by mos6507 » Wed 16 Mar 2011, 11:50:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fishman', 'H')ow do we cut back with peak oil in our face? Posts like "See, the rethugs would like SS to be cut" indicate how clueless the left faces peak oil.
The problem is partisans focus only on one side's failings in dealing with peak oil, not their own side's problems. The Republicans have no solution to peak oil besides drill, baby, drill, which is basically a denialist stance because that rhetoric is accompanied by layman talk about how we have "plenty" of domestic supply.
The reason the Republican approach is worse than the Dems is that it starts from the oft-quoted vantage point of 'the American way of life is non-negotiable'. If that's the case, then we're probably headed for Mad Max and WWIII. Is that where you think we should go? That's the least objectionable outcome?
The Democratic approach is technofix, EPA, pollution controls, trains rather than happy individual motoring. It's restrictive, and that's what gets conservative's goats. But guess what? Ecologically speaking,
restraint is what we NEED. You may not like it. You may classify it as socialism/communism. You may say it violates the constitution. But that's what the planet needs. It needs people to pollute less, consume less. It needs companies to be forced to clean up, even if it means it raises their overhead. It means pricing externalities into the things we buy.
That's why it's the lesser of two evils.