Jen Psaki- "The only way to protect the US over the long term is to become energy independent. That is why the President is so focused on deploying clean energy technologies that don't require fossil fuels bough and sold of the open market, which will always be vulnerable to bad actors."
1. Unfortunately the vast majority of our already declining economy is dependent on fossil fuels. It seems like we'd be wanting to help the "supply chain", not make it worse.
2. How about if we focus on developing the fossil fuel resources that don't relay on other countries?
3. How about if we acknowledge that there is zero chance that the US can have all of our energy needs supplied by "clean energy technologies" in the near/mid future.
"Biden's advisors are discussing a possible visit to Saudi Arabia this spring to help repair relations and convince the Kingdom to pump more oil."
Excellent plan. By all means lets put more of our energy needs in the hands of a regime that has a horrible record on human rights, oppresses all sorts of protected classes, and that is a hotbed of the Wahhabi sect of Islam. That's definitely the best option.
I realize that the Keystone pipeline isn't a magic bullet, and that US producers can't immediately start pumping oil out of US soil fast enough to put a quick stop the our current crisis. But we can stop buying Russian oil, start prioritizing US production and US producers, and take other steps to solve our energy crisis long term. Supporting dictators and despots just seems like the wrong strategy to me.
In a related note, it looks like fertilizer prices are going up taking crop prices along with them. Again, maybe it'd be a better idea to be more self sufficient, rather than to rely on countries that aren't aligned with the US. I suspect that this is one more instance of the US outsourcing the production of products that are bad for the environment to other countries, which leaves us vulnerable to this exact scenario.
The Biden inflation (tax on the poor) just keeps getting worse.
34 comments:
But Craig. I was given ten reasons why Biden was a better choice than Trump, who did much to make us energy independent without prohibiting the development of alternative sources of energy, which to date have proven less than worth the time and money.
Art,
I'm sure you were. I suspect that 9 of the 10 failures will be Trump's fault, while the other will be Putin's. Just like Obama, I suspect that no one will ever give Biden the responsibility for his failures.
Fortunately, it's highly likely that the GOP will wrest control of at least one house of congress back and be able to actually be a part of the conversations and have some power to wield.
Let's hope they wield it for a change and in a manner which is actually conservative and aligned with the US Constitution...but I repeat myself.
I agree that it would be nice for the GOP to move away from their leftward slide and back to their base.
Craig... "I realize that the Keystone pipeline isn't a magic bullet, and that US producers can't immediately start pumping oil out of US soil fast enough to put a quick stop the our current crisis. "
I'm wondering if you also know that any potential Keystone oil is not for sale in the US? That US refineries are generally set up for a different kind of oil (less "sweet crude oil") that would come from Keystone?
I also wonder if you know that oil prices are set internationally so pumping more oil from Keystone wouldn't necessarily reduce the price?
The point being is that there are a lot of moving parts and it's a complex matter.
I also wonder why, if you want to be more energy independent - a lofty goal, to be sure - you're not mentioning renewables and simply reducing how much energy we consume?
Reducing energy consumption is something we can do, in theory, immediately and have relatively positive and quick effects. I imagine you know that, right?
Of course, that means lifestyle changes and less consumptive life patterns, but that's a good thing, right?
Moving away/becoming less dependent on plastics and petroleum products would make a big dent on the problem.
Do you think that we have a relatively (extremely?) hedonistic/consumptive lifestyle and that this may not be the healthiest or most Christian or reasonable way to live?
https://justenergy.com/blog/understanding-energy-conservation-and-its-many-benefits/
GOP's "Leftward slide..."?
Good God, you fellas are funny!
"I'm wondering if you also know that any potential Keystone oil is not for sale in the US? That US refineries are generally set up for a different kind of oil (less "sweet crude oil") that would come from Keystone?"
Interesting that you'd make this sort of claim, yet offer no proof. Even if your unsupported claim is True, then why wouldn't increasing the ability of US refiners to handle other grades of crude oil be be problematic.
