On 9/13/2022 11:45 AM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:04:04 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/12/2022 7:21 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:02:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:01:31 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:07:01 PM UTC-5, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 09:20:07 UTC+10, andrewc...mail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:57:06 AM UTC+10, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thatcher to Truss is no big jump, given her aspirations, but your jump to Mugabe and his thugs to make comparisons shows how desperate the fascist element here will go to make a point, which is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I couldn't help a chuckle while you were in the midst of telling us about your African brothers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>>> The point is, that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent decrying the past and present politics of the UK as fascist and racist when they still continue to live in London, enjoy a very good standard of living and almost unlimited freedom of expression by world standards, and do nothing whatsoever to help their African and Afro-Caribbean brethren, apart from publishing ridiculous articles in the NYT, The Guardian and the New Statesman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile in places like Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the standard of living has fallen rapidly for both black and white citizens, and political freedom is non-existent. Queen Elizabeth II lived to see the former colonies, who had been provided with thriving economies, democratic constitutions and parliamentary institutions fall one by one to military coups or ruthless dictatorships. South Africa has not yet descended to the same level as Zimbabwe - one reason why black Zim economic refugees still bother to go there - but the standard of living for your average black South African is getting worse, and conditions in the notorious 'townships' continue to deteriorate, especially if you're a black Zim economic refugee. Meanwhile, ANC politicians who know the right people are doing very nicely, thank you very much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why the NYT has chosen to publish this article and others like it from different authors at a time of national mourning in an allied country, I do not know. I suspect they're trying to *sound* radical without having to actually *be* radical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Clarke
>>>>>>> Canberra
>>>>>> One could argue that the timing was unfortunate. in the same way many articles are unfortunate, whether from right or left. But the substance remains nonetheless and is up for debate. All colonialism (Empire building) was based on brutality initially, and I doubt whether that is news to anyone. So for any implication to be made with regard to the late Queen is quite pointless. Whilst not an avid royalist, it is beyond dispute that ERII was absolutely beyond any doubt a loyal servant to her task, and was as near beyond rerpoach as anyone could possibly be. She will be much missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>> They published it because it was timely -- given that a fair number of British citizens, though they regret the Queen's passing, are not exclusively in deep mourning and moreover are very concerned about their nation's, and their own, immediate and long term fate under a government whose policies are of the sort that Truss proposes.
>>>> Posting using the hated Google Groups because Thunderbird is still not working:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do those concerned citizens think the likely "fate" under a Truss or other Conservative government will be? Oh I know they want a more equal distribution of wealth than they are likely to get, and a more open immigration policy, and so forth. But if they don't get what they want, how bad will it be, really? Do they think that UK citizens will be worse off than those in Zimbabwe, Congo, or North Korea?
>>>
>>>> They're concerned that Truss' "the common people can and should tough it out" economic policies could have grave effects on the quality of life. In particular, heating costs this winter are >expected to raise 60 percent.
>> Not being a follower of British politics I don't know what an expected increase in heating costs has to do with politics. Do you mean that a Liberal government would tax the rich to offset increased heating costs and a conservative government wouldn't? Or that some conservative policy is actually going to drive up fuel costs?
>>
>> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
>
> No --- Truss will do nothing to relieve steeply rising fuel costs. If you think that's not politics, you're mistaken.

I think you are evading my honest question. What will Liberals to do relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't. Generally, Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is good for the environment. In other words higher carbon costs are a basic part of their policy. Conservatives are more likely to reduce market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be good for energy prices. If I am missing the point, your point, please enlighten me.

On 9/13/22 10:54 AM, Frank Berger wrote:

> I think you are evading my honest question.  What will Liberals to do
> relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't.  Generally,
> Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is
> good for the environment.  In other words higher carbon costs are a
> basic part of their policy.  Conservatives are more likely to reduce
> market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be
> good for energy prices.  If I am missing the point, your point, please
> enlighten me.

I'm not Mr Kart, but please allow to widen the topic to include
externalities beyond fuel costs:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9

This is the source of the recent news stories about the social cost of
carbon being triple previous estimates.

Preprint, from "researchers at the University of California, Berkeley,
and the nonprofit Resources for the Future."

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:45:15 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:
> On 9/13/22 10:54 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> > I think you are evading my honest question. What will Liberals to do
> > relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't. Generally,
> > Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is
> > good for the environment. In other words higher carbon costs are a
> > basic part of their policy. Conservatives are more likely to reduce
> > market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be
> > good for energy prices. If I am missing the point, your point, please
> > enlighten me.
> I'm not Mr Kart, but please allow to widen the topic to include
> externalities beyond fuel costs:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9
>
> This is the source of the recent news stories about the social cost of
> carbon being triple previous estimates.
>
> Preprint, from "researchers at the University of California, Berkeley,
> and the nonprofit Resources for the Future."

Still using Google Groups because TB is broken.

