Technology issues rarely get respect on the campaign trail…

Despite technology’s critical role in our society, you don’t usually hear candidates talk much about their positions on technology related issues. In a short speech at Google yesterday, Barack Obama did just that. With many candidates that – short of blackberries – are probably pretty technophobic, it is really refreshing to hear someone running for office that seems to understand the bigger digital picture:

As political speeches go, this one was pretty specific. Obama comes down firmly for preserving Network Neutrality and for providing universal broadband coverage – two issues that are very important to me. He also endorses preserving spectrum for non-commercial uses, making government data available online using Open File Formats (a boon to non-Microsoft Linux and Mac users), and creating open forums around pending legislation.

Of everything he mentioned in this speech, perhaps the most interesting is the creation of our first national Chief Technology Officer. We certainly need one. Each division and agency in our government seems to make it’s own technology decisions – many of them very poorly considered. As a national government, we have no cohesive platform or data architecture to build around. There are no clearly defined standards for identity, security, or access. We are running on a set of aging, isolated technologies cut off not just from each other, but from the needs and expectations of the public they are supposed to be supporting.

And the result is a set of poor, inconsistent services…

No business would run itself this way – and neither should our government. As time goes by, addressing this will become increasingly important. A well considered approach to technology could be transformational. Imagine if our government provided standards based access to every service offered online. People would be able to create mash-ups that combined them in logical ways with other services and data, and extend the footprint of these services in ways the government couldn’t do on its own. Even agencies within the government could tie related services from other agencies together, packaging them in less siloed, more consumer friendly ways.

It could be the start of ‘Open Source’ government…

If someone with technical vision and a clear mandate could fill the role of ‘National CTO’, they could open our government up and make it accessible to individuals in ways that the traditional bureaucracy never could. Change at this level could have a positive impact on the entire experience people have when interacting with our government.

I understand that a lot more gets said during a campaign than gets done during an administration, so I am pragmatic about what I think will be accomplished. I also recognize that Network neutrality, preserving public spectrum, and providing universal broadband access probably aren’t defining issues in this election. However, they are important issues, and it’s nice to hear positions on them articulated like this.

We need more elected officials that understand them…

NOTE: Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are co-sponsors of legislation that was introduced in the Senate (by Byron Dorgan, D-S.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine) that requires broadband providers to treat all network traffic equally. It would allow broadband providers to create tiered pricing, but require that there is non-discriminatory access to each tier.

The status quo no longer cuts it…

Over the past several decades, our national dependence on imported oil has always been problematic, and it’s starting to become a crisis. One recent issue has been the sharp increase in crude oil prices:

Part of this price spike is being driven by speculation rather than actual market supply and demand, but the trend here is not our friend. Prices will continue to move upward as global demand increases – especially from Asia. An oil dependent future will not be a bright one for us. And price is just one factor in a complex set of energy policy issues that will continue to challenge us.

We need to change the course we’re on. And we need to do it soon…

When the (then) Soviet Union launched Sputnik I in 1957, it set off alarm bells in this country that we were falling behind technologically, and that our security might be at risk. NASA was formed shortly thereafter, and in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called for America to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of that decade. The technology to achieve that goal didn’t exist at that point, but the will to make it happen was there. It set in motion an impressive period of innovation, where many ideas and approaches that had been floating around were explored and evaluated. And the best of them were funded and developed. There were setbacks and failures on the way, but by July of 1969, a man was walking on the lunar surface.

It’s time for us to challenge ourselves again – this time for energy independence…

We need to feel the same sense of urgency that we felt with Sputnik in the late 1950′s. There are alarms going off on many fronts, and we need to start paying attention. For multiple reasons, making a significant change here needs to become a national imperative.

One is national security. The United States has around 2.5% of the proven oil reserves in the world, and we consume about 25% of all the oil produced globally. The harsh reality is, about 2/3 of the oil we import comes from countries that are either politically unstable or openly unfriendly to us. The money we export for this oil allows many of these countries to work against our national interests globally, and potentially fund activities targeted at attacking us on the home front. Our lack of self-sufficiency in this area also put us in the position of potentially compromising our national values in order to preserve the flow of oil we depend on. In a sense, we have become hostage to our own thirst for oil. This should make every one of us uncomfortable.

