Human existence without a reliable and accessible supply of life-sustaining energy is invariably hard and short. Few would welcome a return to the days of burning wood, coal or whale blubber for heat and light, nor would it be a forward step to revert to beasts of burden for transportation. In many countries fossil fuels now supply most energy needs.
Most thinking people would not presume that gas and oil would be our primary source for energy forever, but how should a transition to better sources take place? Should we abruptly abandon gas and oil because we can see its shortcomings while ignoring its positive contribution to our lives? What of the alternative energy sources that presently are only promising because they are so politically advantaged by tax dollars, but haven't been proven in the real-world long haul?
We would be wise to unleash the greatness of our scientists' minds by fostering level-playing-field competition for any and every bright idea using every single option for clean, safe, reliable energy in all imaginable applications. The truly best solutions for the future will be found if all options are on the table, civilization is patient enough to look before it leaps and free markets pick the winners.
Scott M. Soulier
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- My view: Utah's Constitution requires state...
- Perceptions of Obama and his policies at home...
- Capitalism and the common good: Fairness,...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 47
- Join the discussion: Is feminism... 38
- Capitalism and the common good:... 37
- My view: A global warming solution to... 36
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the... 36