I don't think anyone's debating the need for alternative energy sources, but saying we'll have something for sure within 10 years that will power our homes and cars us unrealistic. In truth, we just don't know how long it will take to find a new source of energy or harness an existing source to replace oil. The government can pour billions into this effort but science is science. Money can only rush things so fast.
Right now, I see one candidate opposed to drilling, nuclear, clean coal and wanting to all the eggs in one basket - renewable energy. Wind, tidal and
solar is great but you aren't going to power cars with those things (solar is up for debate, but it's far from cost efficient right now). If we knew
it was going to take 25-30 years to make an energy breakthrough, are we ready to condemn this generation and the next to $4/gallon and higher gas
prices? It's a gamble.
I see another candidate willing to drill right now, fund more nuclear (which this country is needlesly afraid of) power plants which would create jobs
and more clean coal plants. He would also put some money into renewable energy, though admittedly not as much as the other candidate. Finding
alternative energy sources could take much longer. This is the safer road.
Personally, I have a daughter, almost 2 and I don't want to gamble with her future. So my choice is clear.
What I find ironic is a country that puts so much emphasis on the entertainment industry, politics, sports and has continuously cranked out fewer and
fewer scientific majors each year from colleges is now suddenly in dire need of scientists to find an alternative source of energy.
[edit on 5-9-2008 by sos37]