Let's assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that those who believe climate change is a myth are in fact correct. To do that, we have to disregard an incredible amount of scientific data — facts — which I understand Trump supporters are allergic to. But let's for a moment assume that climate-change deniers are absolutely correct. It would not be the first time in history that the scientific consensus has been wrong.

That changes nothing. Why? Well, let's think about national security for a moment. Many would define 'national security' as primarily based on military strength: if your borders are secure and you can project power outside those borders, and have a good chance of winning any conflicts, then you could reasonably call your nation secure. So most people tend to think that a strong military equates to national security. To a degree, that is true.

But national security is much more than that. Economic security is vitally important, and part of economic security is heavily tied to energy dependence. When a nation is so heavily dependent upon one or two sources of power – i.e. coal and petroleum, as most nations currently are — that nation is incredibly vulnerable to price and supply fluctuations. That nation will also be at the mercy, politically speaking, of the countries that control oil and coal production.

Look at our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, for example. Where do you think ISIS and Al Qaeda get their funding from? Middle Eastern oil, mostly. Why do you think the US has had to placate such oppressive regimes as Saudi Arabia for so long? Because they have quite a bit of oil. Think of how insecure our dependence on oil makes us. Think of how we, in a very real way, are funding the same folks who caused 9/11 and who'd like nothing better than to pull off another one. Yes, the US is increasing domestic production and is becoming less reliant on the Middle East, but the fact remains that oil is a vital resource that is concentrated quite heavily in the hands of many folks who certainly don't have America's best interests at heart.

Even leaving aside those political concerns, the fact is simple: petroleum is a finite resource. It will run out. Maybe Peak Oil isn't here yet, and perhaps we will continue to develop improved technologies that will allow us to exploit oil deposits we can't remotely touch now, but at a certain point, that game will become self-defeating, because the price of reaching that oil will make it uneconomical. When that happens — and it will, in our children's lifetimes if not ours — the economic and social upheaval will be tremendously damaging, if we haven't yet moved away from a petroleum-based economy.

Imagine if, just for a moment, a drop-in replacement for oil — one that is environmentally friendly — were invented tomorrow. Our power balance with the Middle East would change in a heartbeat. We'd stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Our air and groundwater would be cleaner. Our children would be healthier. We'd stop sending so much of our wealth overseas, and be able to spend more of it here at home. Who can argue that would be a bad thing? Isn't that the very definition of national security?

So if I were in power — which, clearly, I am not — I'd call for the creation of a new Manhattan Program. But instead of producing the successor to the A- and H-bombs, I'd call for a massive national effort aimed at completely replacing petroleum power within the next two decades. Imagine if all cars were electric — that's possible today. Imagine if that electricity were generated not by coal, but by wind, solar, and nuclear. (The progressives' opposition to nuclear power drives me nuts, and I count myself as a progressive.)

Just think of how much better off this country — and this planet — would be, if we were able to eliminate petroleum. I'd argue that the world would be a cleaner, more peaceful place. And here's the thing: even if you think replacing petroleum is a crazy idea, it's inevitable. Whichever nation perfects the replacement for petroleum will become the next Saudi Arabia — flush with cash from a world hungry for energy.

And yet here we sit, trying desperately to hold onto a technology whose time has long come and gone.

Again: even if you don't believe that climate change is real, even if you believe this is all somehow some kind of giant scam — there are countless other reasons to wholeheartedly support the development of alternative energy sources. The question isn't if we have to do it. The question is how we're going to do it.

This isn't about politics, folks. This isn't about religion. This isn't even about what you believe. This is about a dispassionate analysis of the facts.