Thanks, but I'm not interested in a "widened" discussion, certainly not here, about optimal energy policy. I just wanted to know what Mr. Kart meant, or thought he meant, or thought someone else meant about rising fuel costs under Conservatives as opposed to Liberals. As a matter of simple economics, if energy becomes scarcer, it's price will rise. If government restricts the price rise via price controls there will be shortages. The burden on the poor can be relieved by transferring wealth from richer folks. Problem is there aren't enough really rich folks to do the trick; you have to hurt the middle class as well, which can become politically problematic (as in you lose the next election). Again, I am addressing only the fuel cost question. I am not addressing using rising fuel costs as a tool to help the environment (and I am not saying there is anything wrong with that), or anything else.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/13/2022 11:45 AM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:04:04 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 9/12/2022 7:21 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:02:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:01:31 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:07:01 PM UTC-5, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 09:20:07 UTC+10, andrewc...mail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:57:06 AM UTC+10, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Thatcher to Truss is no big jump, given her aspirations, but your jump to Mugabe and his thugs to make comparisons shows how desperate the fascist element here will go to make a point, which is?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I couldn't help a chuckle while you were in the midst of telling us about your African brothers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >>>>>>> The point is, that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent decrying the past and present politics of the UK as fascist and racist when they still continue to live in London, enjoy a very good standard of living and almost unlimited freedom of expression by world standards, and do nothing whatsoever to help their African and Afro-Caribbean brethren, apart from publishing ridiculous articles in the NYT, The Guardian and the New Statesman.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile in places like Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the standard of living has fallen rapidly for both black and white citizens, and political freedom is non-existent. Queen Elizabeth II lived to see the former colonies, who had been provided with thriving economies, democratic constitutions and parliamentary institutions fall one by one to military coups or ruthless dictatorships. South Africa has not yet descended to the same level as Zimbabwe - one reason why black Zim economic refugees still bother to go there - but the standard of living for your average black South African is getting worse, and conditions in the notorious 'townships' continue to deteriorate, especially if you're a black Zim economic refugee. Meanwhile, ANC politicians who know the right people are doing very nicely, thank you very much.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why the NYT has chosen to publish this article and others like it from different authors at a time of national mourning in an allied country, I do not know. I suspect they're trying to *sound* radical without having to actually *be* radical.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andrew Clarke
> >>>>>>> Canberra
> >>>>>> One could argue that the timing was unfortunate. in the same way many articles are unfortunate, whether from right or left. But the substance remains nonetheless and is up for debate. All colonialism (Empire building) was based on brutality initially, and I doubt whether that is news to anyone. So for any implication to be made with regard to the late Queen is quite pointless. Whilst not an avid royalist, it is beyond dispute that ERII was absolutely beyond any doubt a loyal servant to her task, and was as near beyond rerpoach as anyone could possibly be. She will be much missed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >>>>> They published it because it was timely -- given that a fair number of British citizens, though they regret the Queen's passing, are not exclusively in deep mourning and moreover are very concerned about their nation's, and their own, immediate and long term fate under a government whose policies are of the sort that Truss proposes.
> >>>> Posting using the hated Google Groups because Thunderbird is still not working:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What do those concerned citizens think the likely "fate" under a Truss or other Conservative government will be? Oh I know they want a more equal distribution of wealth than they are likely to get, and a more open immigration policy, and so forth. But if they don't get what they want, how bad will it be, really? Do they think that UK citizens will be worse off than those in Zimbabwe, Congo, or North Korea?
> >>>
> >>>> They're concerned that Truss' "the common people can and should tough it out" economic policies could have grave effects on the quality of life.. In particular, heating costs this winter are >expected to raise 60 percent.
> >> Not being a follower of British politics I don't know what an expected increase in heating costs has to do with politics. Do you mean that a Liberal government would tax the rich to offset increased heating costs and a conservative government wouldn't? Or that some conservative policy is actually going to drive up fuel costs?
> >>
> >> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
> >
> > No --- Truss will do nothing to relieve steeply rising fuel costs. If you think that's not politics, you're mistaken.
> I think you are evading my honest question. What will Liberals to do relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't. Generally, Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is good for the environment. In other words higher carbon costs are a basic part of their policy. Conservatives are more likely to reduce market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be good for energy prices. If I am missing the point, your point, please enlighten me.

Frank -- How to relieve rising fuel costs? Place controls of some sort on energy prices. Reducing market restrictions would be Truss' answer, I would guess, but then prices almost certainly would rise rather than fall. Ah, the glories of the free market. BTW, what current "market restrictions" serve to inflate energy costs, and how do they do so? What is needed, at least in the short run, if the predicted 60 percent rise in energy costs becomes a reality, is some governmental financial support /relief to help ordinary citizens during the likely The Big Chill. Maybe Liz andCamilla could start knitting sweaters?

