The Climate Speech at the Princeton NJ, No Kings Event.
Generally, at protests, I'm unimpressed with the speeches, and often, from an environmental standpoint, things are said to which I object, this being the claim that so called "renewable energy" is sustainable and "green," and that it has something to do with the addressing the on going collapse of the planetary atmosphere.
None of these claims are, in my exhaustive effort to have an educated opinion, true.
The speeches at protests are not the point, the presence is.
An exception to boring speeches yesterday at the Princeton event was the closing speech, that by State Senator Andrew Zwicker a physicist who I know personally, a "fusion will save us" kind of guy, who unlike his gentle nature in his scientific talks, was fiery. I really admire the guy, and I want him to go far in politics; he's the kind of leader we need in this country.
Anyway.
The cost of electricity on the PJM is rising, and rising fast, and the Repukes are making a big deal out of the fact that wind energy is expensive, an attacking Governor's Phil Murphy's support of it. (The costs, despite the bald lie that "renewable energy is cheap," are hidden generally, behind the need for redundant systems, almost all of which is fossil fuel fired.)
I suck it up, which is easier now than ever before, because the rote antinukism of our party is washing out. I always vote Democratic; this year I voted, by early ballot, for Mikie Sherrill for governor, satisfied that she is definitely not a Mike Dukakis (for whom I also voted) type of knee jerk antinuke.
I have had interactions in New Jersey with the New Jersey "League of Conservation Voters" whose name I question, since there's nothing related to "conservation" with converting New Jersey's offshore benthic ecosystem into a wind industrial park for producing electricity. That's not "conservation;" that's development.
I thus surprised yesterday that whoever gave the League's speech yesterday did not refer to "renewable energy," as being important but simply said, "clean energy."
I may define "clean energy" quite differently - I'm sure I do - than many of my fellow Democrats, but I can live with that, the definition being something that can be made more seriously than as used in common practice. "Clean energy" needs to be both reliable and clean, cost effective externally as well as internally, and only one form of energy fits the bill, nuclear energy.
A small victory, but a victory all the same.