I propose

• Energy costs are changing because there is more and more demand for a limited resource--fossil fuels. Americans thrive on change, and this one is coming.
• The Federal government should use private enterprise and long-term contracts to move to renewable energy as its power source.
• Americans will need to adopt to changes in climate. Fortunately, we thrive on change.
• Environmental protection is a property rights issue. Litigation does not make sense as an environmental defense when there are vast numbers of small polluters whose cumulative effect is bad.

Energy Costs: Recent changes in energy prices reflect changes in the order of the world. World oil production barely matches oil consumption. Oil demand from China and other places climbs rapidly. We face rapidly increasing foreign competition for buying foreign oil. Prudent Americans must expect that in the future energy is unlikely to be cheap.

America cannot end its need for foreign oil by drilling more oil wells. We're long since peaked out. The north Alaska fields are not that large, and are many years from coming on-line if we choose to use them. To end oil imports by drilling, we'd have to find not one but two Saudi Arabias inside our borders. That's not going to happen.

Nor can we replace oil as an energy source with agricultural products. Ethanol from corn is primarily a corporate welfare boondoggle: The energy needed to distill the ethanol is roughly the same as the energy recovered. Molecular biology may eventually transform the situation, but the future date is unpredictable.

Global Warming: There is no remaining doubt that burning of fossil fuels is changing the weather. The earth has become markedly warmer in the last 20 years. Some areas become drier; others become damper. In colder areas, growing seasons become longer. Furthermore, these changes will continue. In the long run, unchecked global warming will increase ocean levels, creating enormous property damage. Americans thrive on change, and these changes are incoming.

Many attacks on global warming are a political waste product. They arise from 1970s feuds between Republicans and environmentalists over air and water pollution. The feuds are so ingrained that they are being recycled. We Libertarians reject claims of Republican know-nothing anti-environmentalists.

I reject claims from people who have bought into right-wing rants that there is no global warming. Global-warming-deniers are wrong, and they are no help to the libertarian movement.

We do not need hysterical responses to these challenges. We will need to change how we do things. We do not need to make huge changes in our way of life. We will still live where we want, if we choose in uncrowded, quiet neighborhoods. We will still drive where we want at affordable prices.

What should we do?

All too many politicians view energy and the environment as an opportunity to run your life for you. I'm not going to try to run your life. On the other hand, many Americans want their government to intervene in the market, so that they get cheap energy while someone else pays the bill. I'm not going to try to protect you from reality, either.

What should the Federal government do about the energy issue?

Renewable energy: First, Uncle Sam should focus on sensible actions he can actually take. We should move toward eliminating the government's own demand for foreign oil, thereby freeing oil for everyone else. That's a national security issue. It protects our military strength. It's also a financial issue; in the long run, ending foreign oil dependence reduces the cost of government. It won't happen overnight. In part, we reduce oil demand by shrinking the size of government and ending foreign military adventures. In substantial part, we reduce oil demand by replacing other energy sources used by the Federal Government with renewable energy sources. The replacement will not be complete in a year, or even in a decade. We need to make a start.

I am not proposing that the Federal government should build its own power plants or even pay for power plant research. I am proposing Uncle Sam should become a customer for new, private sources of renewable energy, purchased at predictable prices in predictable increments through long-term contracts. Those purchases are to carry out the normal processes of government, not to provide graft for political donors of corrupt Congressmen. These purchases will be predictable income that motivates competent private research and investment.

What is renewable energy? In the end, it's all energy driven by the sun. Renewable sources include wind, concentrating solar, wave, and photovoltaic sources, among others. At one time, there were questions as to how you stored energy from intermittent renewable sources, but those questions appear to be open to solution.

The Federal government uses energy in forms (e.g., jet fuel) for which renewable energy is inappropriate. Energy trading solves this gap for the next few decades.

Second, we should realize that as energy prices continue to climb the motive for private investment in alternative energies and energy conservation will also climb. There are many market solutions, at least if Uncle Sam does not tamper too much with them. I am not going to predict which solutions will turn out to be the most effective. That's not the President's job.

Third, if oil production is peaking, as appears to be the case, then carbon dioxide production from the burning of oil will also peak. The public's willingness to buy energy from alternative sources, as they become cheaper than the alternatives, not only holds down petroleum prices, it tends to reduce global warming.

