Obama's Energy Policy
Furthermore if the huge sums of money were not being spent on directing climate science and padding their pockets, there might be for some a much better use of those funds in say opening up transportation to more innovation.
Traffic and all of the pollution emissions are of concern to any city center. Even getting government out of the transportation business is a good idea. In the San Francisco area there are several government agencies that pay incredibly high salaries and seem to have little eye open for innovation that is outside their previous attempts. Take BART the rapid transit train for instance; their clamoring for more funds to do maintenance is quite persistent. They could be incentivizing private local companies to be good street transportation as feeders to BART.
SF is locked with no chance to create new freeways to increase in and out flow. Cars jam and what do they do? Thwart Uber’s driverless car testing by not working with the company, but giving into the regulators concerns rather than trying to solve an obvious problem. The list goes on.
Posted on November 14, 2016 by tonyheller
http://realclimatescience.com/
These are the words of a madman, a societal saboteur. No one in their right mind would think or say anything like that. Sane energy policy requires low cost, abundant, reliable energy. It also requires that we stop wasting our reserves of hydrocarbon based fuels.
The picture above is not a sane way to live. Spending huge amounts of time stuck in traffic jams, wasting fuel and generating pollution. Government should undertake a massive influx of spending on mass transit, and start promoting working remotely and other technologies which reduce traffic and improve health and quality of life. We could probably reduce fuel usage by 50% and improve quality of life at the same time. I do almost all of my local transport by bicycle and mass transit, and it is fabulous. I would never go back to using a car. I can do this because Boulder, Colorado has spent a lot of money creating the necessary infrastructure.
This is what government should be focusing on, not trying to push a 100% fraudulent climate agenda. In the 1960’s and 1970’s I worked hard to get the Clean Air Act passed, as a quality of life issue. We put electrostatic precipitators on our coal plants in the US, and made our air clean. By contrast, the Obama White House has helped keep the Chinese people breathing filthy air – by focusing on non-pollutant CO2 instead of actual pollutants which could have been cleaned up at minimal cost.
The global warming scam has been the most destructive thing to ever happen to the environmental movement, which I have been active in my entire life.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
