I think the *real* answer to the energy conundrum is a “spread spectrum” approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. We’ve gotten so used to a single solution (petroleum) because it’s a fantastically dense source of energy that has a huge price-to-energy ratio — for a long time, petroleum was essentially free energy. Even now, it’s still a good bargain, energy-wise.
A “spread spectrum” energy policy will not focus on a single source of energy. Rather, we must target niches: electrical production, transport, passenger cars, residential heating/cooling, etc. We need to look beyond automobiles and towards the bigger picture. Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel: all have their uses, and should be pursued. The high price of gas is having the effect of driving entrepreneurship in alternate energy, which is why I oppose government intervention — the market is working as it is supposed to. There is a huge potential here for America to ride the next wave of alternate-energy technology, and wean our economy off of oil.
Oil is not evil. It is a fantastically useful and energy-dense material. Our very civilization has grown from it. But we buy our oil from some very unpalatable regimes, and essentially end up funding the enemy’s war against us. Robert Zubrin’s “Energy Victory” has this calculus right — we must go to alternative energy sources not simply for “green” motives, but for national security motives.
