It's a tough question, complicated by the larger question in which it's embedded: Must we give up our way of life? The fabric of life in many differing socities is woven with roads, mobility, ease of transport.

Petrol fueled engines have made all of this possible, but they're also partly responsible for pollutants that foul the air we breathe and now, we learn, for global warming. The larger question includes other factors such as deforestation, coal fired energy plants, oil refineries and other manufacturing, population growth and consumer driven economies.

Some changes must be made in how we live. We can make them or nature will. Most people, even those who call global warming a hoax, recognize this. The real question behind various postures taken is: Whose life must change, and how? Biofuels are not a realistic alternative. They are a Shell game, an Exxon herring.

Even if they achieve carbon neutrality, they do not result in a reduction of CO2, and they take land out of crop production now increasingly needed as population continues to grow. Hydrogen fuel is more realistic, both for cars and for generation of energy. (Where is the Manhatten Project for hydrogen fusion?) Electric cars already exist and can effectively compete with petrol fueled cars in every way, given that we design better batteries and solar cells. (Where is the technomagic when we need it?)

The solution is simple and inexpensive. We must electrify our transit. We need to move freight by electric locomotives, and we need to move people in electric vehicles. As we make that switch, all increases in electrical demand must be met with renewable wind and solar energy. The federal government must lead through example and mandate that 95% of all new postal and congressional vehicles purchased after 2010 must be battery electric vehicles.

Labels: Transport systems