View source for En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/05/08/1211

==May 8, 2009 12:11 PM - Woozle==
{{subpage}}[http://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080 Woozle] said...

You're not really answering the "how" question... do I take that answer as "I don't know how I know, but I know the right answer when I see it" kind of thing?<br><br>I'm on board for a re-analysis of what we should be doing about global warming (possibly including an investigation into the alleged problems with the scientific process which led to the allegedly overblown conclusions about GW). What I mainly object to is (1) denialism, where the same points are brought up again and again as if they hadn't already been refuted again and again, and (2) complacency -- the idea that "if it's not anthropogenic, we can go back to business as usual" rather than "if it's not anthropogenic, then we better figure out where the hell it's coming from and what the hell we can do about it".<br><br>I favor:
* intensive investment in alternative energy (especially solar), until we find a set of energy sources adequate to replace fossil fuels for most of the country's needs
* intensive investment in portable power storage (to replace gasoline -- new battery tech, hydrogen, whatever seems most promising), to be followed by investment (incentives, grants) to develop infrastructure for delivering energy via whatever new means emerges as the best alternative -- quick battery change/charge stations, for example
* a solar power satellite initiative

I can't see any good reason for supporting continued dependency on fossil fuels, no matter how conservative you are.

[http://entequilaesverdad.blogspot.com/2009/04/woozle-and-mike-debate-thread.html?showComment=1241809860000#c8206843379983282782 source]