Woo-hoo

Victory is mine! I hereby accept Matthew's grovelling apology.

What, no grovelling? No apology? All I get is the smug satisfaction of being right, leavened only by my being a bit of a tool?

That'll do... for now.

In all seriousness, while I was making a rather limited technical point about the benefits of EVs, Angelica makes a far more important political point:

I think it is fair to say that most of us who are concerned about our use of oil thinks that springing a few sheikels for research into alternative fuels should be a priority. Instead, it's being cut.

Matt said: "These problems, though related, are different. If you want to think about improving energy policy, you need to be clear about what it is you're trying to accomplish." Perhaps. But that can really be said about any coalition. I think the three groups Matt sets up as disparate camps are really more like overlapping circles of concern forming a venn diagram. The big difference now is between those of us who get it, for whatever reason, and those who still want to stick their head in the sand.

I think the whole idea of "oil independence" is a mistake, but I can work with James Woolsey when he's for plug-in hybrids. When he's for torturing muslims, not so much.

How's that for inherent tension?