OrionWorks wrote:
It is extremely "defeatist" due to the perceived conclusions they offer. Specifically, they express a perceived conclusion that there ain't no real substitute available now or in the foreseeable future
Actually they say ". . . the short or medium term." And they say "not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today" which is fuzzy for those of us who missed the discussion.
The New York Times, on the other hand, was more forthright. It published a lead editorial saying energy independence is "an unattainable goal." (See the introduction to my book.)
- Jed
