Dear recipient,

Mankind sits squarely at a juncture of human development. Specifically, all organisms through natural selection must embrace the path of least resistance to survive. For organisms, this selection occurs through random mutations, where the derivatives have no choice in the outcome of life or death of the species. I speak of Darwinism and its processes.

It would seem that man faces the same consequence, to live or die based not on random mutations, rather a conscious choice on how we work with nature around us. Clearly there are now 2 paths upon which we as a species must choose, carbon based economy or new energy. We have a choice, life or death.

Today, the outcome of the industrialization age of just a little over a century has resulted in elevated carbon. The effects are indeed global warming. The North Pole is no longer perma-ice. In just a little over a century, man has destroyed what malenia has made in oil and coal. Ironically, prosperity has accelerated the rate of consumption. Never before in history has our thirst for energy been so great, and it is accelerating.

To further complicate matters, the effects from methane released from dead organisms trapped in the frozen ground now warmed by the same processes pose a new threat. Methane is an even worse enemy of global warming than carbon by an order of magnitude. Without a doubt this is planetary altering in nature affecting coral reefs through all levels in life including man by which centuries of evolution and darwinism has fine tuned life to!

The most irresponsible thing man can do is to turn his back on it and act like the Osterage, burying his or her head in the sand. It is a shame that organisms through history were trapped by unfavorable mutations and were not offered a consious choice on their survival. Man has a choice.

Ironically, the choice can be made and it won't cost a dime in the long run. We speak of the infrastructure created in this country initiated under President Roosevelt in the 1930's as a success. Yet this investment returns nothing other than efficiency in travel to the tax-payer. Today, the choice actually returns billions to engage in New Energy and cut the dependence on oil. If we cut our $70b per year in in subsidies to oil in a gradual rate and offer that to solar, build out of Solar can be over 20gw installed per year every year. The 30% federal subsidy can stay as every job it creates gets taxed 30% anyway. And this simple move drives massive change, energy independence, and gets people off welfare and unemployment, a load on the working class that is something neither the working or not working want. New energy pays for itself, returning value for everyone, and fixes the economy providing a lasting secure and necessary energy supply.

I say the problem is our Congress. They are responsible for the 70b subsidy to big oil. And big oil needs to adjust to the new paradyme of energy generation. Look to China and see that Guangdong Nuclear already came to this conclusion as they have embraced solar and wind. It is time Congress leads rather than debates. I encourage all to write their Senator and Representative. They need to know. They need to decide. A famous person in history stated, “Give me liberty, or give me death”. Today that person is Mother nature and she speaks to all regardless of race, religion, location or wealth. She speaks with action and not words and carries a bigger stick.

I will be spending a portion of my weekend writing a larger piece with links to spoon feed my representatives. Feel free to post links to this thread for the sources backing up what I said here. The links are out there folks.