I don't have really have a problem with his policy ideas. Some are bad, but some are good. My issue is with his management and operational decision making abilities. And I think he doesn't have the temperment or patience for the job he's facing. I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.

Lol no. I'm not sure how that is the conclusion you've come to from what I've said, but that's definitely not what I'm saying. Fossil fuels are not green energy. At all. And they are fantastically more detrimental to the environment than actual green energy (wind, solar, hydroelectric). Should they be eliminated? Absolutely not. We currently need them.

The point is to use a blend of energy sources, with the goal of using more green energy as time goes on. Not to force one type of energy now to appease the pie-in-the-sky idealists who only consider one aspect in their irrational drive to immediately cease fossil fuels.

But this idea you have about how awful green energy is is equally misguided and inaccurate. The environmental fanatics are just as unreasonable as the fossil fuel fanatics. The answer lies with an all-of-the-above approach to meet our current needs, while working towards a cleaner, and more efficient energy program in the future.

He doesn't manage those companies. He owns them, and makes top-level, conceptual decisions. When it comes to actually doing the work, he's absolute shit. He's simply not up to the job, and the burocratic realities he will have to navigate and contend with are way outside his qualifications and wheel house. Even those I despise the air Ramaswamy breathes, he is much more suited to the job, and I'd have a lot more optimism if it was just him running it. Obviously, time will tell, but I'm confident in my assessment, as it's rooted in fact and reason, not aspirational emotions, and fan-boy admiration for the image he presents.

I have no doubt it will be unmitigated train wreck. He has no relevant qualifications, and the success of the endeavor will be dependent on his management abilities and operational decision making. And the one example we have to look at to judge those two things is Twitter; the one Musk company that he manages.

People are fleeing by the literal millions, and the value has plummeted more than 80% since he took over. All his other companies that are doing well have one thing in common: he doesn't manage them. The one example of his management ability that we have to judge by is Twitter, which is an objective tragedy.

Have you seen what he's done to Twitter?

And this who is responsible for government efficiency? Seriously? The only Musk company that Musk actually runs and manages is Twitter. So if you want see what we can expect from him in this government post, Twitter is where you should look. And it's not looking good. #blog

https://www.unilad.com/celebrity/elon-musk-time-travelling-alien-vampire-twitter-426751-20241125

No argument. Again, that's not what we were were talking about. The utility of energy sources, and the damage they do to wildlife and the environment are two different topics.

I never said that wasn't the case. We were talking about the comparative consequences of the different energy sources, not the utility of different energy sources.

You must not be aware of the impact on wildlife associated with extracting natural gas. Fracking dislocatesbabd kills entire populations of wildlife, spanning many species, and saturates the surrounding land with toxic forever chemicals.

I think your sense of proportion is off. The fossil fuel industry has an negative impact orders of magnitude greater than wind energy. The fact is, no energy source is perfectly free from negative aspects. It makes no sense to direct your anger to the source that has the least impact on the environment and wildlife.

And how many birds and other wildlife are killed as a result of burning and extracting fossil fuels? The relative handful of birds who die by hitting the turbine blades is a drop in the bucket compared the impact of the fossil fuel industry.

The energy sources are fossil fuels, nuclear, and green. Those energy sources are used to produce electricity which is then transmitted to the customer for use. Electricity is not an energy source.

I love Neal Stephenson. Virtually all of his books are amazing epics. The last book of his that I read was Anathem, which is really weird, but ultimately excellent. Seveneves was also amazing.

Lolwut? Wind is definitely not toxic. Not sure where you're getting that from. The only other person I've heard say anything like that is Trump, who hates wind because there's a wind farm off the coast of his Scottish golf course that he believes is ruining the view. He's made all sorts of absurd claims about the evils of wind power, all of which are objectively ridiculous.

Electric isn't an energy source. It's an energy transmitter. Electric is generated by fossil fuels, nuclear, and green. So you have to look at your energy company to see the source breakdown, and options to use different source blends.

I use public transportation whenever possible, and my home energy is provided by a company that currently uses 17% wind along with traditional energy production. And they've been offering more and more wind as the years go by. You have the option to use the wind source, or just use traditional sources, and wind is really cheap so there's an incentive to use it.

I'm a supporter of green energy, but not to the exclusion of other forms of energy production. At least not now. I think we currently need a blend of energy sources to meet our needs, but we should be promoting green energy whenever possible with the goal of using more and more of it over time. That means we currently need nuclear and fossil fuels in addition to green energy. By promoting green energy and the latest generation of nuclear technology, we can hopefully move away from fossil fuels.

He says he's doing this to pressure Mexico and Canada to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US. This is a moronic strategy because 80% of the fentanyl illegally imported into the US is brought over by American citizens. It's a plan that has no chance of being successful. And the cost to the American people will be staggering.

Good thing I read this recommendation. I was just typing the last 4 of my SSN when I saw this. That was a close one! 😉