Energy Sources Debate

On PBS' Newshour Friday, August 10, 2012, a debate took place between two people--one arguing for the search for clean energy products to replace or augment our reliance upon carbon products and the other defending our current heavy reliance upon the carbon products, particularly oil and natural gas.

We all know that we can't get away from heavy usage of carbon products.  So, the issue boils down to whether the US and other developed countries can develop other sources of energy before carbon emissions permanently transform the planet's atmosphere into predominantly methane gas!

The proponent of our continuing to rely upon carbon products made the points that 1) there's now new methods to more readily make available oil and natural gas from below ground and sea and 2) by opening up more oil and natural gas reserves to production, the current jobs problem worldwide would probably be diminished, certainly less significant.

To encourage even greater effort to look for other sources of energy--solar, wind, and whatever else--the governments of the world should impose even steeper taxes on carbon-based products, feeding the extra tax revenues for research by universities to develop alternative energy sources, I retort to each's position.

To my way of thinking, the Republicans are opting for opening up extensive exploration and development of oil and gas, simply because that's where their support comes from--the oil industry.  It's a "here and now immediately" argument, failing to note that the reserves in the US may last only 40 to 100 years; and then what; and instead, taking a cavalier attitude toward the greenhouse effects of prolonged usage of such products.

But if the Dems don't admit to the obvious fact that the world's energy primary sources for years to come are the carbons oil and natural gas, I don't think they have a chance to "go forward" as world leaders.