04/20/02 - 11:04:45
IP: 188.8.131.52 Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)
I agree that the more immediate reasons for make a serious attempt at weaning ourselves from oil seem not to be enough to spur action. The more disasterous situation that will likely follow Hubberts Peak may be required for any large scale, national effort to find real alternatives.|
It's kind of sad that it usually requires a disaster for societies to come together and solve monumental problems, even though those problems may have been blatently obvious for some time.
I also am not saying that the alrtenative energy idea I talked about is definately the anwser, it's just the best one I have heard. I think the most important thing that could happen towards really creating a foundation of non-oil energy from which to run our country(if not others) is some kind of ambitous statment, backed up by real support, by the president or congress. Something visionary, akin to president Kennedy's statment about sending someone to the moon.
That's why I was so disappointed(but not surprised) when in the first weeks of Bush's presidency, during the energy crisis in Califronia, The first two idea's out of the Bush camp were build more power plants in Mexico(where the air quality is deadly already) and drill for more oil in Alaska. Not one word did I hear about "geez, maybe it's time to get serious about alternative energy." That's not creative, that's not visionary, that's not charasmatic, that's not leadership.
I know the economics and logistics of this kind of problem are more complicated than I can fully understand, but I don't think it takes a genius to see that we don't have leadrship that's intense about making a serious effort to find serious alternatives.
The Hubbert's Peak book and author look very interesting, I wish I had more free time to read everything that looked so compelling.
Thanks, ben todd
For Further Reading
Jefferson Starship Message Board Main