I'll be surprised if David Brooks keeps writing OpEds for the NY Times.
We have more than a century to get alternative energy right without unwarranted subsidies! Coal, thorium, fusion, etc., who knows?
I’m surprised he could take his eyes off Obama’s trousers long enough study shale gas.
I’m confused. Where is the angle? NY Times?
Wait! Shale gas endangers the “Green Energy Industry”? That’s bad. No. That’s good. Right?
He said we should do more and not squander this opportunity. What does that mean?!!!
I am missing where he demonizes all fossil fuels and talks about the end of the world because of MMGW.
(I am making an appointment with my shrink)
Why does this have to be an “either/or” situation ?
TBS the U.S. has vast gas reserves! But electricity is the most convenient and distributable power we have. Why not develop cleaner and more applicable nuclear power to provide - not only our own citizens - but the world community with abundant electrical power whose design forstalls any “weaponization” of its fuel ?
And why not use that “gas bonanza” to power motor vehicles in urban areas ? Or provide fertilizer to crop lands to create more food ? >PS
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Yeah. Democrats have to be pressured to be against domestic fuel. </sarcasm>
Interesting thread bump. Thanks for the read.