"I also wonder if you know that oil prices are set internationally so pumping more oil from Keystone wouldn't necessarily reduce the price?"
Oil is a commodity and commodity prices are set (to some degree) by the market. Even if this is 100% true, then why should the US not be moving away from buying oil from countries that are hostile to us? The issue isn't so much the pricing of oil, but where US producers choose to purchase oil from.
"The point being is that there are a lot of moving parts and it's a complex matter."
Thanks for stating the obvious. The point being made is more about purchasing oil from countries that are US allies (or domestic sources) instead of countries that are hostile to us.
"I also wonder why, if you want to be more energy independent - a lofty goal, to be sure - you're not mentioning renewables and simply reducing how much energy we consume?"
1. Because "renewables" are, at best, a future solution.
2. Because "renewables" (especially those reliant on batteries) require other elements that are primarily found in countries less then friendly to the US.
3. Because "renewables" aren't going to deal with the current situation.
4. Because "renewables" are more of a political discussion at this point.
5. Because, that's not the topic of this post.
"Reducing energy consumption is something we can do, in theory, immediately and have relatively positive and quick effects. I imagine you know that, right?"
Really? That's quite a claim. That we can reduce consumption and prices, while not encountering any other negative affects on the broader economy. Please provide proof of this aastounding claim.
"Of course, that means lifestyle changes and less consumptive life patterns, but that's a good thing, right?"
Not necessarily. It sounds like you have a problem with progress or something.
"Moving away/becoming less dependent on plastics and petroleum products would make a big dent on the problem."
In theory, potentially. Of course, in the absence of a similarly effective, similarly inexpensive, similarly available product(s) might make a dent. Of course, the lack of alternatives might pose a problem with this hunch.
"Do you think that we have a relatively (extremely?) hedonistic/consumptive lifestyle and that this may not be the healthiest or most Christian or reasonable way to live?"
I have no idea what your standard for this. I guess removing people's freedom to make decisions abut their lifestyle and choices is one option.
Maybe if so many of the folx who prate on about these sorts of environmental issues actually lived by the standards they want to impose on others, I'd take y'all seriously.
Craig... "Really? That's quite a claim. That we can reduce consumption and prices, while not encountering any other negative affects on the broader economy. Please provide proof of this aastounding claim."
It's an obvious reality. The person who is an alcoholic and drinks 10 bottles of bourbon a day CAN reduce his dependence on alcohol IF he reduces his drinks down to ONE bottle of bourbon a day.
The Nation that is addicted to hyperconsumption and fossil fuels CAN reduce their dependence on fossil fuels IF they reduce their consumption by, say, half.
That we're addicted a harmful lifestyle is not evidence that we CAN'T reduce... just that, in our hedonism, we may not want to.
Funny how hard you can be on drug addicts but seem to want to give a pass to the much more harmful fossil fuels and hedonism addictions we have.
+++++
" Even a small change can make a tremendous difference – if every American household traded in just one incandescent light bulb for an efficient CFL, the reduction in pollution would be equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the road."
https://www.saveonenergy.com/green-energy/save-energy-go-green/
"As a whole, Americans plugin, switch on, and use up an average of 12, 071 kWh per capita, which is 9,397 more kWh than the world average..."
https://greenheart.org/blog/greenheart-international/6-ways-to-reduce-your-energy-consumption-standing-with-the-environment/
Craig... "because "rewnewables" (why the scare quotes?) are a future solution"
"The US can reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035, dependably and without increasing consumer bills"
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/faculty-and-impact/news/recent-news/the-us-can-reach-90-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-dependably-and-without-increasing-consumer-bills
https://www.saveonenergy.com/green-energy/save-energy-go-green/
Renewable energy is ALWAYS a future solution so long as conservatives and others don't start promoting it and getting behind it. If we'd really pursued Green energy back when Carter was president, we'd be much further along... maybe have even reached that solution long ago. The problem? Conservatives keep blocking this progress.
