What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: What will change energy policy?

Vinod Khosla: Well technology is absolutely the lynchpin, because without the technology people won’t believe anything else is possible. If nothing else is possible people won’t attempt it. But policy is absolutely key. If we don’t have the right policies in Washington and we keep subsidizing oil like we do today, then we are unlikely to see a replacement. So policy has to be set up to allow for both greener and cheaper fuels to enter the market without interference from the monopoly of oil. And that’s absolutely key. Beyond that, obviously we’ll need the business talents or execution skills to build lots of plants and scale this.Well there’s been very little movement because the oil companies have a lot to lose. There is an existing group of stakeholders that started the corn ethanol business. They have not looked forward enough, though I suspect most of them are now starting to look at moving into cellulosic technologies. In fact many of the traditional interests I’ve talked to have a strong interest in these newer technologies we are developing. But because they haven’t believed the technology is there, they haven’t taken the steps toward having the policy set up for that. But let’s not be fooled. The oil interests, especially the foreign oil interests, have a lot to lose if this happens. Every four-dollar change in the price of oil is worth a trillion dollars in asset value to Saudi Arabia. Do you think they’ll go down easily fighting? Or will they fight the replacement of oil? They will fight the replacement of oil.I think first we need to level the playing field. We need to get rid of the subsidies and the monopolies that oil has – from all the breaks they get in R&D; to cheap royalties they get from the direct subsidies; better accounting rules; better depreciation credits; almost . . . the list is almost endless. That has to end. Or the newer fuels have to give . . . get the same entitlements to have a level playing field. So that absolutely needs to happen. Second, these fuels, because they are produced in such small quantities, need additional help getting started. Now I don’t believe any technology should be subsidized for more than five to seven years. And if it can’t make it competitively in the marketplace, then we shouldn’t be supporting it. So I’m a big fan of the right policy, but not long term subsidies. And I don’t think subsidies is what we need.

 

Question: Are subsidies going to help?

Vinod Khosla: First I am not a fan of subsidies long-term. They should be short-term. I think subsidies should be ___________ an industry can improve, they can scale to a large degree. We have subsidies for solar. We have subsidies for wind. We had hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for nuclear. We have subsidies for coal. We have subsidies for oil. So this is where the right policymakers have to make judgment calls about what, if any, subsidies should be given and for how long. And frankly the less the better, but it’s a judgment call in that.

 

Recorded on: September 26, 2007.

 

Addicted to Oil

Newsletter: Share: