Just about every commodity we depend on is becoming scarce: oil, natural gas, key metals, rare earth elements, and even arable land. As a result, like greedy little kids with a cookie jar, we are scraping the bottom to get all that remains.
By 2025, new cars and light trucks will go about twice as far on a gallon of gas, compared with today's vehicles. The difference will save Americans $80 billion a year at the pump and reduce our oil use by 3.1 million barrels per day by 2030.
How does the fact that conservative Christianity is coming out in favor of manmade climate change match up with the current slate of potential Republican Presidential candidates? Not very well, actually.
Several times recently, we've heard this argument: When it comes to securing America's energy future, we need "all of the above" -- coal, oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and so on. That is a not an energy policy; it's a cop-out.
Rockefeller's proposal would not explicitly deny the problem -- it would just make it impossible for the EPA to do anything about it, at least when it comes to the largest sources, such as power plants and refineries.
In the sense that businesses need to consider the risks and opportunities inherent in managing natural resource pressures, they represent similar challenges. But we see a few differences between the two.