Excerpted from an interview with President Obama by The National Journal. Emphasis mine.
NJ You mentioned energy as an area. On the other hand, of the 20 serious Republican Senate candidates who have taken a position, 19 have said that the science of climate change is either wrong, inconclusive, or flat-out fraudulent. I’m wondering, given that, how you react to that, and also if you would be comfortable having the issue of carbon emissions ultimately dealt with by EPA, an approach that I think you’ve always viewed as second and not the preferable one. But given where Republicans are on the science of climate change, can you see any prospects for action on that, and are you comfortable with EPA being the ultimate arbiter of how we deal with it?
This is exactly right. There are plenty of good reasons to develop energy sources that are less expensive than what we have now. I was hoping that when President Obama first proposed a "stimulus" this would be what would result. Unfortunately, that did not occur. That said, smart investments in energy innovation and development could pay off big, not just for the United States, but also for the third of the world without access to reliable, affordable energy.
Hat Tip: Roger Pielke, Jr.