I respectfully disagree with the last quote item on your list, it is extracted from Alexander D. Mitchell’s comment and my response to it. He said:
“Unfortunately for the Chernobyl-fearing Sierra-Club-like masses, the ONLY option at the moment that adequately replaces coal/oil for power generation is nuclear power. That, or reducing the American/Western standard of living catastrophically.”

And I responded: “The latter is the one they want.”

My intent was indeed for the purpose of persuasion or enlightenment and not to seek to reinforce divisive stereotypes and sow fear as you say.

The environmental / green movement has outlined a climate change problem as a fact that we must address. Their prescription calls for a radical reduction in the use of fossil fuel or a radical increase in its cost in order to make it green compliant. The only viable alternative is nuclear power, but for a whole other set of reasons, they are as opposed to nuclear power as they are to fossil fuels. Wind and solar can take up some of the slack in replacing fossil fuels, but it is unlikely that it will ever come close to producing the power we need today and into the future. And even to make a substantial contribution, its added cost will make power self-rationing by price.

Therefore, the only alternative is conservation. And to address the environmental threat that has been put forth, it will take a lot of conservation. Just for starters, the very least we could do would be to eliminate all air-conditioning. From there, it goes to reducing heating of all commercial and residential buildings, limiting the use of motor fuels, banning recreational travel, changing our diets, among other measures. So I don’t think it an exaggeration to say that the only solution to the problem being put forth is a catastrophic reduction in our standard of living. It is a fact.

Moreover, I do believe it is a fact that this reduction in our standard of living is exactly what the green movement wants. They say so. They blame the over-consumption, excess wealth, and material greed of western society, especially the U.S., for being the primary cause of environmental degradation and climate change. I don’t mean to sow fear as you say, but I think we ought to confront this for what it is.

Perhaps this explains the recent appearance of "Air Conditioning is Immoral" bumper stickers I have been seeing the last few weeks (some on SUV's which I find quite funny).



I guess some of us find the idea of ending our way of life as part of the desire to pursue a political philosophy that has failed (and worse) everywhere it has been tried for the last 100 years as offensive without any additional inflection necessary.

As noted in one previous post I have been off traveling...

Now back, and I find I must lock this discussion... It has become a political rant...

Thank you,
Your moderator
Randy

Here's my railroad

The railroad principle is relatively efficient transportation due to its low friction, so it should get a favorable rating in terms of carbon neutral-ness. However the principle does require a railroad track, and the true rating of carbon neutral must include the entire life cycle of a product, system, etc. So it must include the coal, electicity, and diesel fuel that mined the iron, made the rails, graded the roadbed, the production of the ties, and all the other creation of physical plant, as well as the fuel that the locomotives consume, and the recycling of the whole thing when it wears out. We are goint to need some pretty sophisticated accounting methods for carbon ratings.