In response to:
Cap and Trade in England has not reduced a single emission, but they have collected trillions in taxes. Your point is well taken. There is no reason to raise prices for us based on a dubious theory when no one else is going to do it. No surprise we are not competing well on the world market when we keep handicapping ourselves with taxes and regulations based on a theory that even if true the US will not be able to affect by itself.
Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”
Fictional book authors operate in a convenient world, unconstrained by facts and experiences of the real world. The antithesis of works of fiction are scientific findings solely based on provable facts and experience. For agenda-driven environmental science, facts can sometime prove inconvenient. It’s far easier to advance an agenda with agreeable science, even if that means creating science...
Secondly, there is not a single wind farm anywhere in the world that will pay itself off, economically or ecologically.
Furthermore, there is not enough ample wind resources in America to provide the general population, especially in urban environments, with adequate energy. Where it does occur tends to be large open, unpopulated expanses; technology to store and transfer energy from there, to where it could be used is extremely poor.
Alternative energy is only suitable when decentralized and used in highly localized (even micro) environments.