YOUR COMMENTS

I guess Jay Buckey doesn't believe in insurance. Or production and development delays. Or promotion of domestic jobs and exploitation of known domestic resources in lieu of purchasing more from outside the US.

It appears that Jay Buckey thinks that everything will work out, right on time, and we won't miss a step. Biofuels will flood the market, fossil fuel will become a thing of the past, and energy prices will go down.

He says we can't promote alternative fuels and oile exploration. Why not?

He says we must "take the pain now" and choose alternative fuels over fossil fuels.

This is a great time to "take the pain", Jay. Energy prices continue to rise (which affects the price of every good) while job growth is stagnant. Our govt is on the verge of committing almost $1 trillion to bail out the wizards of Wall St, and Jay Buckey says this is the time to take the leap with both feet toward alternative energy.

Jay says energy prices will go up, but that's okay. Well, Jay, obviousy you aren't much of a supporter of US and NH industry. As energy costs continue to rise, it's harder and harder for industry to stay afloat. Add the "credit crisis", and industry gets less and less help from lenders. Once a business shuts its doors, they may not re-open. That's why I think it's paramount that this country do whatever it takes to keep its manufacturing and industrial jobs. Many businesses are in a precarious postition, and any further increase in cost could put them over. Jay Buckey seems to be saying that they should, in effect, take one for the team and commit to higher costs in the short-term, in exchange for Buckey's promised land, which will apparently arrive just when he says it will, because that always happens in the development of new technologies.

Energy self-reliance and self-sufficiency will increase as alternative fuels progress, but in the meantime I think it's irresponsible to overlook any option.
- John, Springfield

Mr. Donoghue, It is not agreed upon that that mankind is ruining our environment with carbon dioxide emissions I find it ironic that the very panel you reference, the United Nations Panel on Climate Change, reported that no evidence exists to suggest that mankind affects global warming. It's on their first report page one. There not only are many questions as to whether mankind can affect the global climate but there are questions that perhaps global warming itself isn't actually occurring. What we really have is a shortage of is explanations on how carbon dioxide could possibly be a global warming gas especially given the fact that it's not particularly good at retaining heat in small scale testing and the density of carbon dioxide gas needed to retain heat is greater than the minimum level which can sustain oxygen breathing life. There are just so many unanswered questions that it just seems crazy to bankrupt our own future and even crazier that of future generations on an unsubstantiated theory.
- Don Diamant, Milton, NH

Comrade Buckey in his own words explaining why a centrally planned economy does not work.

The conceited planner like Buckey sees only two options for everyone, while a free economy innovates and discovers new energy sources and techniques and gets investors to spend money in search of profit. Comrade Buckey and his ilk will take the money from the producers and spend it on "alternative sources" because they think they are smarter than the rest of the entire population combined.
- Brian Fellers, Grafton NH

Our oil-based transportation economy is not going away anytime soon- so of course we need to keep importing and producing oil. However, opening up more areas for drilling in the US will only have a tiny effect- a couple of percentage points- in overall global supply, to which we are inextricably linked. The era of huge, untapped, easily accessible reserves is over.

Given these facts, and the consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental- and possibly catastrophic- effect on our environment through global climate change, the development of alternative, renewable sources of energy is an absolute necessity. Right now. Wind and solar power are proven technologies that work. Today.

Do market forces favor them right now? No.

Unfortunately, as the recent economic meltdown has shown us, the free market cannot always be counted on to do the right thing. At least not before it's too late.
- Dave, Sandwich, NH

One very important issue not mentioned is the threat of global warming now almost universally agreed to be occuring except by the most ostrich-like defenders of (i.e. those who profit from) the status quo. What of the incalcuable associated costs? Atmospheric CO2 is now rising faster than even the most pessimistic estimates of a year or two ago according to the International Panel on Climate Change.

There is no single or immediate solution to transitioning the world's economy away from fossil carbon based fuels and the trillions in associated infrastructure, military expenditure (oh yes, you have to add alot of that into the cost of oil) but it MUST occur and soon. Invest no more in fossil fuels. Stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Phase out the old technology and run an expanded grid on the latest designs and hardened nuclear facilities. Dispose of nuclear waste in concrete casks jettisoned into millions of years old sediment drifts in the deep south Pacific. A large portion of our transportation fuels will be liquid it seems for the forseeable future. Heavily dilute fossil with non-food feed stock bio-based fuels. The technology exists and must be refined and scaled. Invest heavily and rapidly into the development of any and all renewable technologies and the market will sort them out after a time. I agree with Dr. Buckey that the US can and should lead the world in these efforts before someone else does.
- Terence Donoghue, Meriden

I can't wait until we are out of oil. Then the oil lovers won't have a leg to stand on.
- Tim, Manchester, NH

Mr. Buckley, as others have pointed out so eloquently you are wrong on all accounts. I can only add that by continuing to use oil it should not preclude us from developing alternative energy. Alternative energy that will be an effective and affordable option that can be massed produced in the future which doesn't describe any of the alternative energy options available today. It's kind of like saying I need to go on a diet so lets go burn down all the supermarkets.
- Don Diamant, Milton, NH

William,

We can not afford to keep our heads in the sand!

People laughed at JFK when he said we'd have a man on the moon in 10 years. People said it was impossible and the technology was not there.

If the technology is not possible why is it that Germany is producing 30% of it's electricity with Solar Power? Why is Denmark producing most of its needs with wind power?

Oui! It is time for Americans to get their heads out of the sand!
- Jeff, Dover, NH

There is one major problem with Dr. Buckey's approach: We are decades away from having any viable, renewable energy source. In fact, it might not even be possible.

Contrary to what he supposed, we have invested in solar, water, wind and hybrid energy sources and they all come with risks, are expensive and as as of today, none are able to be mass produced and maintained.

The only option we have is to remain oil based until those technologies are found to be unreasonable or catch up.

There is a Russian saying that goes something like this: "Promising a starving man today that you will feed him next Wednesday, does not help him today and will not make him look forward to Wednesday."

We cannot forsake oil at the cost of our economy now for the hope of getting fed next Wednesday.
- William Simpso, Concord

"Drill, baby, drill" might have been a great proposal in 1908. But domestic oil production peaked in 1971 and has been going down since. If domestic oil supplies could be increased easily just by drilling more, why -- despite more than 30 years of trying and pro-oil national policy -- haven't oil companies been able to boost U.S. production"
Jay, you are kidding right. For 30 years congress and its "green" extremist allies have bent over backwards to restrict domestic oil exploration and production/refining. Trying to squeeze more juice from the same orange only goes so far. You need to tap new ones, and the same goes for oil, we need to tap other known reserves and find new one, which congress has refused to allow. Your basic dishonesty on this point taints your entire article. What else are you failing to tell us?
- jeff, Goffstown

Finally an environmentalist is truthful. Thank you, Dr. Buckley, for your honesty.

Dr. Buckley eloquently makes the case for keeping oil cost high so that alternative energy sources become economical and make sense for industries to make the development investments needed.

Of course, his thinking is wrong, albeit honestly so. A strong economy needs lots of affordable energy and transportation needs petroleum based fuels. There is no way around that fact today or in the near future. So, drill baby drill, makes sense to add to the world's supply of oil. Supply up = cost down.

There is also the national security issue. Dependence upon foreign sources for 70% of our transportation is a big risk and is senseless when we are sitting on enough of our own resources to greatly reduce that dependence.
- John Bachman, Amherst