Of course not, what an outrageous conclusion to draw. Sorry, when you can't critique the BS on both sides, you've lost the battle.
> Technological pessimists like you ...
What gave you the idea that I'm a technological pessimist? I'm practically a technology poster boy, I guess you haven't been paying attention.
Was it because I called Gar on his (rather audacious) claim that switching to electric cars could be done "without new infrastructure" -- I'm supposed to just get in line and shout "rah! rah!" when that's bunk?
I guess if I'm not with you I'm against you, huh?
[ ... ]
> nor do you need to throw up your hands and give up on
> the entire project of improving transportation fuel
> efficiency, as Jordan seems to suggest.
I did no such thing.
I'm just bumfuzzled by people who say things like "We could be doing this now!" like there's no effort going on to do such things, and there aren't serious political, economic, and structural barriers to be overcome. I found Gar's tone to be equivalent to "You idiots! I have the solution and it won't cost you a dime!" . . . yawn.
With all the good things to say about the migration away from a fosil fuel -driven world, he picks "no new infrastructure" ...
>> Gar: If a hundred thousand people in California want to
>> buy pure electric cars and fuel them in their driveways
>> off the domestic power grid, that wouldn't require any
>> major changes in the grid. But put fifty million pure
>> electric cars on the road in the U.S.A. and that would certainly
>> require the grid to be upgraded.
What are you, a technology pessimist?
Sheesh.
/jordan