[nmap]

Sigaba, thank you for a fascinating and cogent analysis.

Your views about the development of national policy, and the significance of previous doctrine is illuminating to say the least. As I observe the POTUS, I'm inclined to agree that he is not actually a socialist. Rather, he is a proponent of increased control. Furthermore, he uses the language of socialism both to gain a specific group of supporters and to facilitate his goals of increased governmental control. Parenthetically, I would add that the implementation of controls over carbon emissions strikes me as a remarkably effective way to insinuate government control into essentially every transaction within the society.

I do not doubt the validity of your idea that the POTUS desires prosperity, and will seek to obtain this through promotion of the green collar industries you mention. That said, I have deep reservations about the efficacy of such a transition. People are fond of green technology, but careful analysis of the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is notably absent. Just as corn ethanol proved to be an ineffective approach to energy independence, due to the adverse energy balance, I suspect attributes of wind and solar power, is well as other alternatives, will likewise prove to be flawed. In the cases of both wind and solar, fluctuating supply necessitates significant storage. Although some proponents of the smart-grid technology suggests that extensive use of plug-in hybrid vehicles will result in the public supplying the needed storage capacity through the batteries of their vehicles, I have a suspicion this represents more of a hope that of a careful analysis.

Unlike the preceding, nuclear power offers the ability to maintain the base supply during all times and conditions. There are those who suggest that the supply of uranium is essentially limitless, and could be efficiently extracted from seawater. On the other hand, nuclear reactors require significant quantities of materials which in turn must be extracted and hence require significant energy investments. However, without an extensive analysis - which I have never seen - my preliminary opinion is that nuclear power is probably the best interim measure to defer significant adverse consequences.

In essence, I agree with your analysis of the grand strategy pursued by the current administration. However, I suspect they will find that their strategy has an internal flaw, and that they cannot accomplish their end goal. Therefore, the question becomes how they will react. I suspect they will pursue greater control, and enforced sacrifice and restrictions. Again, this may feel very much like socialism, with labels that strongly suggest such an affinity. But I agree with you, the POTUS is not really pursuing a socialist agenda. I think he is pursuing control and power, either for himself or more likely for his backers.