One of the most important aspects from the summit is an agenda of halving carbon emissions by 2050.  While this is certainly a step in the right direction, is cutting carbon emissions by half in the next 42 years really all we can do?  

Some scientists are already predicting that we have entered into irreversible climate change and the weather over the last few years, whether a function of more social awareness or an increase in media coverage, seems to have become more volatile and unpredictable.  

While the goal of halving carbon emissions is a step in the right direction, it is not a goal that gets people active and excited about changing our world.  In midst of these meetings, I'm left searching to see whether there is someone that will be bold enough to challenge the world and its citizens to hold ourselves accountable for the blissful ignorance of our forefathers and apathetic and sedentary lifestyle of modern society.  

Why are technologies such as wind, solar and tidal power not being implemented on a larger scale?  The sun offers the most practical source of energy and the closer we can derive our energy from the sun the more efficient our energy will be.   

The future that our country will choose regarding energy will depend on which leader the American people choose to lead this country in November.  

John McCain wants to expand the nuclear power in this country and model our energy after the French system which runs its country on approximately 80 percent nuclear power.  

In the short term, he wants to drill offshore to reduce dependence on foreign oil and build new refineries to streamline the breakdown of crude oil.  

While nuclear energy does offer a clean and relatively safe way of energy production, it does not offer a permanent solution.  

Uranium is dangerous to mine, causing infertility and cancer in the mineworkers and is a limited resource.  Also, if we are going to drill offshore and look at oil rigs, why not go the extra step and use wind turbines over the ocean for a sustainable and clean alternative?

Barack Obama's energy plan calls for a 50 percent energy efficiency increase by 2030, an 80 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2050, a $150 billion investment in clean energy over the next 10 years, and an increased emphasis on biofuel.  While his plan is more ambitious than McCain's at this point, it does not address any short term relief besides requiring greater fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.  

Ethanol and biofuel don't seem like the solution because they are still expensive, cause a decrease in fuel efficiency, and are dependent on our yearly corn crop.  

The massive flooding in the Midwest shows that it is impractical to rely on Mother Nature for our energy needs.  

Also, corn-based ethanol raises the question as to whether a drop in oil prices will subsequently cause a skyrocket in food prices or cause starvation in countries that rely on imported food for sustenance.  However, using waste products to create our ethanol seems like a great idea for supplemental ethanol.

In the end, the most important aspects of our change in energy focus starts with the need to stop sending $1.4 billion a day to foreign countries for their oil.  

We are slaves to people who have disdain for America.  

In the short term, a greater emphasis placed on trains and other forms of mass transit that offer alternatives to hours of commuting and trucking should be considered.  

While the energy situation and insane price of gas is a strain, it offers an exciting opportunity to economically justify expanding our own infrastructure and challenge the scientific community to create long term transportation and energy solutions with minimal impact to the world around us.