Word is, we're running seriously low on usable sources of energy. That's actually not true; we're just running low on the sources of energy that the multinational megacorporations can make enormous profits from. Yes, we're about to hit the end of cheap oil; yes, our supply of natural gas is getting iffy; and yes, burning coal for electricity is getting to the point that it's doing more harm than good.
The multinationals see all that, and they're rushing to position themselves as suppliers of "the next generation of energy production." Hydrogen fuel cells, plug-in hybrids, and all sorts of other solutions are being touted as our saviors in the area of energy. Not so. All those "new" sources of energy are not sources of energy at all - they're just new carriers of energy from existing sources.
For example, take hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is a way to transport potential energy from where it's made to the car, where it's burned for fuel. That still leaves the need for a source of the energy it takes to make the hydrogen - usually by extracting it from water (H2O) - and presto! We're back to needing the same kinds of energy production technology we're using today.
I will work towards the increased use of renewable sources of energy. Ultimately, all energy on the Earth comes from the sun. Fossil fuels, for example, are the remnants of ancient organic life, which directly or indirectly used the energy from the sun that makes all plant life grow. There are a number of renewable sources of energy - not just solar, but also wind, water, and geothermal energy; all of these need to be seriously investigated and utilized to give the entire world the energy it needs.
Nuclear energy - fusion nuclear energy
There is, however another solution to the "energy crisis," one that no one is talking about.
What do I mean? The powers that be are telling us that there's only one kind of nuclear energy - fission energy. Fission is the process used in the "atomic bomb," a process that produces radioactive byproducts that will contaminate the earth for centuries. On top of that, there's always the danger that human error, mechanical failure, an earthquake, or even a "terrorist" strike will release that deadly radioactivity into the air, killing hundreds of thouands of people.
[And while we're thinking about it, wouldn't that planned nuclear waste dump at Sierra Blanca in west Texas make an ideal site for an enemy to strike with a nuclear weapon? There is only one rational place to dispose of spent nuclear fuel - and deactivated nuclear weapons, while we're at it - the sun. Think about that; more later.]
There is, however, another kind of nuclear process for the production of energy - fusion, the process used in the "hydrogen bomb." Fusion reactions are clean. They don't produce the organic byproducts of burning fossil fuels that are polluting our planet today; and there are types of fusion reactions that do not produce the radioactive waste of fission reactions. For a non-technical discussion of the types of fusion reactions that we know about today, see this article.
The problem is, we don't understand yet how to do a sustained, controlled fusion reaction. Why not? Because we haven't really tried to. There have been small-scale experiments in how to do it at several universities, but for some reason [follow the money], the US has never funded a full-scale, effective research program into fusion energy. This must change.
We spent about $135 billion (in 2006 dollars) on the Apollo Project to put people on the moon. President Kennedy declared it to be a national priority, and it got done. The reason for it, behind all the "glory," was that there was a real danger that the Soviet Union would get there first, take control of the moon, and use it as a base for military operations against the United States.
The need for a clean, sustainable source of energy is at least as important today as the need for a presence on the moon was in the 1960s. The survival of life on earth may depend on it. Therefore, I pledge to work towards a national quest for controlled, sustainable fusion energy, a quest on the scale of the effort we made to send people to the moon. Without it, we're stuck with dirty, dangerous fission energy; with it, the future is wide open.
Biofuels: a really bad idea
That leads us to one especially bad "solution" to the energy crisis - biofuels. On December 19, 2007, George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 into law. That law requires the United States to use 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022 (five times more than present levels).
The trouble is, as eloquently explained in this article from Inter Press Service News Agency, our gluttony for energy is causing the prices of basic food items to skyrocket in poorer countries. (If we'll pay top dollar for their corn, then the people of the country have to pay that same top dollar to buy that corn for their food.) On top of that, US Government subsidies of biofuel crops is over $10 billion a year, the equivalent of a subsidy - out of your pocket - of $1.40 to $1.70 a gallon. A win-win situation for the producers; a lose-lose situation for the world's poor and for you.
As columnist Michael Ventura said in an article in the Austin Chronicle:
Corn ethanol hikes the price of food because it increases the demand for corn, and corn is basic to our food chain (The Economist's cover story "The End of Cheap Food," Dec. 8, 2007). Corn farmers get rich, while single mothers have a harder time buying groceries.
(That article, by the way, is worth reading in its entirety; Mr. Ventura, always astute and insightful, reveals a lot about all the "major" presidential candidates, good and bad, that's worth knowing.)
The Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 is a prime example of pork-barrel legislation, pushed through by lobbyists for the energy and agriculture megacorporations and passed by the members of Congress on their payroll. I pledge to work to completely eliminate it.