Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Lastly, The Simpsons is a fictional cartoon, and should not be used to advocate public policy or determine the nature of our world. HTH.
|
Duh, really? I am soooo disappointed! Bart was my role model! Now what do I do? I can't give a cite for this, but about a million years ago I read an article in some respectable magazine - "Atlantic Monthly" or "New Republic" or one of those - that outlined the differences in certification for nuclear power plant operators in Europe versus the US, and the US showed very poorly in the comparison. Maybe things have changed. I'm too tired to look it up, and I don't feel like going to the barricades over a relatively minor point. But it does bring me to my next point, which is this:
Just as "The Simpsons" is a vast over-simplification of the credentials of real life nuclear power plant operators, your statements about alternative energy energy are a vast over simplification of the role of government in a nation's energy use. For example, policies encouraging reliable mass transit systems both locally and nationally could make an incredible difference. Tax breaks for corporations using alternative energy sources could speed up research and development in that area by light years. It's a complex issue where government policy DOES play an important role.
Oh yeah, by the way, since when is shale oil any more "carcinogenic" than petroleum? I've camped on the Uncomphaghre Plateau on a regular basis for 20 years now and have yet to come down with cancer. This despite the fact that the place thrills the latent pyrromaniac (however you spell that) in me, and I spend countless happy hours setting bits of cliff face on fire everytime I'm out there.