The Kyoto Protocol may have been well intentioned, but it didn't go to the root of our environmental problems. The most fundamental problem for our environment is our use of finite fossil fuels. In addition to causing global warming, they give a few countries with large reserves of such fuels excessive economic power over other nations, including over the United States. So what we must do is make a new agreement, one that will simultaneously safeguard the environment for future generations and eliminate our economic dependence on OPEC, Russia and so forth. As a public works project at home, it will also stimulate our economy on the demand side and bring thousands of new jobs to our economy. The agreement needs to be to end fossil fuel consumption entirely by the year 2020. The United States can achieve this with a combination of wind, geothermal, hydrogen, tidal and low-impact hydropower, with the federal government building the infrastructure for this alternative energy. But what about poorer nations that can't afford to do this? We should give them the money with which to do so. Then they will not be dependent on OPEC and others, their economies will improve, and, of course, what happens in these countries economically eventually affects us. This is a simple, logical plan. All that we need is the political will to implement it. Any comments?

Finding a plentiful alternative to oil would pay many benefits, and the country that does so would become the new OPEC even if the power were able to be locally generated as you indicate. So I support the idea of hefty research investments in alternative fuels.

But the 2020 deadline seems arbitrary and potentially harmful. Even cutting our fossil-fuel consumption in half by then would be a huge stride -- a stride that would buy us time to permanently fix the problem. I would set a series of small- and long-term goals that add up to greatly reduced dependency within 25 years.

I'd further note that this isn't really an environmental issue -- it's a national security one. The environmental benefits are sort of a bonus.

__________________
Man up.

Well, with my populist tendencies, I think that sometimes the only way to make people get things done is to give them an absolute deadline- no exceptions, no excuses. Of course, I would have to do an incredible amount of research to measure the economic effects of your plan and mine, but I have a news story that I will put in my next post in this thread that shows why I think that global warming is very real. You see, raytri, I'm not exactly a conservative (ask 12thMan).

This is the truth about global warming, and it isn't from an environmentalist site:

The truth is that global warming is happening and that it is already too late to avoid some of the effects. Even under the most optimistic circumstances, atmospheric scientists expect global climate change to result in increased flooding and droughts, more severe storms, and a loss of plant and animal species. These events will occur, even if climate change is gradual.

Source: http://www.pewclimate.org/dayaftertomorrow.cfm#9

I also know that the climate change might not be gradual, since there is increasing (though not conclusive) evidence that the Gulf Stream is stopping its run. If that does happen (strangely) the effect will be a horrific storm that will freeze both North America and Europe.