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
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a conservative
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win solution...
- Michael Gerson: The Iran deal: Obama is...
- Letter: Wrong tax approach
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp...
- In our opinion: Disrupted by email and the...
- Letter: Changing environment
- Cedric Nicholson: Have women become forgotten...
- Ralph Hancock: Religious freedom and... 75
- Letter: Wrong wage approach 47
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 35
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 32
- Letter: Intimate caucus system 27