Our economic strength is also a consideration. It’s pretty much a given that fuel costs will continue to rise. Global demand for oil is exploding as the economies of Asia expand, and we have no other option now but to pay market rates for it. Unfortunately, rising costs for oil impact every aspect of our economy. Production and logistic costs will continue to go up, and they get passed along as higher prices for goods and services. On top of that, people will have less money to spend after dealing with rising heating and gasoline prices. Combined, these factors could seriously impact the vitality of the U.S. economy and the stability of our financial markets. And that economic and market uncertainty can ripple through to things like employment rates, health and retirement benefits, and the tax base we depend on. These are shifts that will be felt by everyone, but they will have a disproportionate impact on those without the financial means to make adjustments. Ultimately, it will be hard to maintain our position of global economic leadership – a critical driver of our current standard of living – without having a stable domestic economy to back it up.

Another reason for rethinking our approach to energy policy is our need to preserve the environment. The carbon released by the burning of fossil fuels is likely having a measurable impact on climate patterns globally. Any significant changes to our global climate could have profound implications. A shift away from oil as our primary based for energy generation would be a long overdue investment in our planet’s future.

Without a doubt, none of these are easy challenges to deal with…

To make a meaningful, sustainable difference, we have move past the ‘quick fix’ mentality here. This means we have to stop focusing on solutions that simply subsidize the status quo, and instead craft policy that creates incentives for people – and the marketplace – to make correct long term decisions. It requires a radical investment in change.

There are two paths we need to go down…

The first is based on the formation of more effective policies and actions. Though we need to encourage voluntary conservation, it will not be sufficient to get the job done. We need to inject conservation into the formation of public policy. It needs to become part of the structural framework everyone operates under. We should establish efficiency standards that businesses and products must achieve, and create both the economic incentives and disincentives the marketplace needs to realize them. But public policy also needs to be sympathetic to the lives of the people it effects. We need to avoid sponsoring programs that may sound good in theory but few people actually use. They end up being ‘feel good’ measures that simply give the appearance of conservation while squandering financial resources without any measurable benefit to show for it.

To be effective, public policy ultimately needs to be practical…

The second path we need to follow is one of fundamental technical innovation. This needs to go beyond the incremental innovations typically driven by market forces. I envision this as the formation of a ‘NASA’ for energy technology (actually, more like the 1960′s version of NASA). It should be a magnet for the best, brightest and most innovative in the energy field, giving them the resources and opportunity to do groundbreaking work they wouldn’t have a chance to do anywhere else.

While this agency would need to have a clear mission and be accountable for how it spends resources, it shouldn’t be run like a business venture. Fundamental innovation doesn’t happen that way. It will need to be headed by someone respected by other scientists and technologists – not a bean counter or politician. It should shun bureaucracy, and avoid any corporate involvement or sponsorship. Within reason, whatever IP it produces should be licensed using an ‘open source’ style approach, streamlining adoption and encouraging the formation of a new breed of energy related industries. (Industries that will ultimately supplant our existing energy industries.)

Some of the innovations developed from this path might also require significant structural investments to make their adoption practical (e.g. – we needed a national network of gas stations to make the car a viable medium of travel). This would need to be done through a well considered combination of public policy, market incentives, and direct government involvement.

Nurturing these technical ecosystems will be important to their success…

If we walk around believing that everything is fine in this space, we are simply deluding ourselves. We are under the gun to change- both literally and figuratively. That said, there are plenty of special interests lined up behind the status quo, and they have plenty of money to spend to keep things just the way they are. They will spin the media and aggressively lobby congress in an effort to preserve their ‘business as usual’ approach.

Change on this scale will not come easy, and will require the backing and commitment of people at the highest levels of both business and government. It will need to spring from a non-partisan recognition of the urgency of our current situation, and a passionate belief in the great things we can achieve as a nation when we have the focus and will to do it.

And most importantly, it will require all of us to stand up and demand nothing less…