What makes me uncomfortable with your message, and Jake's ongoing campaign as well, is the fixation with economic issues and apparent lack of concern about environmental ones. You make it sound like everything that is aimed at preserving the planet we live on is some bleeding heart liberal cause with no merit. One doesn't have to take every environmental initiative at 100% face value to be discomfited by that. This is the only planet we've got. Do we really want to do things we know are bad for the earth for no better reason than short term profit? Mighty short sighted IMO.

>Hi Grady,
>
>Thanks to Jake. Well said.
>One can't stress his points enough. My point would be: what enables a high standard of living? Efficiency. So when you subsidize various energy producing schemes, you may create huge inefficiencies, and that kills everyone's standard of living. There is plenty of capital to be invested on worthy ideas. 60 minutes told the Bloom Box story a week ago Sunday and how they got 400 million from investors. The electric car company in China, BYD, has Warren Buffet and one of my friends investing. But coal is still a quite efficient way to produce electricity as mentioned here...
>http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm
>The power density for solar and wind is so poor I don't see them ever contributing much. If you're not thinking nuclear, then you better think fossil fuel. Those are only choices where the standard of living isn't diminished.
>
>>
>>BS or not, I'd still like to see us and reduce the use of coal and move toward the use of more solar power/wind and batteries for power and transportation.