Well, if you do believe the government has to step in, and since you feel that it is a threat to national security, then the best place to start is with the DoD. A lot of technology that we now use started out there.jAZ said:
Computers - originally built to compute missile trajectories and to break codes
Integrated circuits and miniaturization - both are results of the space program and the cold war.
The Internet - started out as a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) funded means of getting DoD computers to communicate with one another.
Wireless phones - technology started in the military. Phones that have DSS (Digital Spread Spectrum) technology for privacy borrowed that technology from the military. The technology that delivers the ultra high frequencies used by phones (over 1 GHz) was originally used in military radios.
RADAR - technology was used in World War II to to detect airplanes now used to track civilian aircraft and unfortunately, catch you if you're speeding
Encryption and secure computer communication - a must for any online shopping or banking was originally developed by the military, the CIA and the NSA.
The Interstate Highway System - although not a technology in the strictest sense, was developed to help troops move from one part of the country to another.
Satellite TV - satellite communication started in the military
GPS - Global Positioning System. A constellation of satellites originally used exclusively by the military (and still does use it)
Flat Panel TV - originally used in military displays because they weighed less than CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) technology, were more reliable and shock proof.
Solar Cells - used on everything from calculators to those lawn lights that some people are fond of. Originally used to power satellites.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. Tax incentives exist for research and development, use of alternate technologies and fuels and depreciation of existing capital (referring to the oil refineries).
Secondly, auto manufacturers have no financial incentive to produce engines that use alternative fuels because of supply and demand. There is an abundance of oil and of natural gas, which are both cheap fuel sources. I'd compare it to the Northeast of this country, where water is abundant and thus cheap, but scarce in the Southwest and thus more expensive. If you take inflation into account, the price of gasoline is actually cheaper now than in 1981, when it sold for about $1.25 a gallon (which would be over 3 dollars a gallon in today's dollars). In spite of what you've heard, we are not running out of oil, because new exploration is happening every day.
Thirdly, alternate fuel distributors would also be responding to the whims of networks and buyers, too. That is what is called a free market economy. Problems usually arise when government steps in an starts regulating prices. I can see a scenario, a century from now, where people like ourselves are having a similar discussion about the "greedy" hydrogen companies, the excess profits that they will be making, how they are in a secret alliance with car manufacturers to prevent the development of yet another alternate energy source and finally, ironically, hydrogen's adverse effects on the environment!
Actually, I am a big proponent of alternate technologies myself. I'd like to see hydrogen become a cheap alternative energy source (and LED lighting become widespread, btw). Regulating industries in order to help develop a technology or alternative usually does not work.
I think what you really want are financial incentives from the government in the form of tax breaks, research grants and so forth. Business and investors respond well to those. When you try to regulate, people find ways to get around the rules in order to cut costs and maximize profits.
The space program was started primarily to develop missile technology to deliver nuclear weapons. When the Russians launched Sputnik, the first satellite, into orbit, Eisenhower was afraid that the Russians would then start building ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) to deliver nuclear bombs on American cities and make us sitting ducks. It turns out that he was right.
The private sector hasn't developed space travel partly because it is extremely expensive and partly because it was prohibited from developing the technology because it could be used for military applications. It would almost be like the private sector developing nuclear weapons. However, the private sector HAS developed and launched many satellites. However, I do concede, that in certain applications, a technology may be too costly for the private sector to develop exclusively on its own. The resources of a government can be useful. Further, if the government uses incentives rather than regulations, "carrots" rather than "sticks", we stand a better chance of getting a technology started.
