If there is an economically viable, profitable alternative to oil, why hasn’t the evil, all-they-care-about-is-profit private sector discovered it and exploited it for gain?
If there isn’t any economic, viable alternative, what makes some people think the government has a magic wand that will create it if we just tax the rich a little bit more?
Our reliance on oil is not unlike our reliance on, say, oxygen. It is a fact of life. If we don’t create an alternative before we run out (in say, 300 years) we’ll have to do without – same goes for shoe leather and copper and iron ore. To propose or pass laws that “demand” we end our addiction to oil before an alternative is developed is suicidal – or homicidal – since oil delivers many of the modern world’s life sustaining products and services. Cutting back so the supply lasts another 5 or 50 years isn’t rational or useful – and it’s tyrannical if it’s forced upon us by government fiat.
It boils down to this question: How many Chinese or Sudanese children have to starve while we wait for Al Gore to create a viable alternative to oil and coal? How many vacations or meals should your children skip so that a child 15 generations from now can live 1 year longer? (NOTE, the people who might say the trade is worth it are very likely to be the ones who say we should rob, er, borrow, that future generation’s money and spend it on Social Security or Medicare or Planned Parenthood. That puzzles me. If we’re so concerned about the welfare of future generations, why are we spending all their money today?)