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 9/13/2022 11:45 AM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:04:04 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >> On 9/12/2022 7:21 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:02:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:01:31 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:07:01 PM UTC-5, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 09:20:07 UTC+10, andrewc...mail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:57:06 AM UTC+10, raymond.....gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Thatcher to Truss is no big jump, given her aspirations, but your jump to Mugabe and his thugs to make comparisons shows how desperate the fascist element here will go to make a point, which is?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I couldn't help a chuckle while you were in the midst of telling us about your African brothers.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > >>>>>>> The point is, that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent decrying the past and present politics of the UK as fascist and racist when they still continue to live in London, enjoy a very good standard of living and almost unlimited freedom of expression by world standards, and do nothing whatsoever to help their African and Afro-Caribbean brethren, apart from publishing ridiculous articles in the NYT, The Guardian and the New Statesman.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Meanwhile in places like Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the standard of living has fallen rapidly for both black and white citizens, and political freedom is non-existent. Queen Elizabeth II lived to see the former colonies, who had been provided with thriving economies, democratic constitutions and parliamentary institutions fall one by one to military coups or ruthless dictatorships. South Africa has not yet descended to the same level as Zimbabwe - one reason why black Zim economic refugees still bother to go there - but the standard of living for your average black South African is getting worse, and conditions in the notorious 'townships' continue to deteriorate, especially if you're a black Zim economic refugee. Meanwhile, ANC politicians who know the right people are doing very nicely, thank you very much.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Why the NYT has chosen to publish this article and others like it from different authors at a time of national mourning in an allied country, I do not know. I suspect they're trying to *sound* radical without having to actually *be* radical.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Andrew Clarke
> > >>>>>>> Canberra
> > >>>>>> One could argue that the timing was unfortunate. in the same way many articles are unfortunate, whether from right or left. But the substance remains nonetheless and is up for debate. All colonialism (Empire building) was based on brutality initially, and I doubt whether that is news to anyone. So for any implication to be made with regard to the late Queen is quite pointless. Whilst not an avid royalist, it is beyond dispute that ERII was absolutely beyond any doubt a loyal servant to her task, and was as near beyond rerpoach as anyone could possibly be. She will be much missed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > >>>>> They published it because it was timely -- given that a fair number of British citizens, though they regret the Queen's passing, are not exclusively in deep mourning and moreover are very concerned about their nation's, and their own, immediate and long term fate under a government whose policies are of the sort that Truss proposes.
> > >>>> Posting using the hated Google Groups because Thunderbird is still not working:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What do those concerned citizens think the likely "fate" under a Truss or other Conservative government will be? Oh I know they want a more equal distribution of wealth than they are likely to get, and a more open immigration policy, and so forth. But if they don't get what they want, how bad will it be, really? Do they think that UK citizens will be worse off than those in Zimbabwe, Congo, or North Korea?
> > >>>
> > >>>> They're concerned that Truss' "the common people can and should tough it out" economic policies could have grave effects on the quality of life. In particular, heating costs this winter are >expected to raise 60 percent.
> > >> Not being a follower of British politics I don't know what an expected increase in heating costs has to do with politics. Do you mean that a Liberal government would tax the rich to offset increased heating costs and a conservative government wouldn't? Or that some conservative policy is actually going to drive up fuel costs?
> > >>
> > >> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
> > >
> > > No --- Truss will do nothing to relieve steeply rising fuel costs. If you think that's not politics, you're mistaken.
> > I think you are evading my honest question. What will Liberals to do relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't. Generally, Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is good for the environment. In other words higher carbon costs are a basic part of their policy. Conservatives are more likely to reduce market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be good for energy prices. If I am missing the point, your point, please enlighten me.
> Frank -- How to relieve rising fuel costs? Place controls of some sort on energy prices. Reducing market restrictions would be Truss' answer, I would guess, but then prices almost certainly would rise rather than fall. Ah, the glories of the free market. BTW, what current "market restrictions" serve to inflate energy costs, and how do they do so? What is needed, at least in the short run, if the predicted 60 percent rise in energy costs becomes a reality, is some governmental financial support /relief to help ordinary citizens during the likely The Big Chill. Maybe Liz andCamilla could start knitting sweaters?

Further information:

The government organization that controls the cost of energy in Great Britain recently increased what is known as a price cap. The price cap is the highest amount that gas suppliers can charge for a unit of energy.

The new, higher cost has people concerned that they may not be able to pay for their gas and electricity this winter. Some might pay as much as $4,188 for energy next year. Earlier this year, the price cap was at $2,320.

Why such a change?

Oil and gas prices around the world have been increasing since 2021 as economies started up again after the coronavirus pandemic. More business activities required more fuel.

Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, creating a new energy crisis.. Russia limited the amount of natural gas it sent to European countries that needed it to power factories, produce electricity and keep homes warm.

