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
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: Doing away with cursive is bad idea...
- My view: In the name of God?
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 62
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 43
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30