>>“renewable energy”.
>>“human rights”
>>Those are two very politically correct concerns.
I’m not defending Cook because I know what a hypocrite he is (i.e. a liberal capitalist pursuing the “socialism for thee, lots of money for me” agenda).
But, renewable energy and human rights should be a concern for all. The problem with those two noble goals is how they are used. Renewable energy should be an ADDITION to an energy portfolio, not a mandatory replacement for cheap and abundant hydrocarbon power. Likewise, human rights ceases to be human rights when it is used to steal from one people (steal their money, rights, land, national sovereignty, etc) to give to another people.
In the long run nuclear power will be the energy source of choice. There’s just so much energy locked in nuclei of atoms either smaller than helium or heavier than iron which are so readily available. But, perhaps, not U235. . .The example of the hydrogen bomb shows that fusion power is possible; it’s just a matter of time (a century at most, presumably) till fusion power is economical. It seems that there is no difficulty bridging the gap from now to then with natural gas.And when I say, “no difficulty,” I include environmental concerns. The extraction and combustion of coal and hydrocarbons by mankind in the past couple of centuries has produced an increase in the small concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has set the clock of carbon sequestration in limestone back two million years, saving life on earth from eventual carbon dioxide starvation. Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?