Some energy companies are charging more because they are worried that Russia might completely stop sending gas to European countries. And in Britain, prices are up because the country does not produce much gas or have a good way to store it. As a result, Britain must purchase gas often in a market where prices are high.

Citibank, a U.S. financial company, believes the higher energy prices will cause inflation in Britain to reach 18 percent in 2023. And the Bank of England says an economic slowdown known as a recession will start later this year.

Public health and private aid organizations worry that high energy prices will cause a “catastrophe” as Britons choose between keeping their homes warm and eating enough food.

What can government do?

As prices rise, the British government plans to give people between $450 and $1,400 to help pay for energy costs. But the help is seen by many as not enough.

If the government approves more money for fuel, it will probably not come until September.

The Labour Party says the government should increase the amount it provides for people to pay for fuel by raising taxes on energy companies. However, PM Truss does not seem to supports this.

Giovanna Speciale leads an organization called the Southeast London Community Energy group. It helps people pay their bills. She said the money will help but it is only a short-term solution to a bigger problem with Britain’s energy system. Because the system is privately run, she said, “there’s very little that the government can do to intervene in this.”

Other European countries are seeing higher energy costs, but not as high. In France, gas prices are capped at 2021 levels. In Germany, prices are up by 38 percent since last year. However, the government is reducing some taxes, which will make it easier for the average person to buy gas. In Italy, prices are going up, but the government recently approved over $8 billion to help people pay their energy bills.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:55:18 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 9/13/2022 11:45 AM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:04:04 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >> On 9/12/2022 7:21 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:02:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:01:31 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:07:01 PM UTC-5, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 09:20:07 UTC+10, andrewc...mail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:57:06 AM UTC+10, raymond.....gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Thatcher to Truss is no big jump, given her aspirations, but your jump to Mugabe and his thugs to make comparisons shows how desperate the fascist element here will go to make a point, which is?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I couldn't help a chuckle while you were in the midst of telling us about your African brothers.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > >>>>>>> The point is, that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent decrying the past and present politics of the UK as fascist and racist when they still continue to live in London, enjoy a very good standard of living and almost unlimited freedom of expression by world standards, and do nothing whatsoever to help their African and Afro-Caribbean brethren, apart from publishing ridiculous articles in the NYT, The Guardian and the New Statesman.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Meanwhile in places like Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the standard of living has fallen rapidly for both black and white citizens, and political freedom is non-existent. Queen Elizabeth II lived to see the former colonies, who had been provided with thriving economies, democratic constitutions and parliamentary institutions fall one by one to military coups or ruthless dictatorships. South Africa has not yet descended to the same level as Zimbabwe - one reason why black Zim economic refugees still bother to go there - but the standard of living for your average black South African is getting worse, and conditions in the notorious 'townships' continue to deteriorate, especially if you're a black Zim economic refugee. Meanwhile, ANC politicians who know the right people are doing very nicely, thank you very much.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Why the NYT has chosen to publish this article and others like it from different authors at a time of national mourning in an allied country, I do not know. I suspect they're trying to *sound* radical without having to actually *be* radical.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Andrew Clarke
> > >>>>>>> Canberra
> > >>>>>> One could argue that the timing was unfortunate. in the same way many articles are unfortunate, whether from right or left. But the substance remains nonetheless and is up for debate. All colonialism (Empire building) was based on brutality initially, and I doubt whether that is news to anyone. So for any implication to be made with regard to the late Queen is quite pointless. Whilst not an avid royalist, it is beyond dispute that ERII was absolutely beyond any doubt a loyal servant to her task, and was as near beyond rerpoach as anyone could possibly be. She will be much missed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > >>>>> They published it because it was timely -- given that a fair number of British citizens, though they regret the Queen's passing, are not exclusively in deep mourning and moreover are very concerned about their nation's, and their own, immediate and long term fate under a government whose policies are of the sort that Truss proposes.
> > >>>> Posting using the hated Google Groups because Thunderbird is still not working:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What do those concerned citizens think the likely "fate" under a Truss or other Conservative government will be? Oh I know they want a more equal distribution of wealth than they are likely to get, and a more open immigration policy, and so forth. But if they don't get what they want, how bad will it be, really? Do they think that UK citizens will be worse off than those in Zimbabwe, Congo, or North Korea?
> > >>>
> > >>>> They're concerned that Truss' "the common people can and should tough it out" economic policies could have grave effects on the quality of life. In particular, heating costs this winter are >expected to raise 60 percent.
> > >> Not being a follower of British politics I don't know what an expected increase in heating costs has to do with politics. Do you mean that a Liberal government would tax the rich to offset increased heating costs and a conservative government wouldn't? Or that some conservative policy is actually going to drive up fuel costs?
> > >>
> > >> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
> > >
> > > No --- Truss will do nothing to relieve steeply rising fuel costs. If you think that's not politics, you're mistaken.
> > I think you are evading my honest question. What will Liberals to do relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't. Generally, Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is good for the environment. In other words higher carbon costs are a basic part of their policy. Conservatives are more likely to reduce market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be good for energy prices. If I am missing the point, your point, please enlighten me.
> Frank -- How to relieve rising fuel costs?

