Let’s put some spark into the energy debate with a flat-out statement:

The push for greener energy is just plain common sense.

•Green energy will create jobs and economic development.

You’ll need tons of workers to build wind farms, install solar panels, insulate homes and factories, and put in nuclear power plants. (Yes, nuclear plants. More on that later.)

The job growth has already started. In a report on “The Clean Energy Economy,” the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 1998 to 2007, clean jobs surged at a national rate of 9.1 percent. Traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent. Despite the recession, that gap probably continues.

•It will spur technological progress.

How long have we been relying on the internal combustion engine? 100 years!

It’s certainly time to move on to electric, fuel-cell or even hydrogen-powered cars.

We also need better batteries and solar panels (say in the form of roofing tiles). And we could use further advances in clean-coal technology and in nuclear power generation.

If those technologies aren’t developed here in the United States, some other country will pick up the slack. Maybe China. And it will make a lot of money selling those advances to other countries.

•It will clean the air and water.

What’s really to argue about that?

•It’s a national security matter.

The more self-sufficient we become in energy, the less vulnerable we are to blackmail over oil, and the less likely we are to get into a war.

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons could close the Strait of Hormuz and dare us to do something about it. Are we willing to place that big a bet on the future because we didn’t develop our green energy resources?

Gearing up our green energy supply will take time, of course. It won’t supplant more traditional forms of energy for quite a while.

So in the meantime, unless we want to slow down economic growth while we wait, or rely even more on relatively dirty coal-fired plants, we’ll need more nuclear generation and we’ll have to drill for more domestic oil.

Many green energy advocates are rightly wary of nuclear power, but more-stable third-generation plants have been developed that “eat” their spent fuel, lessening the need for nuclear waste storage. And their zero-atmospheric emissions are a big plus.

While China is getting a lot of press recently for a big push into wind and solar energy, less noticed is a ramped-up drive to add nuclear plants. It wants to increase by nearly tenfold the amount of nuclear-generated power it uses and just this year started building five plants.

In the meantime, while “drill, baby, drill” carries the push for domestic oil too far, we should allow some offshore drilling. Again, it comes back to preventing an “oil shock” should things go badly overseas.

Those who oppose any more drilling need to remember that if oil goes to $400 a barrel and gas to $10 a gallon, a lot of people, mostly those lower on the income ladder, will be the ones most hurt. They also would probably send their sons and daughters overseas to fight any war over oil.

So, green energy advocates, some common-sense compromises might be in order now and then. Use your caution over nuclear power and oil drilling to leverage more money for wind and solar power. Let taxes on carbon from oil and coal fuel your dreams.

After all, the wind is at your back and the sun on your shoulders.

•Bonus point … if you noticed, I didn’t mention climate change as a reason to go green.

- - - Keith Chrostowski

To reach Keith Chrostowski, business editor of The Star, call 816-234-4466 or send e-mail to chrostowski@kcstar.com.