I'd like the climate activists to come to Mississippi from May thru September and live without an air conditioner for 2 years. If they can do it, I'll listen to them. Until then, they can keep throwing soup on precious works of art, which is easy and creates enemies. Some places can't afford to rely on wind.
How many more decades do you think you can keep extracting and burning fossil fuels? If you answer isn't "forever", then you better start thinking about how to develop sustainable, affordable, safe alternatives.
Rational article, but luckily administrations and Congresspersons whose staff is crawling with ultra-lefties is now focused on even more popular ideas: helping Islamist terrorists destroy Israel and genocide its 7.4 million Jews.
You can always trust progressives to take the best positions.
Really good stuff here. As the problems in Europe attempting to move to so-called "clean energy" surface, much of the support "green" has will diminish. Germany is a perfect example. It is now in an energy-created recession for the second straight year. Meanwhile, pollster Richard Baris (whom I trust far more than yougov) has done a poll on the "four freedoms:" food freedom (free to buy directly from farmers without regulations), financial freedom (bitcoin), speech freedom (backlash against government censorship), and medical freedom (resistance to the vax, freedom from being told by government what medical procedures to take), and his findings, while buried by the mainstream media, were shocking. Even though he carefully worded these---didn't use pollsters' "do you want to be rich" questions---over 50% and often close to 60% not just favored these but STRONGLY favored these. Any politician serious about winning elections should consider THESE instead of "green energy" as major agenda points.
One of the most serious vulnerabilities of democracies is that their populations - with their ability to select political leaders - are extremely unwilling to make long term sacrifices including changes to lifestyle and consumption unless they are confronted with an immediate and undeniable emergency. Since climate change is relatively slow in its effects, the populations resist as much as possible, preferring instead to postpone substantial and expensive changes "until things get really serious" (which in the minds of most US voters, they have not).
So we happily muddle along, confident that the all knowing "invisible hand" of the (barely regulated) market will never let us down. At some point a good chunk of Florida will be uninhabitable as will several major Gulf Coast and Eastern coastal cities.
As long as we cling to the idea that god/nature would never seriously harm our "exceptional" nation and that "all's for the best in the best of possible worlds" (Voltaire), then we do nothing. If the very wealthy feel safe and protected, they will spend lots of money convincing us that "the government is still the problem" and so it must be prevented from acting (because that would raise taxes on the wealthy).
We Americans have then possibility of leading the world towards a brighter and safer future, but the levels of sacrifice and industrial policy - BIG GOVERNMENT - make us hesitate and hope that instead some kind of magic (or dictator) can save us.
Yes, most Americans, especially the working class, are unwilling to make long term sacrifices to protect the wealthy. They will not consign themselves to energy poverty to prevent Florida (Mar-a-Lago perhaps) and other coastal enclaves from becoming uninhabitable. That would take a dictator. Assuming of course, that a 1.5 deg increase is acceptable, but 1.6 deg means the end of the planet. If the wealthy really care about the climate, they can invest in nuclear, end corporate air travel and only build AI and data centers at a rate that renewable energy can support them.
The problem with electric is that it often doesn't work as well and voters realize it. We had a combination heat pump - gas furnace in a previous house. When it started getting colder, the coils on the heat pump would freeze up; when the gas kicked on, the house was warm. We also have solar panels and a battery backup which work great when the power goes out. But they would never be able to power a heat pump, electric water heater and stove.
How much longer do you think modern industrial nations like the United States can run on fossil fuels? Unless your answer is "Forever", we need to start developing approaches to a national industrial policy that has some chance of transitioning off of almost all fossil fuels. If anyone thinks the so-called "free market" will do this, please think again, this time more seriously
I'm wondering why the Democratic Party, given its name, is so adamantly opposed to listening to the voice of the American citizens who pay their salaries.
The American public wants:
1) An all-of-the-above approach to energy, affordable energy being the priority.
2) School choice, by large margins.
3) Non-extreme abortion policy (both parties are pretty bad on this issue).
"All of the Above" was Obama's energy policy form 8 years. It pretty much has remained US policy since then though subsidies to different industries have varied based on politics.
School choice appears to be available in every large school district - there are no laws against it. This is basically a local or state policy choice, not a federal one.
Democratic pols almost universally support a return to Roe era abortion policy.
Democrats in Congress strongly supported a very tough immigration bill this past summer but Trump did not want the issue resolved: He wanted to run on immigration and demanded that all Republicans opposed the very conservative immigration bill.
So please stop pretending the the Democratic Party doesn't know how to listen to American voters.
