Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public.  No doubt the Sunday news programs will feature representatives from all sides of the issue.  Yesterday the respected scientific journal Nature reported some shocking research that indicates sea levels could rise 6 to 10 feet in just 50 years.  Other eminent scientists immediately said the research was flawed and therefore "the paper did not prove its case."  I enjoy watching a vigorous debate between the opposing sides of this and other politically-charged issues, and some of the actual science coming out of this debate is truly useful.  However, the climate debate seems to have gotten our policy-makers stuck waiting for an answer that isn't about to come down from the mountain any time soon.

All of the so-called experts advising our political leaders don't have a very good track record anyway.  Remember the “facts” about WMD in Iraq?  How about the "experts" that designed a financial house of cards that resulted in the current global recession?  Or the "experts" that drove the US auto industry off a cliff in just one generation?  And regarding climate specifically, the TV weather isn't accurate more than two days out.  Do we really have to put off big decisions until the experts all agree?

The opposing sides in the climate change debate sound like religious “experts” debating the existence of God, and who's God is actually The One.  That debate has gone on for a long time, cost millions of lives and isn't any closer to being resolved, yet most people have come to realize that it doesn't matter which side wins - it's just good personal and public policy to treat others as you would like to be treated.  Let the experts continue shouting at each other and when some real evidence shows up we'll deal with it.  In the meantime, we all take practical steps every single day to make our world a better place.

It's time for reasonable people and politicians to agree to disagree on climate change theory and come together on something far more practical.  Regardless of who is right, there is no doubt that we need more investment in alternative power sources, new transportation methods, and to lower our dependence on fossil fuels.  Here are a few indisputable reasons:

1. Americans buy a huge amount of oil every month from countries that don't like us very much.  Their governments invest OUR money to repress their own people, and actively work against democracy and everything else America stands for.  Nobody really believes we can “drill, baby, drill” our way out of this so it's time for some new thinking and investment in new technologies.  Old thinking, like debating a small increase in CAFE standards for years has resulted in nothing but a failing US auto industry.  It's not about climate change - it's about jobs and security.  We need to invest public funds in new transportation ideas, not bankrupt companies.
   
   
2. My family enjoys our computers, wide screen television, air conditioning, and all the other comforts of modern life.  We all want more of that, not less, and more is going to require more electricity.  We've had 30 years to consider the implications of Three Mile Island and the growing stockpile of nuclear waste, but our addiction to cheap oil, and endless debates about inconvenient “truths” have tied our hands.  We need to be inventing and testing more diverse sources of power.  And the inventors today will make sure that their ideas are clean and sustainable or nobody will want to buy it.
   
   
3. We should all be applauding India and China for lifting many millions of their citizens out of poverty in a relatively short period of time.  Our goal should be to encourage and support that trend in Africa and the Middle East as well.  But guess what?  A billion new middle class citizens of the world will all want air conditioning, cars, computers, TV, and reliable electricity.  Should we let them build thousands of their own coal-fired power plants, or purchase French nuclear plants?  Should we give up on autos as well and let Honda, Toyota and Hyundai sell them a hundred million cars?  Of course not, but those people are not going to be purchasing Pontiac's, or Town & Country's, or the expensive nuclear plants installed in the US today.  We need to reinvest in these industries and reimagine their products, not for the benefit to the environment (although that would be a nice collateral benefit) but because it is the only road that leads to viable domestic industries with profitable international markets.

The high speed rail project announced this week is a good step in the right direction.  It could put people to work quickly, and when completed will reduce pressure on our overburdened air transport network and highways in congested areas.  But this is technology from the 90's where the US is far behind Japan, France and other countries.  The US will probably be forced to purchase high speed rail cars and other components from overseas manufacturers.

If we don't invent the products and industries that will power the future we will have to be content with buying everything from overseas.  I for one do not want the US to transition from an oil-based economy dominated by petro-dictators, to some new energy technology dominated by China.  As a country we have the talent, determination, and a track record of innovation to invent a bright future.  All we need is the political leadership to create tax policies and investment opportunities that will unleash the entrepreneurs across this country.

The next decade could be the most innovative and exciting time in the history of the world.  Or we can continue debating the unknowable and sink further into mental and financial depression.