- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Nice try!
This article reflects the modern zero sum, winner take all political climate. Why can't each side ever acknowlwdge ANY valid point from the other?
The whole sarcastic exercise of this article falls apart at "We will have sacrificed precious decades in which we could have gotten a leg up in figuring out how to maintain prosperity in a carbon-constrained future."
Why? Are we truly not capable if pumping and developing replacement sources at the same time? If there are viable alternatives, as I suspect there are, why not ease the near term economic strain while working on other sources?
Note that if the bill to drill in Alaska had not been vetoed, in part because it would take "too long" to have any affect, we would have have that source today. And if have having more crude does't affect price, why are we asking the Saudis to incease their output?
The truth is, like it or not, we need to do EVERYTHING that we can. It will help in the short and long term. I do not care who get the credit -just get on with it and quit bickering.
