The Democratic Party is fully convinced that climate change is occurring, that mankind has caused this climate change primarily because of the fossil fuels that people have been using for the past hundred years, and that in order to Save Our Planet then we need to eliminate all use of any fossil fuels and put all of our efforts and finances into creating renewable energy sources that do not harm the environment.
In contrast, the Republican Party does not think that climate change is occurring, they do not think that man has caused any environmental problems with fossil fuels, and they do not think that we should be moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources that will not meet our energy needs because renewable energy sources are not currently as efficient as fossil fuels, especially in crisis situations.
In considering these two viewpoints, the climate change argument has significant evidence to support it, and considering the risk-reward ratio of choosing either of these two viewpoint paths it is only logical for us to choose to err on the side of caution.
The potential dangers to our World, and the dangers for our Children, are far greater if we ignore the climate change argument and it turns out to be correct, compared to if we ignore the pro-fossil fuels argument and it turns out to be correct.
If we ignore the climate change argument, and it turns out to be true, then our World could be severely damaged for our Children.
However, if we ignore the pro-fossil fuels argument, then it may cause us some discomfort if we go through periods where renewable energy sources do not provide enough energy. However, after we have made it through these periods of discomfort, then our World will still be better off in the long run with renewable energy sources than it would have been with only the fossil fuels.
Therefore, the risk-reward ratio is far better if we pay attention to the climate change argument.
This concept is very much like the old saying, “Trust but verify.”
This saying refers to how even if you choose to trust someone you do not know well, then you still want to pay attention and monitor whether that person’s future actions continue to support this trust. You do not just choose to blindly trust someone that you do not know well.
The same is true with the climate change argument. Even if someone does not think the climate change argument is correct, we still do not want to just totally trust the fossil fuel argument because if we ignore the climate change argument and it turns out to be correct, then it could be catastrophic for our World and for our Children.
It would not be wise to put all our eggs into one basket by fully committing to the fossil fuels argument because we should still want to “Trust but verify”.
This concept is very much like the decision of whether someone should choose to purchase a gas-powered car, an electric car, or a hybrid car.
A gas-powered car will get you to where you want to go if you have gas, and an electric vehicle will get you to where you want to go if there are enough electric charging stations throughout your entire trip.
However, a hybrid car will get you to where you want to go whether there are gas stations available to you along your driving route, or whether there are electric charging stations available to you along your driving route.
If you run out of gas you can still use your battery power, and if your electric battery goes flat then you can still use your gas power.
Therefore, many people have begun to think that a hybrid vehicle is the safest and most efficient choice.
For example, let us imagine that a family wants to make a drive across a very hot 400-mile-long desert, and they are trying to choose a car for their journey.
They have three car options to choose from. A gas-powered car that will get them an estimated 400 miles on a full tank of gas, an electric vehicle with a battery that has a 400-mile estimate for its battery, and a hybrid car that has both enough gas to get an estimated 400 miles and a battery with a 400-mile estimate on it.
In this situation, the gas-powered car and the electric vehicle might run out of power before the family can get all the way across the desert, leaving them stuck in the hot and dangerous desert.
However, the hybrid vehicle that combines both a gas option and an electric option would be the safest to get them across the desert to the other side.
Therefore, this family would much rather have a hybrid car instead of either a gas car or an electric vehicle.
Our decision with the climate change argument should be exactly the same.
If we ignore the climate change argument, and we go all in with the use of fossil fuels, but it turns out that the fossil fuels were damaging our World, then we would end up being stuck out in the 400-mile desert without any food or water.
In the same way, we cannot just choose to immediately eliminate all fossil fuels and go all-in with renewable energy sources before our renewable energy technology is advanced enough to supply all the energy we need for every person in America and around the World.
Scrapping our fossil fuel industry would put us into many dangerous situations, such as what occurred in Texas a few of years ago when the windmills froze that needed to supply heat for people during the winter.
Similar situations occur sometimes in California when they do not have an adequate amount of energy because the state has overemphasized renewable energy sources before they have enough renewable energy to supply everyone’s needs.
Therefore, as with everything, the Truth and the Solution are always in between.
Our position on climate change should be exactly the same as our choice was about owning a hybrid for a trip across a 400-mile desert.
Therefore, our Worldwide Energy Solution should be to have us working very hard to develop more renewable energy resources and technology as quickly as possible, while at the same time continuing to provide enough fossil fuel energy to keep everyone safe until we have more than enough renewable energy resources and technology to meet everyone’s needs.
At the same time, though, until we achieve enough renewable energy resources at some point in the future, our politicians should not be stopping Americans from drilling for oil and gas now, especially when our government is often still purchasing these fossil fuels from other countries.
Our American oil is processed and refined in a better and cleaner way that makes American oil 23% cleaner for our environment than oil that comes from other countries.
Therefore, as long as America is still utilizing oil and gas, then for the benefit of our climate we need to be using our own oil and gas from our own wells because our oil is better for the environment, and also because we should be supporting our American oil and gas industry before supporting other countries’ industries.
At the same time, though, our Goal must be to move as fast as we possibly can to develop enough renewable energy resources and technology that will allow us to change as quickly as possible to only using renewable energy.
The key factor that is currently holding back our efforts to expand our electric vehicle industry is the lack of a sufficient network of vehicle charging stations.
Until we develop this network, then electric vehicles are only viable for people who live in cities and nearby suburbs to where they work.
If someone lives in a rural area, or if they need to travel a longer commute to get to work, then an electric vehicle is not logical to drive because of the risk of not being able to charge the vehicle whenever it becomes necessary on the trip.
The second factor that is holding back electric vehicle sales is the extended amount of time it takes to recharge the battery. Until we improve this recharge time, then many car owners will not want to choose an electric vehicle.
Therefore, in order for us to really make electric vehicles a viable nationwide future, then our scientists and engineers need to continue to make the tremendous advancements they have been making in the industry for the past 15 years, by further developing a nationwide vehicle charging network with powerful chargers that have the capability to charge car and truck batteries very rapidly.
Along these same lines, we need to improve home chargers because while the current home chargers are adequate enough to recharge a car overnight if a car has only been driven short distances around cities, towns, and suburbs, when a person has to make a longer commute trip to work every day, or when a person works long hours and gets back home late at night, then it becomes very difficult or even impossible to recharge the car within the overnight hours that are available.
Therefore, we need to continue to work with our tremendous scientists and engineers to develop a nationwide network of electric charging stations, we need to continue to work hard to develop faster battery recharge times both for the charging stations and for home, and we need to continue to work to develop many additional renewable energy sources such as hydrogen, wind, water, and solar.
Green hydrogen also has many advantages to it, and so countries around our world should continue to pursue the development of this option.
In conclusion, we are now only part of the way there to Protecting Our Planet For Our Children.
We still have a long way to go for us to Fulfill The Promise That We Made To Our Children.
“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from Our Children.”
Therefore, we need to become even more fully committed to Our Promise and to Our Goal, and we need to give Our Absolute Maximum Supreme Effort to reaching Our Goal as soon as we possibly can so that we are Protecting Our World that we will be Leaving For Our Children, For Our Grandchildren, For Our Great-Grandchildren, and For Beyond.
LET US BUILD A SAFE AND HEALTHY WORLD FOR OUR CHILDREN
