A huge government effort like the Manhattan Project could bring the greatest gains.

The United States is trapped in an energy crisis largely of its own making. With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. consumes about 25 percent of a relatively static global oil output. Dislocations by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, political upheavals in oil-producing countries such as Iraq, and equipment breakdowns such as the British Petroleum pipeline in Alaska exacerbate the problem by constricting supply.

Our consumption is not only a major cause of the oil shortage, but also makes us vulnerable to it. Our economy is dependent on petroleum; more than half of what we use is imported from abroad.

There are two alternatives for the U.S. to address the crisis: Let the free market gradually solve the problem by balancing supply and demand, or launch a crash governmental program to move the U.S. away from fossil fuel dependency and imported oil. Call the latter option “Operation Energy Independence.”

The Bush administration’s response to the oil crisis, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, left the solution to the market and governmental incentives – tax credits, subsidies, loan guarantees, support for new nuclear power plants and increased access to federal coal properties. Unfortunately, most of the incentives benefit nuclear and fossil fuels, not alternative energy.

In time, the free market may work its magic. There are hopeful trends such as strong consumer demand for hybrid vehicles and increased investment in new energy technologies. The question is whether we can wait. While we dally, the oil crisis drags the economy, hurts the middle-class and poor and dangerously distorts foreign policy by intensifying our involvement in the petroleum-producing Middle East.

The alternative is a large-scale government program to spur new energy technologies. There are historical precedents: the Manhattan Project of World War II and Apollo space program of the 1960s. Each involved huge public expenditures and superhuman efforts. Each achieved extraordinary results within a decade.

In December 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the Manhattan Project, a crash program to build an atomic bomb. The project gathered a cadre of brilliant scientists who worked on cutting-edge technologies to manufacture an A-bomb, while the military created the infrastructure for its production. At its peak, the project employed 130,000 people, had 30 sites, used 1/7 of the nation’s electricity and cost $2 billion (worth over $20 billion today).

Its success was proven in July 1945 at a test site in New Mexico and the following month over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bomb caused horrific civilian casualties, it averted a bloody invasion of Japan, led to post-war peace based on nuclear deterrence and generated valuable applications of nuclear technology in medicine and energy.

When the Soviets, in April 1961, sent the first human into orbit, President John F. Kennedy called for the U.S. to put a man on the moon by the decade’s end to win the Cold War’s “space race.” NASA’s Apollo program undertook the mission. From 1961 through 1965, NASA’s budget soared from less than $1 billion to more than $5 billion, but its moon landing in July 1969 beat Kennedy’s deadline.

Could such a mega-government project solve our energy problem? If history is a guide, a large government project would accelerate energy independence. Its price would be high, but the cost of waiting could be much higher.

Compared to the Iraq war, investment in energy independence is a pittance and insurance against future military adventures in the Middle East. Current government expenditures on alternative energies are so small that any substantial increase should produce dramatic results.

Tax credits, loan guarantees and subsidies could promote existing solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and other renewable energy technologies as well as encourage energy conservation. A crash government program could make technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells commercially feasible. An agency such as NASA could align with colleges, labs and private contractors to reach these goals.

Operation Energy Independence would be a worthy successor to the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program. A decade should be more than enough time to achieve its goal.

Elliott Epstein, a Lewiston attorney, is an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community College.