I'd like the climate activists to come to Mississippi from May thru September and live without an air conditioner for 2 years. If they can do it, I'll listen to them. Until then, they can keep throwing soup on precious works of art, which is easy and creates enemies. Some places can't afford to rely on wind.
How many more decades do you think you can keep extracting and burning fossil fuels? If you answer isn't "forever", then you better start thinking about how to develop sustainable, affordable, safe alternatives.
Rational article, but luckily administrations and Congresspersons whose staff is crawling with ultra-lefties is now focused on even more popular ideas: helping Islamist terrorists destroy Israel and genocide its 7.4 million Jews.
You can always trust progressives to take the best positions.
Really good stuff here. As the problems in Europe attempting to move to so-called "clean energy" surface, much of the support "green" has will diminish. Germany is a perfect example. It is now in an energy-created recession for the second straight year. Meanwhile, pollster Richard Baris (whom I trust far more than yougov) has done a poll on the "four freedoms:" food freedom (free to buy directly from farmers without regulations), financial freedom (bitcoin), speech freedom (backlash against government censorship), and medical freedom (resistance to the vax, freedom from being told by government what medical procedures to take), and his findings, while buried by the mainstream media, were shocking. Even though he carefully worded these---didn't use pollsters' "do you want to be rich" questions---over 50% and often close to 60% not just favored these but STRONGLY favored these. Any politician serious about winning elections should consider THESE instead of "green energy" as major agenda points.
One of the most serious vulnerabilities of democracies is that their populations - with their ability to select political leaders - are extremely unwilling to make long term sacrifices including changes to lifestyle and consumption unless they are confronted with an immediate and undeniable emergency. Since climate change is relatively slow in its effects, the populations resist as much as possible, preferring instead to postpone substantial and expensive changes "until things get really serious" (which in the minds of most US voters, they have not).
So we happily muddle along, confident that the all knowing "invisible hand" of the (barely regulated) market will never let us down. At some point a good chunk of Florida will be uninhabitable as will several major Gulf Coast and Eastern coastal cities.
As long as we cling to the idea that god/nature would never seriously harm our "exceptional" nation and that "all's for the best in the best of possible worlds" (Voltaire), then we do nothing. If the very wealthy feel safe and protected, they will spend lots of money convincing us that "the government is still the problem" and so it must be prevented from acting (because that would raise taxes on the wealthy).
We Americans have then possibility of leading the world towards a brighter and safer future, but the levels of sacrifice and industrial policy - BIG GOVERNMENT - make us hesitate and hope that instead some kind of magic (or dictator) can save us.
Yes, most Americans, especially the working class, are unwilling to make long term sacrifices to protect the wealthy. They will not consign themselves to energy poverty to prevent Florida (Mar-a-Lago perhaps) and other coastal enclaves from becoming uninhabitable. That would take a dictator. Assuming of course, that a 1.5 deg increase is acceptable, but 1.6 deg means the end of the planet. If the wealthy really care about the climate, they can invest in nuclear, end corporate air travel and only build AI and data centers at a rate that renewable energy can support them.
The problem with electric is that it often doesn't work as well and voters realize it. We had a combination heat pump - gas furnace in a previous house. When it started getting colder, the coils on the heat pump would freeze up; when the gas kicked on, the house was warm. We also have solar panels and a battery backup which work great when the power goes out. But they would never be able to power a heat pump, electric water heater and stove.
How much longer do you think modern industrial nations like the United States can run on fossil fuels? Unless your answer is "Forever", we need to start developing approaches to a national industrial policy that has some chance of transitioning off of almost all fossil fuels. If anyone thinks the so-called "free market" will do this, please think again, this time more seriously
I'm wondering why the Democratic Party, given its name, is so adamantly opposed to listening to the voice of the American citizens who pay their salaries.
The American public wants:
1) An all-of-the-above approach to energy, affordable energy being the priority.
2) School choice, by large margins.
3) Non-extreme abortion policy (both parties are pretty bad on this issue).
4) Less immigration.
The D-party is against them all. Why?
"All of the Above" was Obama's energy policy form 8 years. It pretty much has remained US policy since then though subsidies to different industries have varied based on politics.
School choice appears to be available in every large school district - there are no laws against it. This is basically a local or state policy choice, not a federal one.
Democratic pols almost universally support a return to Roe era abortion policy.
Democrats in Congress strongly supported a very tough immigration bill this past summer but Trump did not want the issue resolved: He wanted to run on immigration and demanded that all Republicans opposed the very conservative immigration bill.
So please stop pretending the the Democratic Party doesn't know how to listen to American voters.