What to Do About the Big Three?

I am very concerned about what has never been talked about in mainstream media which amounts to the equivalent of prohibition on alternative energy technologies. I'm speaking of the Secrecy Order (Title 35, United States Code (1952), sections 181-188) imposed on inventors who've applied for patents of their technologies and received a lethal dose of this order in response to their hard work and innovations. The only thing more disturbing than the order itself is that this Secrecy Order and its impact is never even DISCUSSED in our media as a plausible reason why there has been no advancement in our technologies when in fact it is the PRIMARY reason why we have seen little or no movement in alternative energy applications.

This order in abbreviated form states:

"You are hereby notified that your application as above identified has been found to contain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of which might be detrimental to the national security, and you are ordered in nowise to publish or disclose the invention or any material information with respect thereto, including hitherto unpublished details of the subject matter of said application, in any way to any person not cognizant of the invention prior to the date of the order, including any employee of the principals, but to keep the same secret except by written consent first obtained of the Commissioner of Patents, under the penalties of 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186."

It is the #1 deterrent to progress in this field and until it is addressed, all other ideas, programs, mandates, dissertations have no teeth other than to appear as if we are trying to move forward. We are walking on a treadmill.

Why is this not being discussed and why are there no investigations as to who or what controls the issuance of this secrecy order? It should be priority #1A on the list of senate investigations and the entire process of patent laws should be brought up to date to protect the innovations that will enable these technologies to advance free from inpingement by our governement.

If you need to discover more about the impact of this order on inventors, please cut and paste this to your search engine for more detail:
Secrecy Order Title 35, United States Code (1952), sections 181-188.

The catastrophic business situation from the big three auto makers creates an excellent opportunity for change. The government shall link the investment and injection of capital to be used only in cars with 40MPG or more the first year, and 80 MPG or more for 2010. Government shall be looking for the benefit of ALL Americans no only the workers, or investors in the car industry.

Congratulations for your books, I have enjoyed Hot, Flat, and Crowded, and the Word is Flat as visionary writing.

I am just beginning to read your book "Hot, Flat, & Crowded" and am through only just a few initial pages.

The root to hot, flat, lie in two processes i.e. the process of industrialization and urbanization, which began with the invention of steam engine in the 17th century. The process of industrialization relied on fossil fuel energy to produce products at large scale with less of people which otherwise before industrialization were being produced in smaller volumes with more of people.

Overproduction combined with freeing of people created the need for large scale trade, movement of people and material along with it again requiring huge amounts of energy.

As the trade grew, and grew, and crossed national and international boundaries, also grew with it was the human greed to consume more and more, own more and more, without realizing the fact that the resources on the earth are finite and any consumption at a rate higher than the natural process of replenishment can not be sustained forever.

I may need only one suit at a time but I must have a dozen of them in wardrobe, I need only one bed to sleep on but I must have several of bedrooms in my mansion, I may need transport only for a few hours in a day but I must have different car when I go to office, must have a different SUV when I go outdoor, and must have a different Sedan when I go out with my family.

Somewhere, supported by shortsighted economists who made us believe that the faster the rate at which we consume natural resources, higher is the level of development, without realizing the fact that the infinite consumption can not be sustained by finite resources, the race to consume as fast as we can and as much as we can began in its full earnest, with every passing day more and more people joining the race without realizing the fact that irrespective of whatever they do and consume they are fulfilling only two basic functions as is also being done by any other living creature on this planet.

And these functions are live and carry forward the life. And in order to perform these functions in non threatening manner the nature has given enough of resources everywhere on the planet which if used in natural manner will never deplete and will always be replenished within the natural cycles of replenishment.

The debate as to what the federal government do with three automakers is irrelevant when the fundamentals of industrialization, urbanization, and globalization by itself are questionable and what we call as development is nothing but sure destruction. Making these auto companies to increase fuel efficiency of their cars say by 50% will only increase the time period in which all the oil on this planet is consumed as till this date we do not know of any natural process which converts the products of combustion of oil back into oil again.

Today the need is to go back to the basics and question every economic, political, social, and scientific belief which have led to consumption of natural resources beyond the natural cycles of replenishment and discover the ways to develop locally sustainable life and means of consumption of the resources which are naturally replenished by the nature

Dear Mr. Friedman,

Ironically, I was just discussing this topic with a co-worker a few hours ago. He, as a fierce conservative, was interested in my "liberal" view of whether or not the auto industry should be bailed out by the government. He was extremely shocked when I answered no. I say no, but not because I want to see the U.S. auto industry fail. Quite the opposite - I would love to see good jobs, innovation, and profits return to this country in full force. Unfortunately, a bail out of the current auto industry with no conditions attached would be a huge missed opportunity.

For decades, U.S. automakers have been opposing increases in gas mileage and have claimed that any changes will decrease their profitability and cost Americans their jobs. Now, thanks to the end of cheap oil, the exact opposite has happened. Their reluctance to change and innovate is exactly what has cost them business and caused mass layoffs and plant shutdowns. A government bailout would reward their antiquated business model based on high profit margin, gas guzzling vehicles.

If any government assistance is given to the Big Three, it should come with major strings attached. The auto industry should be treated as a "green industry" with tax breaks, subsidies, and incentives given only to reward innovation that results in high mileage, low emission vehicles. If they are serious about surviving and meeting consumer demand, they will alter their business model to compete with the Asian markets as well as make real progress toward reducing the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

Thanks for all you do to raise awareness of the need for clean energy and offer solutions.

Hello Mr. Friedman -

I was the gentlemen who spotted you walking down 33rd street between 7th and 8th ave this tuesday around noonish - and said to continue your work - I saw you on Tavis Smiley a week or so ago and was just excited that I saw a celebrity.

The automakers should be forced to merge and/or fail. The government is partly to blame for not imposing higher and tougher standards on them sooner. They are no longer competitive with the rest of the world's automakers, and need to develop cars that the public want to buy. This is my quick thought as I was really responding to having seen you in person today, so I will think further and reply again later.

Hey, how about you pitch your views to the new administration. My quess is Our new President would welcome your policy advice.

Stay well and "keep up your work".

Orlando A.