This is America, where undercutting the large corporations doesn't make you a good citizen, it makes you an enemy of the state.
If people had solar, that would undercut oil. And they're not going to allow that.
Well, here's something to think about; a nice "teh eevil terrists" counter-argument: Distributed power generation, like solar or spread-out wind, is terrorism-proof. It would take thousands of coordinated attacks (people climbing around on your roof wearing a bomb girdle ?!?) to take down the grid in case of terrorism or war.
On the other hand, a centralized nuclear power plant, or a coal power plant, is NOT terrorism proof. It needs just a single terrorist engineer, undercover for as long as it takes to be in the "inner circle" with access to the "Homer Simpson control room" to bring the grid down.
This argument was particularly potent in the '70s-'80s, when governments seriously considered building fast breeder reactors: You'd need a police state to protect the reactor from terrorists so it doesn't contaminate your own country; and you'd need a surveillance state for background checks on the engineers allowed to operate it. Basically, you'd need a police state. With central control of the electricity (just cut off any provinces or states that get too "uppity").
Of course, some people were obviously all FOR it.
Taking your example of roads: how would you picture a road system for a city that allows for multiple "road providers?" How would new players enter the market?
<humor>
That's easy: just learn from the history of messr. Richard Turpin
</humor>
(I added the humor tag in case Roman Mir thought I was serious)
Anything that generates electricity that is not a huge power plant is a threat to the electric company.
It's nice to formulate issues as us-vs-them, but I don't understand why that is true:
I.e. it would need to be resolved by planning and budgetting; a *completely internal problem* for the Arizona state organisation.
"But WWF and the other hard greens know the realities too: they know that no carbon + no nukes = economic misery. They just don't care - their plan is that humanity should abandon economic growth and sink into poverty.
So those are the options. Air full of carbon, nuclear power, or shivering hungry in the dark. ®"
So, we sacrifice a great deal now in order to possibly enrich our long-distant descendants, who will be much wealthier than we are.
Sheik Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum of the UEA:
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel"
Oh noes!?! Who am I going to believe? I think the sheik probably had better info than you.
I know many people (on Slashdot even) have claimed that switching to a low carbon energy infrastructure would result in global poverty.
The meme I've seen is "if we do something like the tree-huggers demand of us, we'll all be shivering in the dark". It would be interesting to map its origin and spread.
So... like Northern states even in the USA's midwest?
...
I wouldn't know..
So you're saying American Christians are technically/culturally Jews; where in Judaïsm the impact of the story of God telling Avraham/Abraham/Ibrahim to slaughter his son Yitzhak/Isaäc/Ishmael is considered as more religiously instructive than, say, the Sermon on the Mount.
It's interesting to see that, even if the stories are the same in different cultures, the emphasis on which of the stories are of greatest importance can make such a difference.
Mind you, in all the Abrahamic religions God settles for a barbecue, which is a lot kinder than the ancient ritual of the statue of Moloch (WARNING: link causes distress).
Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.