Fourth, realism on automobile efficiency standards. The reasonable number is gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. To drive 1000 miles, a 10MPG car needs 100 gallons of gas. A 25MPG car needs only 40 gallons. That's a 60 gallon savings. Automobiles may well become more efficient than they are today, but the larger part of the energy savings from better cars has already been obtained. Energy savings from better highways, improved cargo transport, and fewer traffic jams may still make a difference.

Finally, Americans have always been creative and ingenious. We should be ready for totally outside-the-box solutions as radical as the Segway. I don't know which solutions we will choose in the end, but I am confident that my fellow Americans will find them thought eh genius of free enterprise and the competitive market.

I've given you some sensible libertarian solutions to American challenges. The libertarian solutions don't try to run your life for you. The libertarian solutions don't try to empty your wallet to hide you from reality.

Air and Water Pollution: We, the American people, enjoy the air we breathe and water in our streams and ponds. There is no more a right to vent poisons into your air and water than there is to dump toxic waste from a dump truck on your front lawn. When someone poisons your lawn, they are obliged to clean up the mess. The same goes for your air and water. It's a property rights issue.

Libertarians reject the notion that the government can force you to sell your property to other private users. That's why we urge that the Kelo decision be reversed. The Kelo principle arises in environmental protection. No one can force you to sell the right to poison your land, air, and water, even if they pay money to buy that right. You are entitled to protection against people who would poison your land, water, or air, no matter whether the would-be poisoners are terrorists or people saving money at your expense by not properly disposing of their waste.

National Parks: We, the American people, own vast amounts of land in the form of National Forests, National Wildernesses, and other Federal lands. We should be its stewards, leaving our descendants a patrimony that is more valuable than the one we inherited from our forefathers. In some states, the amount of Federal Land exceeds all reason or need, has no unique beauty or value, and should very gradually be auctioned off. However, most Americans are firmly attached to sharing ownership of the Grand Canyon, and will justly and vehemently reject any notion that they consent to the sale of their Grand Canyon to a private party.

Aside: Can wind power Uncle Sam? I am not specifically advocating windmills. However, if you are going to propose a policy, it makes sense to check if the policy is even vaguely possible, or if it violates laws of nature. The current Congressional Act on gasohol fails this test. That's what I do in the following:

For those of you who like numbers, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/annrep04.pdf gives the energy consumption of the United States government, divided between types of use and type of power source, with totals and grand totals. In recent years, the Federal government consumed about 1.2 quadrillion British Thermal Units of energy. (A quadrillion is a million billions.) That's approximately a quintillion Joules. (How much is a Joule? A one hundred watt light bulb uses a hundred Joules every second, or 360,000 Joules of energy every hour.) The Federal government consumes 38 billion Joules every second, on the average. A Joule per Second is a Watt, just like the Watts on your light bulb.

The Federal government thus averages 38 billion watts of power consumption, including liquid fuels. A representative large wind turbine generates 2 million watts of power, but only when the wind is right, so that a 2 million watt maximum capacity wind turbine might average 500 kilowatts delivered. If you do the calculation, you'll find that replacing the Federal government's dependence on fossil and other fuels will require 80,000 large commercial wind turbines, which at 2 million dollars a unit would cost 160 billion dollars. Actually, you cannot go down to your local hardware store and buy 80,000 wind turbines; the manufacturing capacity to build many turbines does not yet exist. Indeed, the United States at the moment produces only a small fraction of the wind power that I am proposing.

I am not proposing that the Federal government buy the turbines. That's not a Libertarian solution. The Federal government should buy the power that it needs, from private sources, and let the free market handle the manufacturing, deployment, and so forth. Wind power is at most no more expensive than oil-fueled power, so the Federal government will save money through the purchases.

I chose Wind Power as an example; a case can also be made for concentrating solar. Also, storing heat from concentrating solar, to produce power at night, appears to have clear practical approaches. Solar photovoltaic is also a possibility, though it remains expensive. I do the numbers for wind because the results are straightforward. There are several options for energy storage; the market can resolve these.

A case can be made for atomic power. Uranium remains economical even if the price/pound is astronomical, at which point supplies of uranium are huge. Promises for hydrogen fusion remain promises.