Sounds about right, “dick”.

Except that I have actually described what that legislation would be, and you have not.

Nothing I have suggested is without precedent and is within established principles for Federal jurisdiction– common carrier regulations and interstate commerce.

So far, you have given zero indication of how to achieve your goal. So it is simply magical thinking, as I said.

* * *

Given the likely consequences of failing to get off FFs fast enough because of localism fantasies and free market make-believe, I’m pretty confident that the second half of this century will see a decline in global population.

Yes – my plan requires Federal legislation.

But so does your plan to nationalise the grid so anybody can use it to sell electricity to end users.

To me, the important thing about our plans is they are technically feasible and only require change of law.

100% renewable (which Wow proposes) isn’t even technically feasible (talk about wishing).

I realise that you have to make up a reason why you were not wrong for being 100% wrong, but you need to try something that at least appears to have been produced by a hominid. Apes are facepalming. Even some of the smarter dogs.

But I AM glad that you now have realised that you were wrong, even if you’re hiding from it so transparently.

Maybe in the future you can progress to the next stage of adulthood and own up to them straight out.

RickA, as I pointed out all the other times you presented your “plan”, you have not suggested a mechanism (Federal legislation) that would achieve your goal of (say 100) nuclear plants. So, it isn’t a “plan” but a childish wish that some Daddy would magically “make it happen”.

Dan Andrews, thanks. Still, neither represents a reduction in population. Reduction would be an important element in an all-of-the above strategy for stabilizing the environment.

Ah, so you’re a recovering alcoholic, zebra.

Hard road to travel, I hear. Keep it up.

Now that IS 100% absolutely wrong.

What I said was this:

For what? Without knowing what the plan is supposed to do, how can he determine what plan you want? If he put out his travel plan for his next lecture, would that be fine? Because you haven’t said it wasn’t that plan you wanted.

If I had interpreted you as having asked nothing, I would not have been able to ask what should the plan you want him to say should accomplish, since there would be no comment of you to ask for the definition for.

What I said was you didn’t ask what plan you wanted.

You still asked for “the plan”, but if he has a shopping list and posts that, it’s the plan for his shopping, so you would be 100% fine with that?

Here’s my plan: turn the water heater on tomorrow and have a good and proper shower.

That’s my plan.

What’s yours?