Cleantech deniers -- you know, the "small government" guys who get paid by the fossil fuel lobby -- don't like to talk about the reality of the massive amount of taxpayer-funded welfare flowing into the fossil fuel industry's overflowing coffers.
America has a choice to make. We can stand by and watch energy companies industrialize our beloved landscapes. Or we can create smart safeguards that hold companies accountable for pollution and put sensitive places off limits.
Existing government energy and emissions policies are often based on misconceptions that lead to ineffective or even counterproductive outcomes. The contradictions in policy belie the poverty of analysis and overabundance of ideology that have gone into crafting them.
The days of the Commodity Exchanges functioning as casinos should be brought to a cataclysmic halt by forceful government action serving the interests of the public's well-being and sane economic policy.
Inglis's point of view about getting rid of all energy subsidies has hit a supportive chord with many. Yet others in the Republican Party consistently continue to define climate change as an elitist hoax, junk science with a lack of evidence, or part of God's plan.
To climate change deniers, the president simply said this: "We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society." But strong words are one thing. Strong action is what's needed -- and that's where the president's new strategy for confronting carbon pollution comes up short.
Touted at first as being clean and efficient, it was supposed to become a legitimate replacement for energy-producing substances like coal and oil. It was the solution America needed to foreign oil imports.
Is that the ultimate aim of the Obama administration? To continue to extract natural gas and risk producing methane, which will continue to contribute to global warming, even though our domestic need for it might plummet, so that it can exported?