It's time to change the entire energy discourse -- by changing the handles.

Up until now, solar, wind, geothermal and their cohorts have passed as “sustainable” or “renewable” energy. Fossil and nuclear have been “conventional”.

Try this out instead: Wind/solar/geothermal are smart energy. Fossil and nuclear are dumb energy.

If we want to sustain the world economy in the years to come, we must do it in ways that are ecologically astute.

(Watch for my “eco-eco” treatise: ecology and economy are really bound up as one.)

We all know intuitively that solar, wind and geothermal will have the fewest adverse effects on our ecology. It's not a matter of if - it's a matter of when.

Fossil fuels aren't going to go away. But their supplies are finite, and the earth's capacity to absorb their effects is probably at its outer limits.

Nuclear? Look, we all know the waste is fiendishly toxic. And without (a) massive subsidies and (b) caps on liability, the economics are not viable. The most polite verdict I can render is that nuclear energy is a spectacularly failed experiment. It's time to move on.

So whatcha gonna go with? Smart energy? Or dumb energy?

From a recent Manzullo press release: “We also need to pursue more domestic production of oil and gasoline. The oil is there; we just have to want to get it... Using environmentally sound practices, we can produce an estimated 1.5 million barrels of oil a day on a tiny portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife refuge...”

Hoo-boy. Manzullo just doesn't get it.

Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is extraordinarily counterproductive and short-sighted. But for now, I'll spare you the global warming arguments, and the economic arguments, and the environmental arguments, and all the silly “pity the caribou” caricatures.

Saving the very last of our domestic oil now has become a national security issue.

That's right: according to the Federal Department of Energy, the USA has less than 2% of remaining proven world oil reserves. Two lousy percent. (Derived from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html)

Essentially, Manzullo wants to pump it all out as fast as we possibly can. Never mind the future.

What will we -- and our children, and our grandchildren -- do in a couple of short decades if we have a war or a national emergency and have next to no domestic oil left?

Manzullo's petroleum policy amounts to “Bleed America Dry First.”

• Between 2001 and 2007, real weekly wages (adjusted for inflation) fell in seven of eleven job sectors.
• In 70 of 102 Illinois counties, median income declined by $1547 between 2001 and 2005.
• Seniors, children, and the disabled account for almost half of those living in extreme poverty.
• In 2006, 12.3% of Illinoisans lived in poverty – up from 10.7% in 1999.
  

• Poverty rate, 2006:  10.2%
• Number of people in extreme poverty, 2006:  31,041 (a 6.5% rate)
• Children in poverty, 2006:  24,074 (a 13.2% rate)
• Total in poverty, 2006:  72,563  (That's approximately the populations of Belvidere, Freeport, and Loves Park combined!)

Scott Summers says:  Rockford suffered twenty homicides in
2007. A Rockford attorney was shot in the back two weeks ago. And
now, the NIU tragedy.

Gratuitous, senseless gun violence
isn't “speculative”, Mr. Manzullo. It's fact.

Common-sense restrictions are
desperately overdue. You could begin, Mr. Manzullo, by introducing
federal legislation to:

• Ban assault weapons and sniper
  rifles.
  

  
  

• End internet and mail order sales
  of guns and accessories.
  

  
  

• Limit gun purchases to one a
  month.
  

  
  

• Restrict bulk handgun sales.

  
  

• Require drug testing as a
  condition of FOID (firearm owner ID card) issuance

  
  

• Ban large capacity ammunition
  magazines.

  
  

But we all know, Mr. Manzullo, that
you'll do nothing of the sort. After all, you do have an “A”
rating from the National Rifle Association, don't you?

As the Illinois Green Party candidate for Congress for Rockford and
far northwestern Illinois, I -- Scott Summers -- will eagerly strive to earn an “F”
from the NRA.

I'll introduce or co-sponsor legislation
to do all of these things – and more.

I support very strict gun control measures.

Unfortunately, there are far too many
guns in circulation to control them very well.

Accordingly, I intend to augment gun control initiatives with ammunition control.

Did you know that a .22 caliber bullet
costs about a nickel? Larger caliber bullets range from about a
dime to fifteen cents each.

A bullet should cost at least as much
as a cigarette.

I propose an excise tax on ammunition,
with proceeds to be deposited in a trust fund for the sole benefit of
innocent victims of gun violence.

Similarly, gun owners should have to
provide proof of personal liability insurance as a condition of
Firearms Owner's Identification card (FOID) issuance.  (Automobile owners must carry insurance.  So should gun owners.)

The social costs of guns should be
borne by gun users -- not the victims of violence, and not the
general public (in the form of untoward law enforcement expenses and in
the form of Medicaid support for people rendered destitute by gun
violence). Gun owners should pick up the indirect and unintended
financial consequences associated with their privilege. Yes –
privilege.

Let me be clear.  Although I personally would prefer that there be no guns at all, I'll not -- not -- ...<< MORE >>