See my later post. Price controls always results in shortages. Always. Price controls on gasoline in the U.S. resulted in massive lines at gas stations and gasoline rationing. If one wants to do this as a matter of policy to help the environment, good luck. You will be voted out of office

> Reducing market restrictions would be Truss' answer, I would guess, but then prices almost certainly would rise rather than fall.

Doesn't follow. Liberal policies of restricted exploration and usage of oil, natural gas and coal certainly have increased energy prices. Reducing these restrictions would obviously increase the supply of energy and lower prices.

Ah, the glories of the free market. BTW, what current "market restrictions" serve to inflate energy costs, and how do they do so?

See above.

>What is needed, at least in the short run, if the predicted 60 percent rise in energy costs becomes a reality, is some governmental financial support /relief to help ordinary citizens during the likely The Big Chill. Maybe Liz andCamilla could start knitting sweaters?

Who is predicting a 60% increase and why do you trust them? Is a colder than normal winter expected? Is the Russia/Ukraine war expected to further reduce fuel supplies for civilian customers?

The market (i.e. natural) mechanism to allocate scarcer supply of anything is rising prices. Of course, this disproportionately hurts the poor. It sucks to be poor. It always sucks to be poor. If prices rise enough it sucks to be middle class also. If society (government, voters) want to provide relief for the poor they can. But watch out for the middle class revolt at the polls.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:55:18 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > On 9/13/2022 11:45 AM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:04:04 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >> On 9/12/2022 7:21 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:02:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:01:31 PM UTC-4, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:07:01 PM UTC-5, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 09:20:07 UTC+10, andrewc...mail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:57:06 AM UTC+10, raymond.....gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Thatcher to Truss is no big jump, given her aspirations, but your jump to Mugabe and his thugs to make comparisons shows how desperate the fascist element here will go to make a point, which is?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I couldn't help a chuckle while you were in the midst of telling us about your African brothers.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > > >>>>>>> The point is, that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent decrying the past and present politics of the UK as fascist and racist when they still continue to live in London, enjoy a very good standard of living and almost unlimited freedom of expression by world standards, and do nothing whatsoever to help their African and Afro-Caribbean brethren, apart from publishing ridiculous articles in the NYT, The Guardian and the New Statesman.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Meanwhile in places like Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the standard of living has fallen rapidly for both black and white citizens, and political freedom is non-existent. Queen Elizabeth II lived to see the former colonies, who had been provided with thriving economies, democratic constitutions and parliamentary institutions fall one by one to military coups or ruthless dictatorships. South Africa has not yet descended to the same level as Zimbabwe - one reason why black Zim economic refugees still bother to go there - but the standard of living for your average black South African is getting worse, and conditions in the notorious 'townships' continue to deteriorate, especially if you're a black Zim economic refugee. Meanwhile, ANC politicians who know the right people are doing very nicely, thank you very much.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Why the NYT has chosen to publish this article and others like it from different authors at a time of national mourning in an allied country, I do not know. I suspect they're trying to *sound* radical without having to actually *be* radical.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Andrew Clarke
> > > >>>>>>> Canberra
> > > >>>>>> One could argue that the timing was unfortunate. in the same way many articles are unfortunate, whether from right or left. But the substance remains nonetheless and is up for debate. All colonialism (Empire building) was based on brutality initially, and I doubt whether that is news to anyone. So for any implication to be made with regard to the late Queen is quite pointless. Whilst not an avid royalist, it is beyond dispute that ERII was absolutely beyond any doubt a loyal servant to her task, and was as near beyond rerpoach as anyone could possibly be. She will be much missed.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > > >>>>> They published it because it was timely -- given that a fair number of British citizens, though they regret the Queen's passing, are not exclusively in deep mourning and moreover are very concerned about their nation's, and their own, immediate and long term fate under a government whose policies are of the sort that Truss proposes.
> > > >>>> Posting using the hated Google Groups because Thunderbird is still not working:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What do those concerned citizens think the likely "fate" under a Truss or other Conservative government will be? Oh I know they want a more equal distribution of wealth than they are likely to get, and a more open immigration policy, and so forth. But if they don't get what they want, how bad will it be, really? Do they think that UK citizens will be worse off than those in Zimbabwe, Congo, or North Korea?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> They're concerned that Truss' "the common people can and should tough it out" economic policies could have grave effects on the quality of life. In particular, heating costs this winter are >expected to raise 60 percent.
> > > >> Not being a follower of British politics I don't know what an expected increase in heating costs has to do with politics. Do you mean that a Liberal government would tax the rich to offset increased heating costs and a conservative government wouldn't? Or that some conservative policy is actually going to drive up fuel costs?
> > > >>
> > > >> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
> > > >
> > > > No --- Truss will do nothing to relieve steeply rising fuel costs. If you think that's not politics, you're mistaken.
> > > I think you are evading my honest question. What will Liberals to do relieve rising fuel costs that Conservatives wouldn't. Generally, Liberals seem to want higher fuel costs, which decrease usage, which is good for the environment. In other words higher carbon costs are a basic part of their policy. Conservatives are more likely to reduce market restrictions, which may be bad for the environment, but would be good for energy prices. If I am missing the point, your point, please enlighten me.
> > Frank -- How to relieve rising fuel costs?
> See my later post. Price controls always results in shortages. Always. Price controls on gasoline in the U.S. resulted in massive lines at gas stations and gasoline rationing. If one wants to do this as a matter of policy to help the environment, good luck. You will be voted out of office
> > Reducing market restrictions would be Truss' answer, I would guess, but then prices almost certainly would rise rather than fall.
> Doesn't follow. Liberal policies of restricted exploration and usage of oil, natural gas and coal certainly have increased energy prices. Reducing these restrictions would obviously increase the supply of energy and lower prices.
> Ah, the glories of the free market. BTW, what current "market restrictions" serve to inflate energy costs, and how do they do so?
> See above.
> >What is needed, at least in the short run, if the predicted 60 percent rise in energy costs becomes a reality, is some governmental financial support /relief to help ordinary citizens during the likely The Big Chill. Maybe Liz andCamilla could start knitting sweaters?
> Who is predicting a 60% increase and why do you trust them? Is a colder than normal winter expected? Is the Russia/Ukraine war expected to further reduce fuel supplies for civilian customers?
>
> The market (i.e. natural) mechanism to allocate scarcer supply of anything is rising prices. Of course, this disproportionately hurts the poor. It sucks to be poor. It always sucks to be poor. If prices rise enough it sucks to be middle class also. If society (government, voters) want to provide relief for the poor they can. But watch out for the middle class revolt at the polls.

