>>Unfortunately, for a while longer it is not just to trust in promising new technologies like wind and solar power; for decades to come, these will only provide a fraction of our energy needs.
Instead, aside from greater conservation, we must develop more traditional energy resources at home. <<
He says that unfortunately solar and wind are not the answer
He didn't say that. He said "for a while longer," "just to trust" in solar and wind is not the answer. He wasn't talking about wind and solar but "just trusting" in them. And he discounted wind and solar short term, not long term.
As for his "least pernicious solution," I can see how you read it as you do. But I think it could more reasonably and preferably be read as the least pernicious among the itemized bad alternatives, namely imported oil, biofuels, and "more traditional energy resources at home," which comprised the first part of this piece.
Ordinarily I don't diagram "essays" because most of them are unstructured rants, but his has structure. If it has clear structure, I assume structure is intentional. I don't believe in monkeys producing Shakespeare. The structure here is that there are three bad alternatives while we wait for the good alternatives, such as wind and solar, to fill the gap, the least bad of which is "traditional energy resources at home."
Read it again with that in mind and see if it resonates. |
