"What's wrong with solar, or wind farm investments? Why shouldn't we switch to battery powered vehicles? The left gets shamed for believing in renewable energy,

"What's wrong with solar, or wind farm investments? Why shouldn't we switch to battery powered vehicles? The left gets shamed for believing in renewable energy, but there's never a compelling argument against it." The 'compelling argument against them' is 'they don't make sense' (in other words, far too expensive). If those power investments made sense in any way, they would be proliferating everywhere without subsidies. But without subsidies they wouldn't exist. Even with subsidies, they mostly don't make sense. The Province of Ontario is paying 80 cents/kwH to solar generators and then 'selling' it back to Ontarians for about 12 cents/kwH. If you could produce solar power cheaper than coal, or a battery powered car that went further than a gas powered car for the same cost - then everyone would use them. It's not an 'argument' or a 'political issue' unless you factor carbon/climate change into the equation. FYI: another way 'the left' hurts the world - by killing Nuclear Energy. Imagine if Greenpeace had not existed. France built a bunch of identical reactors in the 1970's and has been trucking along safely - with 85% of their electricity provided cleanly and cheaply ever since. Imagine if there were research on newer, cleaner, safer reactors. The whole world might look different. Two of the founders of Greenpeace are not 'pro nuclear'. Obviously - it has some flaws, in particular profliferation of nuclear materials, but those issues can be addressed. Anyhow - responsible nuclear energy could have easily far surpassed carbon fuel technology by now. Easily. CO2 emissions would be peaking as China and India switched over.