****Who is predicting?: Associated Press story 8/26:****

LONDON — Jennifer Jones keeps feeding money into her energy meter, but it never seems to be enough. And when she can't pay, she feels the impact immediately.

The power in her London home has gone off suddenly three times recently, once when her partner was cooking an egg.

Like millions of people, Jones, 54, is struggling to cope as energy and food prices skyrocket during Britain's worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation. The former school supervisor has health problems and relies on government benefits to get by, but her welfare payments are nowhere near enough to cover her sharply rising bills.

"I've always struggled, but not as much," she said. "Everything is going up.. I can't even pay my rent, my council tax, I can't afford to do anything. .... I keep asking myself, what am I supposed to do?"

And things are getting worse. U.K. residents will see an additional 80% increase in their annual household energy bills, the country's energy regulator announced Friday, following a record 54% spike in April. That will bring costs for the average customer from 1,971 pounds ($2,332) a year to 3,549 pounds.

On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:

War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for relief targeted at the poor. But it can not be done without hurting the middle class. Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are no solutions in the short term. I have used the following analogy before:

If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b) spend a lot of money protecting yourself. Either way they have harmed you. There is no avoiding it.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:58:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>
> War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for relief targeted at the poor. But it can not be done without hurting the middle class. Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are no solutions in the short term. I have used the following analogy before:
>
> If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b) spend a lot of money protecting yourself. Either way they have harmed you. There is no avoiding it.

BTW, I didn't write that "War is hell etc." passage above.
As for "But it can not be done without hurting the middle class" -- how about instead "hurting" the upper class?

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:13:52 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:58:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> >
> > War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for relief targeted at the poor. But it can not be done without hurting the middle class. Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are no solutions in the short term. I have used the following analogy before:
> >
> > If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b) spend a lot of money protecting yourself. Either way they have harmed you. There is no avoiding it.
> BTW, I didn't write that "War is hell etc." passage above.
> As for "But it can not be done without hurting the middle class" -- how about instead "hurting" the upper class?
And how about "hurting the corporate elite as well?

In article <8a51638a-8cdf-4add-bb3b-f07cce3a9937n@googlegroups.com>,
Lawrence Kart <ljkart@aol.com> wrote:
>As for "But it can not be done without hurting the middle class"
>-- how about instead "hurting" the upper class?

Blasphemy! (Note also conflation of Liberal and Labour Parties in
remarks by another.)

On 9/12/22 6:55 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:16:00 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>
>>> If you had read correctly, I never mentioned anything about Thatcher's or Truss's objectives. The fact that they lie to the far right of UK politics, ensures your deference to them. So what else is new?
>>>
>>> Incidentally, your description of fascism above, is not that far removed from the MAGA concept, in the sense it has little to do with democracy.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's nuts, Ray. If 'MAGA' has any coherent meaning (which I sometimes
>> doubt), it is 'less state, more freedom', not the reverse.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> The meaning as trumpeted by your previous Prez, has more the connotation I intended.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Such as?

