Parting is such sweet sorrow.

The energy debate is one of love and departure. As Juliet once said to Romeo, "parting is such sweet sorrow" and with that the dissolution of one of the best-known romances in history. Today's finale of Romeo and Juliet is not illustrated with a small vile of poison but instead of millions of gallons of thick crude lining our shores. As the world watches America's brightest engineers (along with one of the most powerful and profitable corporate entities of our time) navigate the Gulf crisis at an incredibly slow and sloppy pace, one must question the structure of our energy industry, the future of its players, and protective environmental policies moving forward. As this topic is very debatable, consider my insight a subjective response to hard data. That said, I believe action will be taken and sacrifice will be made, however the transitional ease of implementation and the degree of such sacrifice are what law makers are wrestling with today.

Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas.

By the time it takes you to finish this sentence, the world would have consumed well over a quarter million gallons of oil. By the end of the day, the US alone will have consumed over 800 million gallons (2008 statistics). So what exactly does that compare to? Well, the DeepWater Horizon Oil Spill, as we have come to name the most devastating oil spill in human history, has spewed somewhere between 40-80 million gallons into the Gulf thus far. The second most catastrophic oil spill, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, leaked around 10 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound. Not surprisingly, the day after the Transocean explosion, which killed 11 individuals and unleashed a highly dense reserve of crude thousands of feet beneath the surface of the ocean, oil prices fell and have continued to fall since. With massive current reserves outstanding, this is primarily a demand-driven market. The point I'm trying to make is of relative perspective and the emotion I am trying to generate is of concern. We live in a world that runs on poison. Oil, coal, and natural gas make up the primary energy sources (87%) used by the human species. If we are to properly react to the disaster in the Gulf, we should again recognize our addiction and reevaluate possible remedies.

Alternatives.

The dictionary defines alternative as "serving or used in place of another." However, solar, wind, and hydro should not be currently falsified by use of such nomenclature. These alternative energy sources are no where near capable of replacing our precious crude and rock, as illustrated by our modern infrastructure. Most notably, gasoline engines, although testing electric suitability, continue to puncture holes in our earth's protective coating. Based on macroeconomic indicators and environmental concern, it is time for the US to buy into alternatives. Like all investment decisions however, the valuation process and comparative price analysis is of key importance. President Obama addressed the nation Tuesday night in an attempt to solicit support for clean energy investment, stressing job creation. But in reality, the bigger benefit of R&D is more likely lower alternative energy prices, not jobs. I couldn't help but think, 'maybe when the engineer at BP retires, he will take up take some pro bono work on a wind farm.' While the activist will not deny the importance of clean energy, the current financial feasibility is unquestionable. This brings up a big point: the ultimate challenge will be to put in place the proper guidelines and incentives today to make usage affordable in the future. As the world economic leader, the US has both the influence and resources to shape the energy industry in global markets. Without such support, alternative energies will remain weak and obsolete. However, with a bipartisan call to action, alternatives just might have the opportunity to live up to their title.

When To Act?

In a recent Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he highlighted video clips of the last eight presidents publicly pushing toward clean energy reform. In each clip, the presidential proposal would sound almost identical, "energy-efficient homes, freedom from foreign oil, job creation!." Unfortunately, the aftermath was identical as well, with no action and no follow-up. Why is it that we continue time and again to refuse tackling this issue? How has such a serious presidential line item become just a talk-show joke? Well, although seemingly straightforward, the lobbying world of energy reform is as complex as they come. Issues of cost, sustainability, environmental impact, jobs, and short/long-term economic health are only some of the vast plethora of obstacles. Simply put, we do have our reasons to be skeptical and postpone, but that luxury may be running out. A very observing scientist on the Planet Earth series says it best when he describes "sustainable development" as an oxymoron, referring to "sustainable retreat" as the only possible solution to the destructive exploitation of our natural resources. While potentially dramatized, he stresses the immediate need to reverse damage caused by carbon emissions. Unfortunately, current economic and political restrictions make this unlikely. Instead, we need realistic goals, solidified guidelines, and proposals pushed through Congress. And this brings me to my major argument. What law makers need to focus on is transitioning from our current energy forms as well as usage, while sacrificing the current growth rate of economic wealth for the investment of future stability. It is up to government today to ease into proper energy reform to prevent that which would transpire from a very abrupt change down the road, driven by sudden environmental necessity. Notice my usage of words: I say "government" not "people" when describing who must act. Unfortunately, I am pessimistic of majority support, as short-term sacrifices are surely hard to swallow for most people. However, my only hope is that top officials and influential lobbyists that value long-term perspective will push us forward. America's future as a global leader on this planet depends on the structure of our energy policy tomorrow, which will be decided on today. I end this post with an analogy: When I was five (more so than today), I always kept my room very clean. I did so because it was worth it for me to tidy up before I went to bed than to wait until the end of the week when my room appeared more like a bomb shelter. I made the initial investment, sacrificed some opportunity cost, and took proactive action to prevent future catastrophe. Investment, sacrifice, and early implementation will be the crucial areas of focus powering our country through reform.