There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

Now here is my question to you: what happens when we replace the word “space” or “moon” with “energy independence” and “stop climate change?”

The simple fact of the matter is that we must act, and act now, in order to address the energy/climate crisis. Our dependence on current energy systems is an economic issue, and the climate change issue is a very moral one. Likewise going to the moon was an economic issue in that we were fighting a competing economic system that could have potentially destroyed the American system; it was a moral issue because it not only rallied Americans around a cause during times of strife, but it also made the case that democracies were better than totalitarian regimes.

And so I say that we are at another a similar point in history – but this time the issue is of global necessity, not just of national pride. New energy sources will benefit all nations (even the ones producing oil), new energy sources will clean the air and make new technologies and industries viable, new energy sources will help lift nations out of poverty and fend of coming conflicts that will focus around increasing diminished resources such as water . In short, we must do these things because it needs to be one we are unwilling to postpone.

Now, let us look at our leaders. Indeed Obama is a similar, charismatic, leader who seems to have the wind at his back on this issue. With the days of the Bush Administration soon a terrible memory, it is obvious that anything will be an improvement in the treatment of the environment and how the government reacts to the idea that we need to do more than just “drill, baby, drill.” Those who do not understand this as an economic and indeed a moral issue will be regarded with either disdain in the future if we don’t act, or as dinosaurs who did not have a clue. If I am wrong about climate change and energy supplies, but we still continue down the path of an energy revolution, all I lose is an outdated system that is not in the best interest of the American people – if, however, energy revolution skeptics are wrong, the consequences could be dire on a global scale.

This is a chance for humanity to unite, as one people, towards a common goal. Whereas the moonshot first time united a nation around a great technological and pioneering moment, so to will the “Energyshot” be the first time a world rallied behind a great need. We can not fail, we must not fail, and we will make this world a better place.

P.S. Though it pains me to admit that I agree with Greenpeace on something, I must admit that this little ad did quite a number on me: