The 4 things she specifically mentioned were:
1. energy freedom
2. energy choice
3. competition
4. national security
i agree with number 1. if we could be energy independent from foreign countries that would be nice, although many conservatives say that we should simply up domestic production.
2. and this is what sort of proves she's not really a small government conservative. she doesn't want a free market, she wants to decide which energy sources we use.
3. competition is a weird one to bring up. historically we've helped support monopolies of energy companies who use fossil fuels, and in modern day we've also started subsidizing alternative energy resources. this is not really "competition" it's government manipulation
4. national security probably relates to number 1. in who our interests are now beholden too.
First:
the USA: the simplest answer is we need sweeping regulation removing supports on fossil fuel industries, but have a slower phase out of subsidies on alternative energy.
(Alternative energy is getting cheap enough many cities are making the transition, in a stabilizing incremental fashion across the country. This is perfectly fine, as it's taxpayers supporting these industries in their local community. Also, we've skewed favor to Fossil Fuel companies for long enough, I'm willing to give *some* boosts to alternative energy companies)
However, if we continue to have subsidies for alternative energy companies *or raise them*, we're almost guaranteed to foster monopolies for hydro, solar, and wind power. This will only increase the market price.
Second:
the World: it's going to be a GREAT burden on countries who are small and developing to get rid of fossil fuel companies. alternative energy is MUCH less labor intensive which hurts these nations, and also much alternative energy requires infrastructure and large amount of capital to invest in. Plus many developing nations have already invested in fossil fuels hoping to catch up with the rest of the western world. as population grows in developing countries, and MORE labor intensive and less capital intensive moves on that ratio, then we're going to have a problem.
However, if we can convert the biggest nations to all alternative energy sources, that'd be fine by me to let developing nations have quotas on the amount they're allowed to invest in fossil fuels, given that at a certain level they'll start a transition.
Third:
the Future: we need to look at the long term energy costs as not only the world population grows, but as the world consumption of energy grows.
Europe, the US, Japan we're not the giant population spikes. Africa and Continental Asia are the places where population growth is an identifiable problem. As their populations modernize, there's going to be a massive fight over resources. For a world market this can be devastating and we could be likely to face an energy shortage.
The most likely scenario is that nuclear power is going to make a comeback, though instead of simply investing in these plants in danger-prone areas (on fault lines and by water supplies) we're going to have to plan ahead, and also come up with innovations to properly dispose of radioactive waste.
this in the long run would create isolated states in terms of energy trade, as countries like Japan need massive amounts of energy, but are situated on large fault lines. Tsunamis and earthquakes have caused them problems with their nuclear generators in the past. Many countries simply don't have the geographical capacity to invest heavily in nuclear without risk, OR be self sufficient.
Furthermore, the short term problems we face are still in America. how we can convert an entire automotive industry into alternative energy seems like a daunting task, that would hurt our economy. The best option is to allow alternative energy to come so cheap, it's the most economically viable option. Meanwhile state laws that allow for car sale-monopolies in small cities and that support in-state automotive industries need to be destroyed. We can't have anything propping these companies up in the wake of competition. (of course Trump isn't going to like this as he wants them to stay in the USA - AGAINST THEIR OWN WILL! - and invest here. god i hate that man)
Fourth:
Climate Change: this isn't going to stop once we simply reduce carbon emissions. There's still a lot of work for environmentalists to do. Many carbon emissions come from agriculture, which is only going to grow as populations grow and modernize. Further problems are the usual dangerous mining practices, and also deforestation.
While the human factor may be alleviated to a large extent, we're still going to see drastic shifts in our environment. It's likely that there's still going to be a melting of the ice caps even without large carbon emissions, and so there will be social issues to follow.
We're also overdue for a complete polar flip, which seems to be slowly occurring in present day. While some studies have linked the shift of the magnetic poles TO climate change, most of these rely off of changing distributions of ice in the regions, and while they are at best semi-accurate at the north pole, they're entirely wrong with the causation at the south. A polar shift is coming regardless of human activity, and based off of the electrical disturbances that simply the Aurora Borealis can cause, a complete polar shift could be devastating to the world's power grids. Securing these against magnetic disturbance wis going to be vital: there's so little research out there other than conspiracy nut jobs, it's hard to tell WHEN this shift will occur, only that such large oscillations of the poles hints that it is soon.
And then there's an ice age in a few thousand to ten thousand years. we'll have to see about that one, but we're going to need to plan ahead, as i'm not sure Nuclear power enjoys unstable conditions. Maybe we could do something with space. i'd ask how NASA's budget is doing, but there MUSK be a better option than them :P
So that's my two cents.