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
- Everything you need to know about the...
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line...
- Jay Evensen: Is Provo really an impoverished...
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult...
- My view: Utah's public education system:...
- Letter: Utah's birthright
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach
- Socratic observations — Politics are...
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 57
- Letter: Learn the Constitution 52
- In our opinion: Explaining editorial... 44
- Letter: Utah's birthright 43
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 35
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 34
- John Florez: Corporate or public... 31
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line... 30