Bob Harper

On 9/13/22 2:18 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>
>> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
>
> California is usually ahead of the rest of the states in terms of progress on climate change, and a good example of what has to be done. Yes - we need electric cars. And yes, we need to consume less electricity. They are both obviously compatible - people just need to drive less and/or collectively take more train or bus journeys. Simple. Nobody said climate change could be achieved without significant social changes.

Given that China is building more coal-fired generating capacity than
the rest of the world combined, windmills and solar panels will have no
measurable on anything--except for killing birds and occupying land that
could be put to better use.

The problem of having abundant electricity with minimal
CO2 emissions (which I am not convinced is a problem, but let that go)
is right there staring us in the face, but is eschewed by people who
should know better. I speak of nuclear power. But the fearmongers have
done their job all too well.

Bob Harper

On 9/13/22 2:58 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>
> War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for
> relief targeted at the poor.  But it can not be done without hurting the
> middle class.  Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are
> no solutions in the short term.  I have used the following analogy before:
>
> If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b)
> spend a lot of money protecting yourself.  Either way they have harmed
> you.  There is no avoiding it.
>
You forgot c) kill them first. See the late Qassem Soleimani, Abu
Muhammad al-Masri, and Ayman al-Zawahiri for examples.

Bob Harper

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 09:24:26 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/12/22 6:55 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:16:00 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> >
> >>> If you had read correctly, I never mentioned anything about Thatcher's or Truss's objectives. The fact that they lie to the far right of UK politics, ensures your deference to them. So what else is new?
> >>>
> >>> Incidentally, your description of fascism above, is not that far removed from the MAGA concept, in the sense it has little to do with democracy.
> >>>
> >>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's nuts, Ray. If 'MAGA' has any coherent meaning (which I sometimes
> >> doubt), it is 'less state, more freedom', not the reverse.
> >>
> >> Bob Harper
> >
> > The meaning as trumpeted by your previous Prez, has more the connotation I intended.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> Such as?
>
> Bob Harper

I don't need to waste my time on any explaination about Trump. You either know, or you don't (which I cannot believe).

Ray Hall, Taree

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 09:31:32 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/13/22 2:18 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> >
> >> In California run forever by liberals they are simultaneously legislating electric cars and rationing the use of electricity.
> >
> > California is usually ahead of the rest of the states in terms of progress on climate change, and a good example of what has to be done. Yes - we need electric cars. And yes, we need to consume less electricity. They are both obviously compatible - people just need to drive less and/or collectively take more train or bus journeys. Simple. Nobody said climate change could be achieved without significant social changes.
> Given that China is building more coal-fired generating capacity than
> the rest of the world combined, windmills and solar panels will have no
> measurable on anything--except for killing birds and occupying land that
> could be put to better use.
>
> The problem of having abundant electricity with minimal
> CO2 emissions (which I am not convinced is a problem, but let that go)
> is right there staring us in the face, but is eschewed by people who
> should know better. I speak of nuclear power. But the fearmongers have
> done their job all too well.

Nuclear power is a very viable option, but the capital cost is much higher than with conventionally sourced power. Also much higher regulation is required wrt spent fuel. Nuclear is definitely the way to go but whether human animals are yet mature enough to handle nuclear power and its ramifications is very uncertain. As with many progressive changes, social change is required to be in lockstep with material change.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 9/13/2022 7:13 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:58:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>
>> War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for relief targeted at the poor. But it can not be done without hurting the middle class. Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are no solutions in the short term. I have used the following analogy before:
>>
>> If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b) spend a lot of money protecting yourself. Either way they have harmed you. There is no avoiding it.
>
> BTW, I didn't write that "War is hell etc." passage above.
> As for "But it can not be done without hurting the middle class" -- how about instead "hurting" the upper class?

I said there aren't enough people or enough wealth in the upper classes to solve the problems. Therefore to help the poor you have soak the middle class. I've said this several times already.

On 9/13/2022 7:15 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:13:52 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:58:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>>
>>> War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for relief targeted at the poor. But it can not be done without hurting the middle class. Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are no solutions in the short term. I have used the following analogy before:
>>>
>>> If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b) spend a lot of money protecting yourself. Either way they have harmed you. There is no avoiding it.
>> BTW, I didn't write that "War is hell etc." passage above.
>> As for "But it can not be done without hurting the middle class" -- how about instead "hurting" the upper class?
> And how about "hurting the corporate elite as well?

OK. You are not listening or not receptive to what I am saying so we can just let it drop.

