Fairly often, I take a peek on the other side of the fence and read articles that are on the opposing side of the environmental debate. The problem with that is that more often than not, it results with me bursting out with laughter. Take this gem from Fox News: If only EPA stood for | Fox News Huh? HUH? That is really some fuzzy math work there. I would really be interested to know how they came up with those numbers. But wait there's more: Is The EPA Preparing For A Massive Private Land Grab? | The Daily Caller Control, control, control. How does one jump from the conclusion that mapping waterways and wetlands will inherently bring a massive seizure of private property? Couldn't a dedicated team of students have done the same thing using easily available tools such as Google Maps? And what is wrong with a map, isn't more knowledge a good thing? Couldn't the maps be used for a beneficial purpose such as flood and drought prevention and not inherently a sinister purpose? And this one from Forbes: The EPA's Costly 'Clean Power Plan' Power Grab - Forbes Geez, such hyperbolic and dramatic language, one might wonder if it's a movie script. The Clean Power Plan does indeed mandate states to reduce emissions, but it lets them create their own strategies for doing so and gives a significant amount of leeway. The feds only step in if the states fail to come up with a coherent plan to reduce emissions. And I find it ironic that these people are so worried about a "centralization" of energy. Energy is already centralized in this country. Almost all vehicles you buy run on gasoline. Here in Georgia, you almost have a choice of only Georgia Power or not having electricity at all. The electricity I get comes from big, centralized power plants that I don't have any control over. Isn't this the nightmare scenario? A future with more renewables would be less centralized, not more. That's why we call it the "distributed" grid. Electric cars would give us a choice vs. the oil barrons. I really don't claim to understand the other side, nor propose a solution on what it might take to bring them to reason. I would really love to put a stop to the 24/7 onslaught of FUD and misinformation, and base our environmental policies solely on reason and science. However, that is clearly not going to happen, and I think you can tell you why: The other side is deeply fearful. Fearful of "control". The popular meme seems to be that if we let "environmentalists have their way", we will be in living in mud huts and riding on a donkey to work, assuming we still have a job that all the "job-killing regulation" has killed. We see electric cars being the future, they see a 1984 style dystopia. We see renewables creating greater human health and prosperty, they see it creating enormous human poverty and need. We see solar and battery electric creating greater energy independence, they see the red flag of Marxism. Perhaps I'm being a bit silly and satirical, but I don't think I'm far off. I don't really see any hope of compromise or pragmatic solutions as long as the status-quo stays in place. Until we can some how turn off the fear of "control" in the environmental debate, I think we will continue to see a nonstop ferocious fight against reducing carbon emissions and a transition to renewable energy. So what will it take to turn off the fear and embrace reason and science? To paraphrase Sam Harris, what reasoned argument can you use against someone who doesn't use reason? What evidence can you provide to someone who doesn't care about evidence? What science is convincing to someone who's worldview is not based on science? I don't think I know, but I honestly feel like giving up sometimes. Perhaps there are social psychologists on here that might have an idea. And that's what this thread is for, to solicit ideas. If anyone has a good one, let me know.