Rudy Giuliani made a campaign stop in Tallahassee the other day, and offered the assembled these thoughts:

He said one of his first acts as president would be to put the country on a path to produce more ethanol than Brazil, re-start nuclear-power-plant construction, and heavily invest in solar power.

Giuliani said the United States should prioritize energy independence much like it did the space race, when Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson fired up the gears of industry and imagination after the Soviet Union beat the U.S. into space.

The result was a bipartisan thrust to the moon that transcended several presidencies and spawned a generation of national pride and scientific spin-offs.

”Politics aside and national interests first. Not only did it help us ultimately win the Cold War, it helped us in countless other ways, in scientific development and products,” Giuliani said…

…”We can do the same thing with energy independence. But we’ve got to have a president who knows how to get things done.”
He said he supported continuing to aggressively pursue space exploration. He also said more oil drilling should be an option explored to reduce reliance on foreign oil.

Two points. First, few people who talk about making energy development a “moral equivalent of war” have actually thought the notion through, particularly when it comes to comparing things to Apollo.

We’re all used to hearing people who say “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we (cure world poverty, have world peace, fill-in-the-blank). What’s foolish about this statement, usually, is that they’re comparing a purely technological achievement, amenable to sustained applied engineering, to social problems that are not solvable by throwing money at teams of engineers.

But people who use the argument to say that we should solve the energy problem are seemingly on more solid ground, since this is, in theory, something solvable in that manner.

Of course, the problem is that it’s still an apples/oranges comparison. Solving the energy problem involves coming up with cost-effective solutions for new energy sources that are competitive with fossil fuels, and particularly petroleum. But Apollo wasn’t about cost effectiveness. It was about achieving a technical goal regardless of cost. So it still remains a flawed comparison. Certainly, it is to be hoped that, by investing large amounts of money, we can come up with processes that can increase the supply and reduce the cost of non-greenhouse energy sources. But actually, history doesn’t encourage us that when a government program pours large amounts of money into a search for a technology, particularly an energy technology, that it has a fruitful outcome. Synfuels and windmills, anyone?

Moreover, that’s a goal that companies should be (and in fact are) seeking regardless of whether or not there is a large taxpayer-funded initiative. No one would expect a private company to fund Apollo (which is not to say that no one should expect a private company to send people to the moon), but one would expect private companies to look for lower-cost replacements for current energy sources, since this would provide a huge payoff.

The second problem is that the phrase “space exploration” is so nebulous. When it comes out of a politician’s mouth, it’s like mom and apple pie. Who’s against “space exploration”? Yes, there are a few, but they aren’t a significant voting block. One can be in favor of space exploration, but that doesn’t mean that one favors space settlement, space development, affordable access to space, etc. It could be “manned” or “unmanned” “space exploration.” I doubt if Giuliani has given any thought to these issues (few politicians other than Newt Gingrich have). I suspect that he is simply expressing a motherhood statement on a convenient stump.