Are you opposed to progress?
Speaking of...
Craig... " It sounds like you have a problem with progress or something."
? Not at all. Green energy solutions ARE progress. Of course.
And yes, materials for batteries are something to take into account. As wise folk have noted in the past: We must always count the costs. But the point is clear: The costs of fossil fuel addictions are high and deadly and dangerous. Those costs need to be counted, as well.
And those are precisely the ones that conservatives tend to constantly downplay while fighting for the status quo.
You know, I reckon, that fossil fuels are not a biblical mandate?
Craig... "I have no idea what your standard for this. I guess removing people's freedom to make decisions abut their lifestyle and choices is one option."
1. I never said anything about "removing someone's freedom."
2. On the other hand, if someone has a car that emits a shit-load of toxic smoke and fumes every drive, those people ARE removing other people's freedom to simply be outside around them and breathe, you know, clean air and stuff.
3. We do, in a free republic commonwealth, make trade-offs in our liberties as it relates to living with other people. We may WANT to run around in a crowded room twirling a large sharp sword around and yelling "FREEDOM!" but the potential for harm would tell us we can limit such "liberty."
ANY time a behavior or practice causes potential significant harm (drunk driving, toxic fumes, two ton hunks of metal and plastic and explosives hurtling down streets where pedestrians and bicyclists exist), we can reasonably put limitations on that behavior. You agree, don't you?
As to what standard we use? Health, liberty, freedom, human rights, concern for the traditionally oppressed and marginalized and for the sick. There may be no perfect standard for what limits and regulations are reasonable - think of drinking and driving? Is ONE beer acceptable? Or 8 ounces of rum in an hour? Is .08% BAC the "right" measure? There simply is no definitive "right" answer - but we should strive to have reasonable limitations in place for the sake of the commonwealth and others besides our own selfish selves.
I think the drinking and driving model or speed limits are both actually good examples. While there is no one perfect answer, we still should have SOME reasonable regulations and limitations in place. I suspect you agree, but you can tell me.
Craig... "I have no idea what your standard for this."
How about: DO unto others as you'd have them do unto you...?
Craig... "In theory, potentially. Of course, in the absence of a similarly effective, similarly inexpensive, similarly available product(s) might make a dent. Of course, the lack of alternatives might pose a problem with this hunch."
But we have alternatives.
Mass transit.
Walking and bicycling.
Living in smaller circles.
Buying more local.
Smaller homes and more fuel efficient cars.
Electric cars.
Solar, hydro and wind energies.
These are ALL existing options today. The problems associated with them (while real and to be taken into account) are largely policy problems. We simply haven't made it a matter of policy (again, largely thanks to the GOP and Dems with money coming to them from fossil fuel industries and others) to encourage these healthier options and discourage less healthy options.
And we don't even have to reach 100% fossil fuel free. If we were to get 75.. 90%! less fossil fuel dependency... what does that do to the cost of oil? Remember your capitalist market principles: Reduced demand means reduced costs. Or, more officially:
"It's a fundamental economic principle that
when supply exceeds demand for a good or service,
prices fall.
When demand exceeds supply,
prices tend to rise.")
So, just reducing and not eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels can have the added benefit of reducing the costs so that those areas where "green" solutions are not as easy (transporting goods, for instance), the price can potentially be lower.
Making a dent, matters. Maybe if conservatives would be actually interested in conserving and protecting this good Creation of God's and join with more progressive and (I think) rational folks on this issue, we could make a difference. There's no reason for us to be on separate "sides" on this matter. It's a mutually beneficial idea that should be a-political.
As is becoming more common lately, you've chosen to take this post off topic.
The point of the post is that it seems strange that Biden, in his quest for "energy independence" is focusing most/all of his energies in buying oil from states that are either less then friendly to the US, or have horrible records of human rights abuses. Instead of focusing his primary efforts toward US producers and countries that aren't as likely to use our oil imports to harm us.
