I didn't expect to convince you. At the end of the day, powerful, level headed people are convinced and are taking action. Again and again I have written that we need a Republican solution to this problem that will be focused on solving it with the lowest cost and disruption.
Otherwise the left is going to implement a solution that maximizes their power.
The right is dropping the ball on an issue that will come to haunt it. Of that I am convinced.
Even if you don't buy the science the momentum is such that action is not going to be avoided. Regardless, at least using less oil is good for security.
Leaving 'science' aside, your reasoning on the politics of the issue sounds uncomfortably close to acknowledging that 'we' have already lost and that 'our' only recourse is to accept defeat, but that maybe by jumping on the bandwagon we can mitigate some of the worst effects of that loss. That was the reaction of many to the supposedly unstoppable growth of worldwide Socialism and Communism, to the immigration issue, to the rise in Islamist extremism, to Democrat control of Congress, and so forth. Luckily, others have not accepted that those causes are or were lost, and this one shouldn't be surrendered easily either.
But I am going to surrender to exhaustion and get some sleep...
I disagree. Having a strong economy is the key to our security. That is how we won WWII and how we defeated the Soviet Union.
The most important thing for our economy is the use of the most economical source of energy. Right now that is oil. Doesn't matter if it comes from Saudi or Alaska or Nigeria.
No, paying for a more expensive fuel while others use a more economical one is not good for our security. Producing our own resources would be good for our security. Instead we let environmentalists and democrats hold us hostage while we fund our enemies.