Time to hit the money tree
By laglen
@laglen (19759)
United States
June 10, 2010 9:58am CST
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/10/gates-business-leaders-triple-spending-clean-energy-research/
Microsofts Bill Gates and the American Energy innovation Council thinks that the US should triple spending on clean energy studies.
They are releasing a report that the US should up its $5 billion to $16 billion dollars.
That must be from the money tree fund. Where do people think this money will come from?
I am all for research but I think it should be left to private ventures.
What do you think?
2 responses
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
10 Jun 10
Private ventures have had a hundred years to step up get serious researching about clean energy. There's a public need that can no longer wait for them to get around to it. If private ventures decide that the availability of public money to fund research is enough reason to get on board, that's OK with me as long as it's clear that the fruits of that research will themselves be a public resource and not another cash cow for the energy industry of tomorrow.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
10 Jun 10
Metallion - Necessity is the mother of invention. If it is so needed, it will be invented. The cost is astronomical and that is what hinders the research. But the more they do, the more the cost comes down. More and more companies are researching this.
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
10 Jun 10
This assumes that perceived needs are identical for all parties. Private action is how those with the wealth to act as private actors meet their needs. Public action is how those the public as a whole meet our needs. The public can no longer wait for the private sector to get around to it, much in the way 70 years ago the public could no longer wait for the private sector to get around to wiring the nation for electricity, telephone, etc.
1 person likes this
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
10 Jun 10
I think Gates ought to fund it...he's the one with the money. If you remember a discussion a few weeks back...I'm all for cutting a sh*t-load of studies and this would be one of them I'd cut, rather than increase. One, we don't have the money and two, it should be a private venture.
1 person likes this