It's not about exploring every possible option for the mid/long term future. It's not even about the Keystone pipeline being the best option. It's about an administration that seems focused on continuing to outsource our energy needs.
The very notion that the US should rely on local supplies for our critical needs shouldn't be controversial. The fact that you've piled assumption on assumption on your way to driving off topic, isn't surprising.
Craig... "in his quest for "energy independence" is focusing most/all of his energies in buying oil from states that are either less then friendly to the US, or have horrible records of human rights abuses. Instead of focusing his primary efforts toward US producers..."
Is this a factual reality or just how it seems to you?? I've seen an awful lot o f effort from Biden in the category of US renewable energies.
Do you have any links or data that explain why it seems that way to you?
"It's an obvious reality. The person who is an alcoholic and drinks 10 bottles of bourbon a day CAN reduce his dependence on alcohol IF he reduces his drinks down to ONE bottle of bourbon a day."
That's not proof, just a bad analogy. Of course we can drastically restructure our entire economy based on pipe dreams about what might happen in the future, but there are still costs to that massive restructuring.
"The Nation that is addicted to hyperconsumption and fossil fuels CAN reduce their dependence on fossil fuels IF they reduce their consumption by, say, half."
With absolutely zero negative effect on our economy? that's quite a claim. Who decides what "hyperconsumption" is, and who decided that it was automatically a bad thing in all circumstances?
"Funny how hard you can be on drug addicts but seem to want to give a pass to the much more harmful fossil fuels and hedonism addictions we have."
Apples and oranges on multiple levels. I can point out the positive effects of the availability of relatively inexpensive energy and it's benefits to the US economy.
Can you outline the benefits of drug addiction?
"The problem? Conservatives keep blocking this progress."
Blame the conservatives.
"Are you opposed to progress?"
Not when it won't cause massive disruptions in the economy.
"You know, I reckon, that fossil fuels are not a biblical mandate?"
Strangely enough, I never even hinted that they were. Of course fossil fuels are something that occurs naturally in the earth created by YHWH, so maybe they're like every other created thing. But, it's an incredibly stupid question.
1. Not in so many words. Yet the only way to limit "hyperconsumerism" is to limit people's choices, is it not? The only way to stop the use of gas/diesel cars is to limit the ability of people to choose them or to offer an option that performs equally without a significantly higher cost.
2. Perhaps this hypothetical person can't afford a $60,000 electric car, where the pollution is simply relocated, not eliminated. Perhaps this hypothetical person also can't afford $5/gal gasoline. Perhaps this hypothetical person should be coerced into public transportation or forced to ride a bike. Perhaps they should be riding a burro. It's great for you to decree that this hypothetical person should be denied their choice of automobile, because you definitely know what's better for everyone.
3. Red herring.
"You agree, don't you?"
Don't you me limiting certain options out of existence?
"As to what standard we use?"
So you can't articulate a standard that eliminates/severely reduces fossil fuels while not devastating our economy. Simply throwing out random terms, isn't a standard, it's a list.
In case you've missed it, the US has had increasingly restrictive limits on fossil fuels for decades. Strangely enough, we've managed to meet these limits and have seen significant improvements in virtually all measurements of quality, while maintaining an economy that supports 330,000,000,000 people along with the millions of people who keep trying to get in. But let's raise the cost of living by 20% and see what happens to the folx on the lower end of the income scale.
"How about: DO unto others as you'd have them do unto you...?"
Other than it's seeming lack of relevance to the subject of Biden's repeated attempts to find energy sources anywhere but in the US, and his focus on countries that aren't friendly to the US and have horrible human rights records.
"But we have alternatives.
Mass transit.
Walking and bicycling.
Living in smaller circles.
Buying more local.
Smaller homes and more fuel efficient cars.
Electric cars.
Solar, hydro and wind energies."
Since I was responding to your claim about getting rid of plastics, I fail to see how these are alternatives to petroleum based packaging materials.
