I was only really commenting on the manipulative wording used, not energy policy. I'm in more or less complete agreement with what you've written here as it pe

I was only really commenting on the manipulative wording used, not energy policy. I'm in more or less complete agreement with what you've written here as it pertains to the past. However, once renewables become practical for even a subset of energy production, from a national security perspective they are an absolute clear winner, because: 1) Unlike fossil fuels, solar panels and wind turbines can be imported from rivals without impacting energy independence. If the imports are cut off, the existing assets still continue to produce power. The equivalent of an OPEC has zero influence because the best they can do is force you to change your long term planning. 2) Displacing fossil fuel consumption means your domestic reserves last for longer, and can mean the difference between having energy independence or not (obviously today in the States, that's not an issue). 3) Global warming is going to create a lot of instability and that's bad for domestic security. Unlike smaller nations, the US actually has a singular impact in global emissions, but even setting this aside, contributing to the economy of scale of the global market brings the price down for everyone and shortens the transition. A world powered by renewables is a lot safer and more stable than what we have today, and it's one that concentrates power more tightly in the hands of diversified, advanced economies without giving leverage to regimes that just happen to be sitting on reserves.