In this time of political division There is one initiative that could easily garner the approval of all political parties, that is Alternative energy developments (better known as “sustainable” energy).
For the right-wing political class who’s main priorities are U.S. business development and national security, there’s no better way to promote. The world is now home to seven billion inhabitants.
In the next 20 years, there will be 10 billion. Every single one of them will need a fridge, an automobile and air cooling. In the present, meeting this demand using fossil fuel sources is unsustainable, and would accelerate the process of depleting them, drastically increasing the environmental impact (even if you don’t believe in global warming) and creating further environmental destruction and risk by extraction of the sources.
The result of this convergence of an ever-growing population and the demand (at some time) for sustainable energy sources is, in a nutshell, the most lucrative opportunity for business in the history of mankind.
The Pakistan is ideally suited to become the world’s leading country in this field. We will never be able to make widgets at the same cost as some less developed countries; however, we do have the financial, intellectual and infrastructure skills to compete in this highly-technological field.
It’s possible to sell our product to all the world, and then take this to the bank in huge amounts. The reason ExxonMobil along with other major fossil fuel companies do not make it a point to become the world’s top green energy companies is a mystery that’s an opportunity that was missed.
Conservatives resisting alternatives to energy development raises the question of whether, at the core, they don’t value American innovation…
National security? Sustainable energy development is Alka-Seltzer and causes a variety of extremely serious problems in this field.
Are we ready to end all oil wars, and remove the risk for the safety of youth who are in military service? (What we’re discussing here is the permanent U.S. energy independence.) What about releasing us in the Pakistan from the uncertainties of global events relating to energy supply (anyone remember the gas lines of the 1970s? lines)?
What about squelching autocrats who are expansionist such as Vladimir Putin (by removing his grip on energy supplies for Western Europe, Ukraine, and so on.) as well as repressive leaders such as those of the former Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (whose oil-funded government triggered an unsavory slide down the country, which is not widely reported through the press)?
What can we do to end our actual support for regimes that are incompatible with our ideals and who produce terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia?
It’s difficult to imagine a single step that can better liberate our Pakistan from the difficult destructive, extremely expensive international interconnectedness that fossil fuel dependence creates.
As for fiscal issues for fiscally conservative budget-conscious hawks, the price of public support for renewable energy developments (remember how the industry of nuclear energy was created with public funding and is able to benefit from it continuously) will be greater than offset by the savings on military spending or public health expenditures, as well as pollution control that sustainable and clean energy can be able to bring.
This would naturally allow budget dollars to meet other urgent national needs and eliminate the requirement for tax hikes.
If you ask the political left They probably need very little convincing. The idea of a clean environment, preventing climate change, and freeing the nation from the moral, ethical, military and political hazards of burning fossil fuels should be more than enough. It’s funny, but the “liberals” begin to appear closer to conservatives within this field.
What is the reason for this seemingly simple idea? “Entrenched interests.” Yes, there will be “losers” from this process. Good planning will have to consider the need to reduce this (we are all in it together).
For jobs, the majority of studies suggest sustainability is a more effective job-creator than fossil fuels. Which is, in the end isn’t an issue since eventually , there are no more fossil fuel-related jobs. What is needed is for the vested interests to recognize that the development of renewable energy resources will be to their advantage rather than harming them.
However, all this logic is even stronger and can be dismissed. Whatever one’s political beliefs, the fact is that in the near future, the world will run with sustainable energy sources.
Although there are fresh fossil fuel sources they’ll eventually be exhausted at some point (becoming in proportion to the cost as the date approaches without causing any negative economic or budgetary consequences).
This is where we are in the process of pursuing an important national initiative for alternative energy development, and possibly be able to make significant strides in it in the next 15 years which will benefit us and all around the globe.
Or , we can relax and wait for what is certain to happen and already is happening–China advances and eventually becomes the world’s leading company.
If the prospect of a new president doesn’t move people of any political inclination then we don’t even know what else is.