1. Mass transit limits the freedom of people to choose where they live. Mass transit is old technology, not progress. Mass transit doesn't get things like bread to stores.
2. Walking and bicycling are incredibly limited in their ability to move people from place to place over med/long distances. I'm sure the Somali mom with 7 kids is going to buy into loading them all up on her bicycle to go to the park.
3. Because piling people on top of one another in densely populated urban areas has been so successful. Again, what about people's freedom to choose where they live? What about self determination? Who gets to decide what these limits are, and impose them? What about the massive amount of energy expended in making such massive changes to existing infrastructure? Where are you planning to come up with the millions of housing units that we need, while simultaneously rearranging the population?
4. Interesting thought. Perhaps every locality should be able to source all of the wants and needs of the population withing a 10 mile radius. If buying local is so wonderful, why is Biden determined to not buy local when it comes to our energy needs? Why support regimes that fail to live up to basic protections of human rights?
5. Energy efficiency has made great strides in the past decades. Why should we limit people's freedom of choice in regards to what size house they can afford or what size car they can afford? Isn't freedom of choice a good thing?
5. Because absolutely nothing in "electric cars" causes harm to the environment in it's acquisition. Because electricity magically appears with zero environmental impact. Because batteries are nasty to manufacture/nasty to get rid of and expensive to replace.
6. As supplements, those are fine. Although the bird population might be at risk. They take up massive amounts of land. They aren't reliable, or don't always function depending on conditions. They materials used in manufacturing cause environmental damage. None of the mechanisms for those options are infinite and they aren't particularly environmentally friendly to dispose of. They rely on batteries, which are environmentally nasty and old technology.
The problems with all of those is that they can't meet existing demand, nor can they provide alternatives for our current supply chain. What is the benefit of upending an entire economy without having the ability to replace the capacity?
4.
Reducing the "demand" for fossil fuels without being able to replace them with an equally effective and equally cost effective replacement doesn't really help anything does it.
The problem with your supply and demand point is that we don't have the means to replace the parts of our economy that are reliant on oil, and to maintain the same level of economic activity as we currently have.
In the case of our current oil situation, we have the ability to supply much more of our needs than we are currently accessing. Biden is intent on increasing our supply by becoming more reliant on foreign sources, not domestic. In doing so he's benefiting countries that are hostile to the US, and supporting governments that oppress their citizens.
I know that focusing on the current situation, and Biden's current pursuit of oil from these countries, might be problematic for you as a Biden apologist. But that's the topic of this post. Increasing our domestic supply will bring down costs, and help the environment by reducing the amount of fuel needed to ship oil to the US.
I guess this whole "local sourcing" thing doesn't apply when the commodity is vital for our nation and our economy. It's much more important to prop up oppressive governments instead of growing US economic activity.
The point of the post is still not throwing out any possible future energy source to see what sticks. It's pointing out Biden's current policy intended to make the US more dependent on energy sources from countries that oppose the US or that are oppressive.
That's it.
A. I haven't seen no support from you that Biden is currently actively seeking oil only oil only from other countries.
B. Green energy sources are NOT "future energy sources." They're here and now.
C. Reducing consumption, likewise, is a here and now option.
D. Green energy options ARE, by design, local options.
These are what I'm hearing Biden promote, only to face unending opposition from the GOP.
E. I haven't read anything from economists and other experts that suggest switching to Green energy is something that will harm the economy. Do you have any support for that claim? Or is it just something you're afraid will happen... like buggy drivers and whale oil people were afraid about when progress threatened their jobs?
And just in case I wasn't clear enough, when you say...
" pointing out Biden's current policy intended to make the US more dependent on energy sources from countries that oppose the US or that are oppressive."
...WHERE has this administration said this is their intention or what they're doing?
Because I suspect this is another stupidly false conservative claim.
Dang it. Lost a comment.
