Mr. Redford's heart is in the right place but I think the scientific and economic underpinnings of his arguments are weak.

I do believe we need a broad based program, perhaps on the Apollo or Manhattan Project scale, to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. This will require several efforts:

Conservation: we need to continue efforts to reduce energy consumption. There are several promising technologies that are just hitting the market or could be available within the next few years including hybrid-electric and fuel cell powered cars. However, at the moment these technologies are not economically viable. I've read reports that Honda and Toyota are losing thousands on every hybrid vehicle they sell. They can't keep that up forever. Unless the technology is economically viable, it won't be successful in the broader marketplace. To date, both companies have sold a total of less than 50,000 hybrid cars in the US, a miniscule fraction of the estimated 100 million privately owned cars and trucks in America. We can't subsidize the hybrid industry forever.

Fuel cells are very interesting and hold a great deal of promise. To me, the most promising cells are those produced by companies like Ballard Corp. of Canada. These cells use catalysts to split hydrogen from alcohols, natural gas, or even gasoline. This ability means that the difficult and expensive need to build a hydrogen infrastructure isn't necessary. It'd cost tens of billions to produce a hydrogen infrastructure capable of powering even half of our existing vehicles. Who will pay for that?

Alternative energy sources: We do need to continue research into alternative energy sources. However, like everything else, these sources need to hold the promise of being economically viable in the near future or they're probably not worth pursuing. It makes no economic sense to spend twice as much (or more) on energy either directly or via subsidizies just because it comes from an alternative source.

Increased domestic energy production: Even if we go all out on conservation and alternative energy sources, we won't be able to do away with our need for petroleum and natural gas for a long time. This leaves us with two choices: either maintain our dependence on foreign sources like Saudi Arabia or to increase domestic production. Personally, I favor the latter. Some people like Mr. Redford are very concerned about how oil production creates pollution. They don't seem to be as concerned by the fact that all we're doing is shifting the location of the pollution to other countries, countries that in many cases don't have very strict pollution laws in place. To me, that's rather hypocritical. If we're concerned about pollution, shouldn't we be concerned about it everywhere, not just here in America?