The Energy R&D Morass

Posted by: Michael Mandel on August 23

Everyone (well almost everyone) agrees that we need new ideas and new technologies to deal with a prospective energy crisis.

Well, well, well. If that’s so, why does the new energy bill actually request less money for energy R&D in FY 2006? According to an analysis by AAAS, the FY2006 R&D request is actually 5% lower than the FY2005 level!

What kind of idiocy is this? Yes, the FY2006 request in the legislation may be overriden when it comes time to actually allocate the money, later this year. But the fact that the politicians are starting at a lower level is a bad sign. If the Democrats and Republicans can’t manage to get a sizable increase in energy R&D in place as soon as possible, they just show that they don’t understand how today’s economy works.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

gary lammert

August 24, 2005 01:34 PM

Limited

I am riding on a limited express, one of the crack trains
of the nation.
Hurtling across the prairie into blue haze and dark air
go fifteen all-steel coaches holding a thousand people.
(All the coaches shall be scrap and rust and all the men
and women laughing in the diners and sleepers shall
pass to ashes.)
I ask a man in the smoker where he is going and he
answers: "Omaha." Kindly visit
The Economic Fractalist http://www.economicfractalist.com/

Henry Schlatman

September 1, 2005 01:49 AM

Michael,
Probably the reason we do not see alot more money being put into Energy R&D is that America and our World Leaders already have the technology to allow every Human on Earth to have Free Energy (except for PMS). Word Search: Gray's Electromagnetic Motor and Electromagnetic Fusion to see what I mean.

With the average family paying between $3-500.00 each month in Energy Cost, the Market should eye ball that money to build The Furtue. Just in the USa alone we are talking Billions per year. And the growth that this will cause should see every Human on Earth economically viable and financially independent thus lowering the need for taxes on Society.

George Coleman

September 25, 2005 01:29 AM

Dear Laura D'Andrea Tyson:

I have just read your Viewpoint article, ''Land of Unequal Opportunity", in BusinessWeek magazine's September 25, 2005 issue.

The thrust of your article, as I understand it, is that "The poverty rate increased in 2004 for the fourth year in a row… despite three years of economic recovery." One of the reasons you have given for this is that "… Republican leaders remain firm in their support of permanent repeal of the estate tax. The big beneficiaries would be the very rich - …"

I don't believe our founding fathers considered or incorporated a "Death Tax" in any of their declarations, nor did they ever condone 'Legalized Grave Robbing' - which some consider synonomous with the Estate Tax..

While I am not qualified to debate economics with you, I am suspicious that you endorse continuing the 'Treating of Symptons, and Not the Real Cause' of the problem you have identified.

Respectfully,
George Coleman

Thank you for your interest. This blog is no longer active.

 

About

Michael Mandel, BW's award-winning chief economist, provides his unique perspective on the hot economic issues of the day. From globalization to the future of work to the ups and downs of the financial markets, Mandel-named 2006 economic journalist of the year by the World Leadership Forum-offers cutting edge analysis and commentary.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!