The short of it was: When counting the costs, we need to try to count ALL the costs. Historically, fossil fuels have been appealing because the price for them was artificially cheap. The true costs were borne by taxpayers and by the poor and those in poor health and those otherwise marginalized.
I had several links, but here's the last one I still have handy...
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/true-cost-gasoline-15-gallon/26284/
Unfortunately, the video appears to be "broken" in that link, but the info is still there.
Here's the missing video in that last link...
https://youtu.be/6RhYY_4Wzls
https://fortune.com/2022/03/09/biden-saudi-arabia-venezuela-oil-energy-prices-russia-ukraine/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/07/white-house-oil-deals-saudi-arabia-venezuela-iran-00014803
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/politics/joe-biden-saudi-arabia-venezuela-iran-russia-oil/index.html
A. Then maybe you should pay attention to current events as covered by the news media. Instead of asking for clarification, you chose to ignore the topic and follow your ignorance down other off topic paths.
B. But they can't replace the energy sources that our economy relies on. Certainly not as efficiently and inexpensively. But, this is off the actual topic.
C. Off topic, and irrelevant. Unable to replace the energy sources our economy relies on.
D. Then you are selectively listening to Biden's policies.
E. Common sense would indicate that there are sectors of our economy that would cease to function without fossil fuels. Further, the capacity to generate enough electricity to power our current needs does not exist with "renewables", let alone enough to charge all these "electric vehicles".
The problem with you off topic ramblings is that they aren't solutions. They're hopes and dreams. As with any significant change, it'll be gradual and take time.
Hell, Elon Musk who has much to gain from the increased sale of electric cars (and who's significantly more informed than you) agrees that we still need petroleum to drive our economy.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-tsla-elon-musk-oil-production-prices-51646580215
If given the choice, I'll trust Musk over Dan any day.
Again, had I known you were so ignorant of Biden's desperate bids to buy more oil from despots and oppressors, I'd have spoon fed you that information sooner. I assumed that you paid attention to current events.
Hell Biden had to be pressured into stopping oil purchases from Russia after their invasion of Ukraine.
This notion that the dollars that the US spends on oil should be going to other countries before our own country is frankly bizarre. That's not to say that purchasing foreign oil might not be necessary, but it shoudl certainly be the second option.
Craig... "This notion that the dollars that the US spends on oil should be going to other countries before our own country is frankly bizarre."
" pointing out Biden's current policy intended to make the US more dependent on energy sources from countries that oppose the US or that are oppressive."
...WHERE has this administration said this is their intention or what they're doing?
I ask, because I'm saying this is a stupidly false claim. One that you can't support. I can't find it anywhere, and that's almost certainly because it doesn't exist. Biden and his administration have NOT said any of this... these are YOUR words, not his. It is again, a stupidly, stupidly false claim.
Show me that I'm wrong.
Also, just speaking from a rational point of view, the GOP can't continually block progressive solutions for sustainable energy policy (as has happened since 1976 or so) and then at the same time and say, "no! we need a solution that can be fixed in the NEXT WEEK!"
That's childish of the GOP and irrational, as well. Green energy should not be a conservative, liberal disagreement. We all need more green energy solutions.
Fossil fuels are not sustainable, are benefitting from artificially deflated prices that are being paid for by the poor and the taxpayers and the sick. And with anthropogenic climate change and the devastation it's causing, we just can't afford to keep Towing the fossil fuel industry line for them. Progressives and conservatives and everyone in between needs to come together for workable solutions.
But continually having policies that will predictably result in crises and then say, we need a solution NOW, while continually working against the reasonable solution that was promoted 50 years ago, that's just nuts.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/596990-elon-musk-us-needs-to-increase-oil-gas-production-immediately
"...WHERE has this administration said this is their intention or what they're doing?"
Who knows what their intentions are. The reality is that buying more oil from foreign sources (especially those who are less than friendly/despots/corrupt/oppressive) will not help the US become energy independent regardless of intentions. I understand that intentions are more important than results, but still.
