War vs. environment

Here is a NYTimes article suggesting that those who invest in clean energy technologies and also invest in new fossil fuel technologies are hypocritical... or at least disingenuous (by Matt Richtel).

Silicon Valley’s technology investors have taken to the ramparts, threatening to tear down the oil and gas industries’ dominance with innovations that use ethanol, solar and wind. A chief champion of the cause has been Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of the marquee venture capital firms. Its principals, John Doerr in particular, have passionately advocated development of alternative energies as a way to create energy independence and clean up the carbon-saturated atmosphere. But Kleiner has also poured millions of dollars into Terralliance, a company that makes technology to enable more efficient drilling of oil and gas.

The investment underscores a fact that is much less bragged about in the valley: For all the boasting in the region about investing in clean technologies, there have also been a smaller number of bets in companies set up to promote the development of fossil fuels — the source of many of the problems their other investments are meant to fix.

My take on it is different though. America has a decision to make. We can either maximize the utilization of our own resources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and mitigate our "entangling alliances") or we can do less drilling within US borders and protect the environment. Or we can balance the two competing interests and do a bit of both.

Personally, I'd like to lean more heavily toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil (and Middle east oil). As important as it is to protect the environment, I think dealing with the Middle east is a more pressing issue.

Tim White