People see me defending leftist ideas and don't believe I am a centrist who also harbors rightist ideas.
Here is one: global warming is a problem, sure. The environment is important, sure. But until the time when clean sources of energy truly and fully replace fossil fuels, we must continue to frack and drill, and while I support research and investments being encouraged for clean energy, the time when the full substitution is achievable is very far away. Geopolitical issues make it essential to be as close to energy independence as possible, for reasons up to and including national security. Energy moves the world; civilization would collapse without energy; energy is needed even to run the military (try to fly those fighter jets, drive those tanks, and sail those navy ships without energy), and we simply can't afford to depend on other countries, including the Middle East messy countries and Russia, to get our energy. Not economically, and not militarily. In case of serious conflict, if we had no domestic sources of oil and gas, enemies would simply cut us off and we wouldn't even be able to run the military. That's exactly why we have what is called strategic reserves. The world out there is tough. We need to be prepared. Not to forget, if we were truly and completely independent from Middle East oil, we would be a lot less entangled in those quagmires out there.
The idea of replacement is neat but is still very distant. Sure, nuclear is cleaner than fossil as far as global warming goes, but it is also problematic due to radioactive waste. And substitution is very difficult. I remember reading that to replace what the Japanese lost when their coastal nuclear reactor had that accident, if they were to replace the loss of energy feeding Tokyo from the reactor with clean energy, they would need to cover the entire 13,500 square kilometers of Tokyo's metropolitan area with solar panels and they still wouldn't be sufficient. I mean, cover like in a big continuous surface, not just on top of buildings. Like in totally covering it so that no sun ray would reach the city's surface, anywhere. On the other hand, a fossil fuel plant could easily replace the nuclear generator's energy.
What's the point of preserving the environment if much before its possible collapse, we got entangled in unwinnable wars or got into economic collapse?
So, sorry environmentalists, but drill, baby, drill!
Once science and infrastructure provides for full replacement, then I'm totally for shutting down the drills and the fracking probes. But again, we're still very, very far from it, so we have no choice but to continue to produce and refine fossil fuels.
