I'd take the CO2 thank you very much.
It isn't an either/or. And the problem is not that there are completely natural sources of CO2 but that we are artificially, and significantly, increasing the amounts. At issue (even for the utilities and cvola industry) is not whether they will cause a problem but rather is the problem serious enough yet to warrant action. The danger is that if it is a problem, by the time it becomes apparent, it may take draconian measures. (Which industry will expect the government to pay for, of course). Or may not be reversible.
And while hydrogen fuel cells or fusion reactors may be the answer, the best guest for when the might be available is: sometimes in the unspecified future. They might appear tomorrow. They may never appear. The question is, which side do we err on. The ?reversal? indicates we err on the side of profits.
To your litany of the problems of the past, please add real income that has lagged real cost of living by 25%. A shift in income distribution to the left of the bell curve. And. of course a 6.2 trillion dollar deficit. (Did you know that spending on social services as a % of GDP declined and payroll taxes rose under Reagan? Defense rose and personal and corporate income taxes fell).
You were supposed to respond to the "Reagan the deficit President" thing. If you're not going to take bait when generously offered the debate is doomed to civility. I so disappointed. :-)
Troll by way of Mousethief
I beg to explain and differ. If the (supposed liberal) media is to be believed>
Democratic doublespeak is deliberately lying and misleading the public.
Republican doublespeak is a reversal of position based on a careful review of relevant facts.* Please pay closer attention in the future.
Brian who? What teams he on? :-)
* Unmentioned is that the facts being ibnvestigated are: (1) the effect on cabinet officers stock portfolios and (2) How much the affected industry donated to the campaign.