"The Republican plan promises to bring 100 new nuclear reactors online by 2029, permit oil exploration in offshore and Arctic areas and speed up the development of alternative fuels, including controversial carbon-capture and sequestration technology."This isn't all bad. I favor nuclear power, and I think that environmentalists who don't are people who simply don't understand the need for setting priorities--the environmental movement is made up of idealists, not pragmatists. So it goes. I support "speeding up the development of alternative fuels," though it's ambiguous--does this mean more corporate welfare for oil companies? And the carbon-capture stuff strikes me as wishful thinking--don't get me wrong, it would be totally awesome if we figured out the technology, but it strikes me as the same sort of longing for a silver bullet that the left always indulges on nuclear power. Tradeoffs are going to be necessary here.
But this is my problem: since Reagan, every Republican energy policy has read more or less the same: more nuclear power, some variant of "drill, baby, drill" and an admonition toward adopting alternative fuels, which in practice winds up amounting to bluster, coupled with some corporate welfare. In the meanwhile, we've had three Republican presidents, none of whom have taken any steps to actually wean us off of oil. Is it out of line to suggest that they aren't really serious about this issue? Without some sort of policy to reduce oil importation or to make it more expensive to live a carbon-intensive lifestyle more broadly, I just don't see the meat here (though I think enviros should reconsider nuclear, if for no other reason than to negate a GOP talking point).
There are plenty of sane, conservative arguments on cutting down on oil. For one thing, sending money to oppressive and terror-ridden Middle Eastern regimes strikes me as a bad idea. For another, being so dependent on foreign oil weakens our ability to be self-sufficient if the overseas supply dries up. But in reality, conservatives mock people who deride SUVs and insist that people have the freedom to pollute the sky, endanger our global position, and make more real the threat of global climate change. This is less about limited government than it is about conspicuous consumption, and there's a reason why people like Rush Limbaugh are the prophets of this prosperity gospel: because they know their audience, who are largely upper-middle "noveau riche" types who don't want to change their lifestyles one bit, despite the unsustainability of our present situation.
