The recent Climategate controversy exposed for what it means: nothing. Climate change, or "global warming" isn't the largest driver in developing renewable energy sources. Nor is it the most important. 

Ever since scientists introduced the concept of Global Warming there has been skeptics and evangelists espousing there varied views on the subject. Some with eloquence and some, well, not so much. The recent "Climategate" controversy concerning emails between scientists from the University of East Anglia as well as from Penn State University has the skeptics saying that their greatest fears are confirmed: Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by scientists to manipulate public policy. Is climate change a hoax? Are man made Green House Gases (GHG's) to blame? My answer is: "who cares?" The reality is that many of our current practices related to GHG's are unsustainable and we need to change; regardless of the answer to those questions. 

Regardless of your political leanings, no one can deny that we in the States view Terrorism as our greatest threat to national security. The State Department would agree as well, listing it as one of our greatest threats on their website. They also list climate change as a top threat, but that's not important right now. By in large terrorists, including those who attacked us on September 11th, come from oil producing countries. It's not a large stretch of the imagination to envision how eliminating our dependence on foreign oil would greatly reduce the threat of terrorists attacking the US. Now I know even those who agree would say that the solution is not renewable energy but to derive our oil from domestic or friendly foreign sources. I don't disagree, but it does nothing to address the fact that oil and gas are finite resources. At some point we have to deal with the issue that these will not last forever. That is the very definition of unsustainable.

The same is true of coal. The very fact that we have to pull it from the ground means that at some point it will run out. The same can be said for lumber, but it obviously renews quicker than the former examples. Add in the environmental impact and the pollution associated with burning fossil fuels and deforestation and it you might come to the conclusion that even if it was sustainable, it doesn't leave us a healthier and happier populace. So why continue to do it?

The answer inevitably is the cost. I often hear critics site how renewable energy sources are simply not market ready comparative to fossil fuels. They are absolutely right. So subsidies and tax breaks are necessary to move these concepts forward and that's a problem? There are a couple industries that come to mind that enjoy both subsidies and/or tax breaks because our government believes they are central to maintain our status in the world. Industries such as oil and gas companies. Oh, and agriculture, which is driven entirely by fossil fuels. So expensive research and development is a cost that shouldn't be borne by the taxpayers? What self respecting highly profitable industry would ever accept public funding or price protection for the health and safety of our population? Oh yeah, there's pharmaceutical companies. There R&D time-line can be literally indefinite, yet we as a society attach a high degree of importance to their work, because it saves lives.

I'm not saying everybody needs to sell their SUV and switch to a hybrid (though that's not a bad plan). Just accept that we must further develop and implement renewable energy sources at some point in the very near future. Our health and safety really do depend on it.