On 9/13/2022 7:24 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/12/22 6:55 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:16:00 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>>
>>>> If you had read correctly, I never mentioned anything about Thatcher's or Truss's objectives. The fact that they lie to the far right of UK politics, ensures your deference to them. So what else is new?
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, your description of fascism above, is not that far removed from the MAGA concept, in the sense it has little to do with democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's nuts, Ray. If 'MAGA' has any coherent meaning (which I sometimes
>>> doubt), it is 'less state, more freedom', not the reverse.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>>
>> The meaning as trumpeted by your previous Prez, has more the connotation I intended.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
> Such as?
>
> Bob Harper

It's simple, Bob. MAGA= Right wing ultra nationalist hate groups. Anybody who voted for Trump is a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit. What's so complicated?

On 9/13/2022 7:37 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/13/22 2:58 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/13/2022 5:24 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>
>> War is hell. I predict the Conservatives will take some measures for relief targeted at the poor.  But it can not be done without hurting the middle class.  Sometimes things get so f***ked up that there simply are no solutions in the short term.  I have used the following analogy before:
>>
>> If terrorists want to kill you, your choices are to a) let them or b) spend a lot of money protecting yourself.  Either way they have harmed you.  There is no avoiding it.
>>
> You forgot c) kill them first. See the late Qassem Soleimani, Abu Muhammad al-Masri, and Ayman al-Zawahiri for examples.
>
> Bob Harper

I didn't forget it. I included it in b. Could have been separate. Either way.

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 10:49:39 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/13/2022 7:24 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 9/12/22 6:55 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:16:00 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If you had read correctly, I never mentioned anything about Thatcher's or Truss's objectives. The fact that they lie to the far right of UK politics, ensures your deference to them. So what else is new?
> >>>>
> >>>> Incidentally, your description of fascism above, is not that far removed from the MAGA concept, in the sense it has little to do with democracy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> That's nuts, Ray. If 'MAGA' has any coherent meaning (which I sometimes
> >>> doubt), it is 'less state, more freedom', not the reverse.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Harper
> >>
> >> The meaning as trumpeted by your previous Prez, has more the connotation I intended.
> >>
> >> Ray Hall, Taree
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> > Bob Harper
> It's simple, Bob. MAGA= Right wing ultra nationalist hate groups. Anybody who voted for Trump is a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit. What's so complicated?

I am glad you are on record as having defined MAGA, which isn't the point at all in any discussion.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 9/13/2022 9:30 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 10:49:39 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/13/2022 7:24 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 9/12/22 6:55 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:16:00 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If you had read correctly, I never mentioned anything about Thatcher's or Truss's objectives. The fact that they lie to the far right of UK politics, ensures your deference to them. So what else is new?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incidentally, your description of fascism above, is not that far removed from the MAGA concept, in the sense it has little to do with democracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's nuts, Ray. If 'MAGA' has any coherent meaning (which I sometimes
>>>>> doubt), it is 'less state, more freedom', not the reverse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>
>>>> The meaning as trumpeted by your previous Prez, has more the connotation I intended.
>>>>
>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>> It's simple, Bob. MAGA= Right wing ultra nationalist hate groups. Anybody who voted for Trump is a right wing ultra nationalist racist piece of shit. What's so complicated?
>
> I am glad you are on record as having defined MAGA, which isn't the point at all in any discussion.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Well, I don't know what you meant by "has more the connotation I intended," by I guessed somewhat hyperbolically. If that's not something like what you meant, perhaps you could be more explicit for those of us who are a little slow.

And I thing the definition of MAGA should be the point in many discussions.

Andy Evans a formulé ce jeudi :
> Feeling shocked and sad. She was loved by everyone.
>
> I think the UK is feeling quite fragile right now.

RIP queen: 50 posts...
RIP *Godard*: 3 posts...
Look for the error...

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:28:59 AM UTC-7, MELMOTH wrote:
> Andy Evans a formulé ce jeudi :
> > Feeling shocked and sad. She was loved by everyone.
> >
> > I think the UK is feeling quite fragile right now.
>
> RIP queen: 50 posts...
> RIP *Godard*: 3 posts...
> Look for the error...

Her Majesty was British.
Godard was French. This
is a primarily English
speaking ng. No error.

dk

> Given that China is building more coal-fired generating capacity than
> the rest of the world combined, windmills and solar panels will have no
> measurable on anything--except for killing birds and occupying land that
> could be put to better use.

This is about California, not China, bad as China is. Wind farms and solar panels are all part of what is going to be needed. Maybe not the complete solution but certainly part of it, so let's not be negative about either. They play their part.

> The problem of having abundant electricity with minimal
> CO2 emissions (which I am not convinced is a problem, but let that go)
> is right there staring us in the face, but is eschewed by people who
> should know better. I speak of nuclear power. But the fearmongers have
> done their job all too well. > Bob Harper

Of course there are fears about nuclear plants - we've had disasters in Ukraine and Japan and probably more to come. But of course it's a more large scale solution, as you say.

What do you mean about CO2 emissions "not being a problem"? On its own this is a very weird thing to say, but maybe you mean something else?