Lowering energy costs might have bipartisan support but the approaches to achieve them donât.
Energy prices is a well-treaded political issue that comes out at most elections. Everyone wants cheaper electricity but conservatives lean anti-wind and anti-solar and liberals lean anti-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel so thereâs a bit of an impasse.
Saying âlower energy costs has bipartisan supportâ is like saying âimproving education outcomesâ or âfixing healthcareâ has bipartisan support. The disagreements and intractability are in the details.
Do you have a more specific idea for how you would use $1M to lower energy costs in way that would have bipartisan support?
Producing more electrons is a known engineering problem; while education and healthcare are human problems, so I donât know if these are directly comparable.
Lowering energy costs might have bipartisan support but the approaches to achieve them donât.
Energy prices is a well-treaded political issue that comes out at most elections. Everyone wants cheaper electricity but conservatives lean anti-wind and anti-solar and liberals lean anti-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel so thereâs a bit of an impasse.
Saying âlower energy costs has bipartisan supportâ is like saying âimproving education outcomesâ or âfixing healthcareâ has bipartisan support. The disagreements and intractability are in the details.
Do you have a more specific idea for how you would use $1M to lower energy costs in way that would have bipartisan support?
Thatâs a good point.
Iâm not familiar with why Conservatives are anti-wind and anti-solar. What are these arguments?
Hereâs Grok: https://ââgrok.com/ââshare/ââbGVnYWN5_4a7c7d26-dd4f-4e4e-aaf3-3605d888de44
Producing more electrons is a known engineering problem; while education and healthcare are human problems, so I donât know if these are directly comparable.