Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
Read you post again - the part I quoted.
That reads to be against something because if you do it they will use more, needing more, requiring more. So to stop it we make them do with less.
Energy should be an "all fronts" battle but far too many want the fight to be someplace else.
|
I'm sorry Pete, I think we talked past each other there. We agree. I don't want people to use less. I'm an American too. My wife drives an SUV.
I mentioned to TR a few posts ago that putting all of our energy eggs in one basket doesn't seem to be the answer - no matter the basket. They all have drawbacks or limited resources that will put us back in this same scenario in the future. With Nuclear, it's waste. With Wind, it's availability. With ethanol, it's space/efficiency. And on and on. The economic growth that I mentioned (the part you quoted) will happen, no matter the method, but with nuclear power, the waste will grow with it.
I'm merely suggesting that we should be looking to diversify our energy production. That way, we have built-in flexibility. If one is slacking or more efficient methods are discovered, we start flexing, rather than be painted into a corner via one solution.
And the LIBs ARE hypocrits, I agree. If you really want to see liberal at it's best, don't stop at the Democrats, look further and you'll find the only Socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders...
BTW - Did you see any legislators complaining about how "private security firms" do business when they were protecting them during legislative visits? Nope.