A world with 6.7 billion people, a third of whom cook on dung or firewood and the rest depending on fossil fuels, needs far more energy options than it currently has, almost everyone agrees.

But consensus dissolves when it comes to the question of how best to identify, develop and spur the diffusion of new energy choices that don’t come with climate or security risks. The main focus for years has been on a climate bill or climate treaty that would cap emissions and cut the cost with trading of pollution credits so the cuts could be made by companies or countries that could do the job most cheaply. The cap would encourage conservation, drive innovation, and raise some money for basic research.

A significant chorus of economists and technology experts has insisted, however, that with or without a binding restriction on emissions, an epic energy quest is needed — and not being pursued.

I have a piece in the Week in Review section on what these experts say is a gaping technology gap that cannot be filled by raising the price of polluting. They fear the focus on passing legislation or trying to negotiate a new climate treaty to cut emissions is distracting from the need to pursue an aggressive, sustained, variegated portfolio of energy research, mainly financed by government.

Their critics say their stance, however well intentioned, will produce the real delays, given how much can be done now simply by cutting energy waste with tools already on the shelf — ranging from strengthening efficiency standards to eliminating billions of dollars in persistent fossil-fuel subsidies that continue to make coal and oil much cheaper than they really are when all their hidden costs are revealed.

My impression is that the tugging between the two camps masks a lot of agreement on the need, really, to pursue all of the above. It’s just that the people involved in the discourse are most familiar with, or comfortable with, particular philosophies (regulatory, exploratory, top down, bottom up).

[INSERTED 4/6, 12:45 p.m.] There clearly is a vast array of low-hanging fruit ready to be harvested — much at a profit — by cutting the energy used in buildings, transportation, appliances and the like, as the McKinsey Global Institute has repeatedly pointed out.

I’m going to post comments that came in from a variety of experts and advocates involved in the energy and climate challenges but did not fit in my story or my earlier blog post on this question. I’d be happy to see yours, too, of course.

Here’s one to prime the pump, from Paul Hawken: