What if something magical happened?

What if all our energy worries ended tomorrow, with the happiest of happy endings?

What if a new power source came along that was so powerful, so clean, so abundant, that the greenest of green activists couldn't find fault with it?

And what if it was really, really cheap?

Who could be against that?

Ahem...I think you know.

"In April 1989 the Los Angeles Times interviewed a number of top-environmentalists about their view on cold fusion. With the assumption that the technology would be cheap and clean, Jeremy Rifkin nevertheless thought 'It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet.'

Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet's resources, to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste."

"Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich was cautious. While cheap, clean inexhaustible power could be a boon for mankind, the problem was that 'industrialized societies, so far, have not used power wisely,'but caused massive pollution.

In summary, Ehrlich said that cold fusion, even if clean and cheap, would be 'like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.'"

There's no pleasing some people. The above madness was excerpted from a fine article in Oregon Magazine. Check out their article on the HIV-positive muppet! And be sure to scroll to the bottom for a truly positive graphic. Really. It made my morning. Both articles are from 2002, but have retained their relevance in our hyperkinetic, harum-scarum world.

Turning back to those gun-toting idiot children, we are given Bjorn Lomborg's insightful take on the question.

"What these statements of opposition to an almost ideal energy source show is that the relevant agenda is not about energy or the economics of energy. Indeed this could not be the case, since the question from the Los Angeles Times was originally formulated 'what if cold fusion would be cheap and clean?'

Instead the opposition is based on a different agenda, focused on the potentially damaging consequences from using cold fusion. Essentially, the criticism points to other values, arguing for a change to a decentralized society which is less resource oriented, less industrialized, less commercialized, less production-oriented..."

One of the things I like about Lomborg is his penchant for quiet understatement.
He's just so bloody reasonable.

Not like some of the intemperate, self-righteous, cranks who infest the internet.

No, sir. Rather than merely venting, Mr. Lomborg attempts gentle persuasion, using facts and logic to make his case. I admire his efforts.