You should really start doing an automotive youtube channel, like a mix between roadkill and hoarders. 

“And these critics raise a fair point: How the hell does a new natural gas project fit into a clean energy vision?”

It depends on how exact they plan on being. It will be hard to find European old growth forests (that you can cut) big enough to supply the timbers, but if they are okay with glue-laminated beams, it will be relatively easy to recreate the timbers.

I said famous. It isn’t the 1990s. 

Curious that this miracle fruit comes from one of the few countries fatter than America. 

Now I want a famous motorcycle enthusiast race. Just Keanu and Tom Cruise, racing the Isle of Man. 

Dead end solution that is functionally the only solution that will allow the world to meet its climate goals in the near term? LMFAO. 

Pittsburgh in the daytime in 1940. This is not what it looks like now. These idiots have no idea what they are talking about because they stupidly think everything is worse (although I think that is an issue of social media and news catastrophizing everything). Everything is better, except CO2. 

They are correct, at least when it comes to pollution. Our waterways, streams, and air are substantially cleaner than they were in the 50s and 60s. 

This is accurate. Assuming you are a boomer and not 100 years old, you were born in the most polluting time in history. Air pollution has gone down drastically since the 60s. 

Are you dumb or just confused? Here is US air pollution over time.

This is a function of older reactors that need to keep getting extended past their useful life instead of replacing them because we stopped issuing permits for building nuclear plants for like 4 decades. New reactor technology can’t Chernobyl and Fukishima maybe caused 1 death. 

That’s because I’ve looked at the land use needs of renewable alternatives to get the level of energy we need. You would basically need to destroy the environment to build environmentally sustainable renewable sources. The amount of energy they produce isn’t dense enough (dense in the sense of space needed to produce…

You realize that the Dem leadership in the House is 2 decades older than the Republican leadership, right?

If you actually believe this, don’t have kids. You will psychology scar them with your Malthusian nonsense. This is the least hateful, violent, poor, dangerous time in all of history. 

Because they are politically grandstanding instead of actually thinking of workable solutions. 

It is a proven, energy dense, clean, technology that we already know how to create. It is the least dangerous in terms of energy related deaths. It doesn’t have the associated problems of energy storage (power flow is constant regardless of weather) and the space needed to build a plant and thus the associated ecologic…

Yes.

Makes sense when our young, environmentally focused reps come up with plans that actually result in more carbon, not less.

Plasma and sperm donation in college to save up to buy an old FJ62 in college. So I think randomly fathering someone else’s kid for some money is pretty desperate.