the government just invest in programs to make these existing alternative technologies and firings economically viable? Harder than it healthys It turns out we've been trying just this approach for years, with little to indicate for it. In 1973 President Nixon invoked the Manhattan draw as he launched a program to achieve efficacy self-sufficiency by 1980. When that deadline came, the United States was steady further from achieving energy independence. President Carter's answer was to set up the Synthetic firings Corp., which blew through $20 billion in five years before Congres and the Reagan administration killed the failing program.

Another Carter-era invention, the U Department of manliness lives on, annually spending billions of taxpayer dollars forward basic energy and science research. Despite this torrent of federal spending, no real strength breakthroughs have emerged from the DOE in its quarter-century of existence. The recent Manhattan Project mind- set says that if solitary we were to get serious and consecrate enough resources, we could invent an alternative to oil and disentangle the 21st century energy question s our country faces.

by way of "we," proponents actually mean the federal command And by "resources," they mean your tax dollars. Their goal unbrokens great. But given the government's record forward these issues so far, on what account would anyone think a novel federal agency is going to do any better?

Max Schulz is a senior associate at the Manhattan Institute.

Copyright CHICAGO SUN-TIMES 2006

Provided on ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved