Why do the progressive liberals and environmental lobby invariably slow down or stop development of alternative energy?
The base problem with alternative energy sources is that they all have drawbacks of one kind or another. Nuclear power produces waste, wind power is dependent upon wind and causes very limited avian mortality, solar power is very costly and produces a lot of waste in manufacturing the solar cells, hydroelectric power diverts water and this affects fish and other aquatic life, etc.. The standard many use for the environment is perfection, i.e., no downsides and it’s much easier to be against something, than to modify or repair the problems of any of these power sources. Too, most politicians and environmentalists are not knowledgeable in practical terms about the nature of energy and indeed, the way natural systems work, and so, any perceived threat to those natural systems, even one born of total ignorance, is to be stamped out ruthlessly. In addition, alternative energy represents freedoms, both personal and public. Cheap, clean energy means that people can do more, both in their work
Related Questions
- Would there be environmental safe guards on any resulting oil and gas exploration or development? Who would implement them?
- Does the Merger Process slow down the Project Development and Environmental Analysis (PD&EA) phase?
- How important have environmental and economic questions been in the development of the laptop?
