Post a response to this discussion thread
... I didn't see a need, as you didn't really ask any questions or state any challenges in that post. But since you're asking for feedback...
1. Economics: This is an excellent example of how not all liberals/socialists disagree with modern economic thought. They just disagree on the extent to which it should govern all other issues. The degree to which you agree with the writer demonstrates this point.
2. Fuel Efficiency Mandates: This is one of those "role of government" issues. I would say that the government is within it's duties to govern the safety of products used in the U.S. - and by most studies, it wouldn't cost the government or the consumers any serious money to improve matters. The cost to manufacture the car wouldn't change significantly, and the bureaucracy to monitor the new rate is already in place.
2a. This is also an issue of multiple levels of government meddling - if Bush can peddle ANWR drilling as a "National Security issue", then oil consumption is a matter for the federal government, not just the free market. So Republicans are being hypocritical on the issue.
3. Eco damage: I suspect that windmills, solar, etc. do less environmental damage than coal and oil plants, so replacing those would be a net improvement. As to natural beauty - well, some people will never be happy.
Post a response to this discussion thread