At some point I realized that we weren't going to make it, and we were going to conduct the big experiment and find out what climate change will do to the earth we live in. It was disappointing to find out that China didn't seem to be constrained at all and kept opening new coal plants. I did agree that regardless, we need to develop alternative energy. And I'm pro nuclear energy.

The sensible approach on energy is:

*Regionally appropriate means of generating power
*Nuclear power everywhere
*Changeout of coal for energy to coal for less-bad fuel (you make methanol with coal and steam, and you can drive a car on it)
*Embrace natural gas

...while exploring renewables as gap-filing options. Had the democrats proposed that while doing all the icky boring things like upgrading the nation's electrical grid to be more efficient (we lose something like 30%+ of the power we generate in transmission and conversion losses)...they would have had a terrific and pro-growth agenda to stand next to.

But no. They went all in on Scare Tactics (all the polar bears are going to drown and our cities will be underwater by 2010), if hurricanes don't wipe the US off the map then forest fires will, etc. Apocalyptic stuff.

One of the main reason why the democrats are so unpopular is just...fatigue. They sit there and frame absolutely everything in the most End Times terminology possible. That's a great strategy for a short-term burst of energy but an absolute disaster of a recipe for long term success.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.