Petroleum or Coal?
Wind or Hydroelectric?
Each source has it's advantages and each has it's dangers.
But we will not solve anything until we make a choice.
Let's make it simple;
http://www.childrensuniversity.manchester.ac.uk/interactives/science/energy/advantages.asp
Sure, "Drill Baby Drill" sounds sexy until BP has an oil spill.
Nuclear seems attractive until a tsunami strikes.
Hydroelectric is alluring until it ruins the environment.
The problem is profit.
The answer is in having revolving sources of energy.
But no corporation wishes help heal the economy and the world if it cuts into profits.
I'm no socialist but maybe it's time to nationalize our energy resources.
The existing corporations could become contractors who service our energy needs.
We could perform maintenance on whichever source happens to be 'down' at any given time to maximize the efficiency of our delivery infrastructure.
Would our country benefit from such actions?
Sure.
But would energy barons have to take a cut in pay and influence?
Yep.
And everyone knows that those who run the corporations are those who run the country.
1 comment:
There's no money in it. This is why those who hate the government sponsoring R&D need to think past this recession.
If we keep everything in private hands no one would feed the poor because they don't have enough disposable income.
It's not socialist at all it's common sense but the cents in common sense isn't worth much.
Post a Comment