Blue states have higher electricity prices than red states. We need more infrastructure — including fossil fuel infrastructure — to ensure that electricity is affordable.
Fantastic summary , but I have my doubts that any pivot towards more affordable energy which means both the embrace fossil fuels , particularly nat gas, and also nuclear including SMR’s will not become an incredibly divisive debate between the few Dems still embracing realism and the progressive wing which seems to increasingly dominate the party.
Another cost of living issue is the price of gasoline, once again red states on balance are much more consumer friendly on this issue than blue states. Drill Baby Drill is anathema to most Dem leaders who seem to still belief that any increased use of carbon will lead to extreme global warming and the preposterous idea that it will thus lead to the end of life on earth as we know it today.
Nice piece that also confirms two of my hot takes: Kathy Hochul is a good governor and Canadian Liberals are way more right-leaning/“neoliberal” than Americans realize
This article should be titled “Reality vs Idealism”. If the moderate Dems can push the party into the direction suggested in the article I think it will ensure that the House will definitely flip to Democrats in 2026. The fact that Governors in NY and Illinois seem to recognize this fact is promising.
Setting aside Trump and his irrational hatred of windmills, every citizen and consumer from progressives to MAGA could choose to support deliberate development in clean energy alternatives, including nuclear. There’s no good reason other than the narrowest—profitable oligarchy—that that has ever had to be a left-right issue. Meanwhile, expanding oil and gas extraction and transmission has value as long as the prices producers and brokers charge at each stage reflect the total costs, including the long-term costs of pollution. Centuries of failure on that point justify caution.
Fantastic summary , but I have my doubts that any pivot towards more affordable energy which means both the embrace fossil fuels , particularly nat gas, and also nuclear including SMR’s will not become an incredibly divisive debate between the few Dems still embracing realism and the progressive wing which seems to increasingly dominate the party.
Another cost of living issue is the price of gasoline, once again red states on balance are much more consumer friendly on this issue than blue states. Drill Baby Drill is anathema to most Dem leaders who seem to still belief that any increased use of carbon will lead to extreme global warming and the preposterous idea that it will thus lead to the end of life on earth as we know it today.
Nice piece that also confirms two of my hot takes: Kathy Hochul is a good governor and Canadian Liberals are way more right-leaning/“neoliberal” than Americans realize
This article should be titled “Reality vs Idealism”. If the moderate Dems can push the party into the direction suggested in the article I think it will ensure that the House will definitely flip to Democrats in 2026. The fact that Governors in NY and Illinois seem to recognize this fact is promising.
Setting aside Trump and his irrational hatred of windmills, every citizen and consumer from progressives to MAGA could choose to support deliberate development in clean energy alternatives, including nuclear. There’s no good reason other than the narrowest—profitable oligarchy—that that has ever had to be a left-right issue. Meanwhile, expanding oil and gas extraction and transmission has value as long as the prices producers and brokers charge at each stage reflect the total costs, including the long-term costs of pollution. Centuries of failure on that point justify caution.
Yep. Can’t lower the price of electricity without lowering the price of fuel. Good luck commanding that by fiat.