I am not convinced of the spending priority today, but I am convinced that figuring out clean energy is the most important goal to achieve.

I am mostly worried that a fossil-fueled extinction beats science to the storage solution of your dreams. Why risk that when nuclear is available?

Here's a question for the group: Regardless of whether you advocate for green energy or not, do you think that it's a wise strategy to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuels to force a transition to green energy? After decades of green energy adoption, the world is still (conservatively) 84% reliant on fossil fuels. Without them, many people would freeze and/or starve, and whole economies would collapse.

I think we should be focusing on creating abundance of clean fuels. I do think it's worthwhile to tax fossil fuels to make people less likely to use them. Probably with dramatic taxes. But really there's no such thing as "natural scarcity" or "natural abundance" these things are all based on our choices. 30 years ago we could have created an abundance of nuclear power and we would be better off. Today it seems like creating abundance of other things is a superior option. We knew that persisting in leaving fossil fuels as the abundant option was a mistake but we did it anyway and continue to do it.

Focusing on clean fuels is just fine. My question had to do with a highly destructive national policy that is doing tremendous damage to the US/world economies (except for Russia and China).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-lower-gas-prices-boos...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4UWc5JP-2E