Running Away Balloon

they fear change

so true!

Destroying the country isn't progress.

How are they destroying the country?

Who's 'they'?

I just made an observation in a general sense.

How is the country being destroyed? Judging by measurable data, it's being rebuilt.

...? Hello?

Hi.

Was waiting for your answer

I figured. I just don't want to answer it. OP's meme was stupid, so I left a stupid response in turn.

Not really, I kinda agree with him as progressive policies are literally anti-conservative and vice versa. That said, how are progressive policies destroying the country?

The disconnect is thinking that 'progressive' and 'progress' necessarily mean the same thing.

For instance, the move to entirely ban the use of fossil fuels in as short a time frame as possible is very popular amongst aggressive progressives. Is that reasonable? Why shortchange ourselves while renewables are still nascent technologies?

For that matter, why ban fossils anyways? IMO, we should determine about how many tons of emissions our environment can absorb annually and set our emissions cap there, provided the balance needed by society can be filled with renewables and nuclear power. Cap and trade programs are already very effective at efficiently managing emissions, and if earth isn't being stressed by more emissions than it can manage then there is no harm in using fossil fuels.

It only costs us our national forests, poisons our water and our air.

What's your take on fracking, do you think that it's safe, too? I bet some people with black lung would disagree with your assessment about the "insignificance" of these problems. Or shoreline cities that suffer oil spills.

Let's not forget how you have to tear up the land in order to mine for fossil fuels. In another post, you mentioned how it was very important that we not get involved in wars with other countries. Yet, oil is one of the primary reasons we get in wars in the first place, and now this cause for war is now insignificant?

Sure, fossil fuels may be plentiful in their limited supply. The notion that you're arguing against going *beyond* net zero is ridiculous as there isn't anything beyond net zero. The Right often cites AOC's "Green New Deal" as unachievable, taking the proposal literally. Which, that's the point. Of course it's impossible. It's meant to be. The reason being is that in a congress who would rather find countless reasons to say "no" instead of trying to find ways to say "yes" you have to make extreme proposals so smaller ones will be more likely to succeed. Even AOC acknowledges this. The sooner we can develop cheaper, more sustainable renewable energy, the better off our economy will be. Refueling your car will be much cheaper than it is now, the logistics will be safer of transporting such fuels, and it'll be better for the environment as a whole.

In all of the renewable energy companies and corporations seizing this market, you know who owns the top ten businesses who are netting the most profit from renewable energy? Yep. China.

China is seizing and controlling that market. If we don't start making that switch ourselves, we will be even deeper under China's thumb as they will dominate the market leaving us in the dust and fulfilling the self-doom prophecy of the right wing that China is taking over the world; they're taking over the world because we refuse to adapt because of conservative policies.

I'm literally packing the truck for a weeklong camping trip, but will return in one week and explain to you the various ways in which you've seemingly failed to comprehend what I'm trying to say. Until then, take it easy.

Regardless of the perceived detriment, it's still progress as fossil fuels are in limited quantity and not sustainable. Wars are being fought over them, and if one's concern is being involved in foreign wars, we should remove the cause for such war.

Those problems are all insignificant though. Sure, fossil fuels are either limited in quantity or renew so slowly that they're not sustainable, but they're cheaply accessed and in plentiful supply. There's no reason to entirely destroy the markets and livelihoods built up around them when smart policy would allow us to continue usage while not impacting the environment in any way. As far as wars being fought over them, nobody is going to mess with the U.S now or in the foreseeable future if we maintain military superiority over the rest of the globe. Using our own domestic fossil fuels, reserves of which are astonishingly massive, would incentivise no global conflict whatsoever.

Any "progress" beyond net zero emissions undertaken before we're legitimately out of fossil fuels is fearmongering and pandering to ignorance on the part of the populace as to how we impact our environment.

Back now and responding again to what you noted below. In short, I'd advise you read up on environmentally-friendly extraction of fossil resources. Nowhere did I say we should frack and strip-mine our way to energy-independence. As I've mentioned before around here, I live in Montana and prize to an extreme degree the beauty of God's earth as it is. We are stewards, not masters, of its resources and need to use them responsibly.

Since you seem to have missed that, my overall energy policy has been highlighted below with some key points that would frame it:

- Priority needs to be given to renewable and nuclear [fission with proper disposal of waste, fusion/fission systems, or pure fusion systems] energy so we can plot a course to Earth's sustainable energy independence.

- Emissions controls only matter inasmuch as we are affecting the Earth in a net-negative way. If we have more capacity to absorb emissions that actually occurs, pushing for reduced fossil emissions is helping nobody and hurting plenty of existing jobs and markets.

- Extraction of fossil resources can be done in environmentally-friendly ways, and those that aren't can often be returned to a natural state via government reclamation projects (which here in MT at least are *wildly* [eh? eh? eh?] successful). Resources that cannot be extracted in an initially friendly manner or reclaimed within a reasonable time period (ten years is a good average) should be barred from extraction unless it's truly a matter of national import (say, fracking into delicate oil reserves during a desperate war).

- Wherever possible preference must be given to U.S domestic energy and other resources. This not only boosts the U.S economy, but importantly ensures that proper environmental regulations are being followed...after all, some developing nation is far more likely to waive environmental concerns when investment money is on the line, so we do our planet a disservice to hamstring our economy and environmental efforts by exporting resource development.

If you meet those basic parameters, you can both ensure Earth's health in the long run and largely protect existing markets, supply chains, and critical domestic American jobs. Fossil fuels, if responsibly extracted and only used to the point where they don't cause net-negative emission levels, cause no tangible harm to the planet and still have a vital role to play in our foreseeable future. Axing them entirely will hurt far too many people economically.