"Also, just speaking from a rational point of view, the GOP can't continually block progressive solutions for sustainable energy policy (as has happened since 1976 or so) and then at the same time and say, "no! we need a solution that can be fixed in the NEXT WEEK!"
1. This assumes that "progressive solutions" are automatically better than all other solutions, which is unproven.
2. I'm sorry, are "progressives" being excluded from the free market? Are they being prevented from investing in companies that produce those solutions? Are there laws against these "solutions"? Have any of those "solutions" been demonstrated to be as effective/affordable as our current situation?
3. Who specifically (names/links/quotes) is saying that this needs to be fixed by "NEXT WEEK!"?
Again, virtual silence on Biden's current policies, just more "blame the GOP".
FYI, the oil reserves in the US (existing and projected) appear to be sufficient for near and mid term needs.
Your assumption that I am suggesting that we NOT pursue "green" energy is blatantly wrong and seems to be based on your biases and prejudices. But it you can't correctly articulate my position, nor acknowledge that Biden's current policy supports oppressive governments, I can't help your choosing blindness over sight.
Craig... "Your assumption that I am suggesting that we NOT pursue "green" energy is blatantly wrong and seems to be based on your biases."
Sigh. Where precisely did I say You are suggesting we should not pursue green energy? Cite the quote.
Of course, you can't because I didn't say that. You continue to read and not understand and proceed to make proclamations that are therefore stupidly false.
What I have said is that the GOP has observably blocked green energy progress for decades. That is the reality. That's on you and your party.
"Cite the quote."
If you're not going to "cite the quote", why would I submit to your demand that I do what you won't?
The fact that you've chosen to spend significant time prating about these "green" "solutions" you claim exist, would seem to indicate that you have concluded that I am unaware of them or don't support them. So it's not one particular quote, rather the preponderance of your responses that are avoiding Biden's current actions, and focusing on "suggestions" of dubious utility in our current situation.
"What I have said is that the GOP has observably blocked green energy progress for decades. That is the reality. That's on you and your party."
One more unsupported claim.
"1. This assumes that "progressive solutions" are automatically better than all other solutions, which is unproven.
2. I'm sorry, are "progressives" being excluded from the free market? Are they being prevented from investing in companies that produce those solutions? Are there laws against these "solutions"? Have any of those "solutions" been demonstrated to be as effective/affordable as our current situation?
3. Who specifically (names/links/quotes) is saying that this needs to be fixed by "NEXT WEEK!"?
Again, virtual silence on Biden's current policies, just more "blame the GOP"."
I'm sure that it was a mere oversight that caused you to avoid the questions, and your continued silence on Biden's current policies.
I'm going to make a suggestion. How about if you deal with Biden's current policies of begging despots, oppressors, and our foes, to sell us oil, and explain why you are better equipped to hold forth on our need for oil than Elon Musk. After that you can spout whatever you want, and provide all the evidence that the US economy can abruptly make the sorts of shifts you advocate without damage to the economy and a loss of opacity.
Craig... "How about if you deal with Biden's current policies of begging despots, oppressors, and our foes, to sell us oil,"
I'm unaware that this is a reality.
How about if, just for ONCE, you support your vague and outlandish claims because, frankly, you have a credibility problem. Most of modern conservatism does, because you all are making one sick, twisted stupidly false and unsupported claim after another! Did you SEE the sick performance of the GOP the last two days in their insane interrogations of a well-qualified judge for SCOTUS? There's going to be a special place in hell for deviants like Graham, Cruz, et al.
Dan,
I've given you the links, you're smart enough to use Google, you claim to watch the news, if you're unaware of Biden going to the Saudi's, Venezuela, and the like to buy oil I just can't help you.
This is a great example of your willful ignorance, when you believe it'll help you. You've ignored the point of the post, and my comments trying to keep you focused on the topic of the post, for 30+ comments. You like the fact that as long as you remain ignorant, you can pretend like things don't exist.
Post a Comment