This train of thought is just what scares me. Talking heads that MIS-quote BAD science, voters that listen to the talking heads and take it as gospel, officials elected by those voters that know even less than anyone else in this sorry mess making LAWS that shape the future of the world.
Boy, nothing to go wrong there.
It saddens me more than scares me with what I said. The US society is very reactionary, in that things get done only after a crisis, when they should have been done before (proaction) with much less cost and disturbance to people. I would think that most would agree with that statement.
So if we need to light a fire to get anything done, climate change is currently that fire and is a tool used to make changes toward a more sustainable method of energy production and utilization.
I think we'd be much better off to develop clean energy based on the merits of having clean energy, not because of the unsubstanciated threats of the Global Warmers. B
Absolutely, I don't argue with that at all, just I don't think that is as likely as a method of change as compared to the fire method above.
It has been shown historically that the government is terrible at choosing technologies for the future. Most of the time they fail. The best method is to negatively impact the methods financially (increase costs) to make alternatives cheaper. Americans are great at finding ways to make/save money. It is a large driver for most of us, lets exploit this fact.