Almost but not quite. You left out a few relevant factors.

Personal bias - despite attempts to eradicate it, it still exists. A scientist who has their reputation staked on a particular theory or outcome will tend to favor that outcome, disregard outcomes that don't agree with their position, or both. The recent LK-99 "room temp superconductor" is an example of this.

Funding bias - Scientists don't work for free, and even if they did, research itself is an expensive endeavor. This requires funding from external sources, usually government but sometimes major industries contribute as well. Both these patrons tend to fund research that confirms whatever policy or product they wish to push. Likewise, funding for other things either doesn't get funded or could disqualify you for future funding.

Community peer pressure - Despite the stereotype, contemporary science is largely that of conformity. Mavericks are generally frowned upon, laughed at, or ostracized. This has historical precedence. Major luminaries like Einstein, Bohr, etc. were regarded as crackpots when they first challenged the establishment before they were recognized as prophets of truth. Very few people have the courage to stand against such as this, hence conformity and groupthink are more normal than most people suspect or are willing to admit.

Revoking a degree means nothing. Potential employers only care about the fact that you did earn the degree, not that you have some debt issue with your college. Such a move would just be adding another checkbox to your credit report, which potential employers sometimes check as it is.

Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?

Go ahead and try such a mandate. It will accelerate the trend of businesses moving out of states requiring them.

So over the last decade our total generation has remained somewhat stagnant while demand is steadily increasing. That is the point I was making. Your figures back this up.

You gloss over why natural gas is the more economical option. Coal plants are burdened by expensive emissions controls and regulatory requirements that make them too expensive to operate. Minus these, they would still be competitive economically. I'm not arguing against such controls, merely saying emissions are the drivers of the economics.

I worked at TVA during the time frame in question. CCGT's are peak load assets but were being run constantly to make up for lost capacity when coal plants were shuttered. Maintenance cycles were being deferred. The net result was more unplanned shutdowns.

I did see the table. Did you? From 2011 to 2021, total coal generation dropped from 1,733,430KMWh to 897,885KMWh, a difference of 835,545KMWh. During that same time solar added 164,422KMWh, wind (aka "Renewable Sources Excluding Hydroelectric and Solar") added 256,261KMWh. That's a deficit of 414,862KMWh, not even factoring in the ~12KMWh loss in nuclear. Solar and wind are not making up the difference lost to coal shutdown. Natural gas.is making up the difference, and, as stated, these are not designed to be base load generation and hence unsustainable.

Government researchers have been tracking heat waves for more than 100 years. According to data from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the annual heat wave index for the contiguous 48 states was substantially higher in the 1930s than at any point in recent years. In some years in the 1930s, it was four times greater or even more. Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a large database of daily temperatures that goes back to 1948. NOAA used 1,066 weather stations located across the U.S. to collect this data.

According to NOAA, huge swaths of the U.S. have experienced a significant decrease in abnormally hot days recorded since 1948, especially in the Midwest and northern and eastern Texas. Although it’s true that some parts of the U.S. have seen the number of hotter-than-usual days increase over the past 70 years, most weather stations have shown no meaningful changes or even declines.

This maxim equally applies to your comments. My points stand and your own data does not refute it.

We're shutting down capacity faster than we're replacing it. Aging nuclear plants aren't being replaced. Coal is being shut down due to emissions. Even combined-cycle gas turbines running on natural gas are being shut down, nevermind that these are peak load assets, not base load assets and not designed to run 100% of the time anyway.

Solar capacity is going up, along with wind, but not nearly enough to replace what's going away. Meanwhile the government is doing all in its power to stop you from buying gas stoves, gas furnaces, gas water heaters, and pushing automakers towards all-electric.

Demand is going up. Efficiencies will not blunt that. Capacity is not going up and in many cases it is shrinking.

Is it just me or does this seem...stupid?

I am sure we are like, green Hydrogen, so we can all get Hydrogen Fuel cell cars!
However for consumer cars, I don't want Hydrogen Electric, I much rather have Battery Electric. It is just more practical and convenient for normal driving behaviors. Plug in every night, leave with a full charge.
For longer trips, Hydrogen may be a little bit easier in theory, however the 250-300 mile range, and the speed of DC Fast Charging, your biology kicks in and you need to use some facilities, and your car is charged by the time you are done.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells, are good for Semi-Trucks. Where home base isn't really a thing, and the larger energy requirement will make charging times much longer, and a working condition where one needs to get so many miles per day.
But for normal driving, having to go find and refill every week at a Station, is going to be more expensive, and take time out of your day, like it already is for Gas Cars.

People want to go their on vacation, because their home is polluted ugly wasteland.

Maine isn't as backwater as you would expect. Its population density is still greater than 23% of the other States in the United States, as well it is near by some decent cities in like Boston, and Quebec so I wouldn't quite call it backwater. Nevada is mostly a burnt out desert while it does have some fragile ecosystems that should be protected a lot of it is mostly a lifeless hunk of rock. And if it weren't for Los Vegas I doubt you would get too many visitors.

This sounds like this is from a person who is all about States Rights, until a state does something they don't like, then they want the Federal Government, Supreme Court to jump and and tell the states to Stay in line!

Feds: We order the state of Maine to pollute its water supply killing of communities and families who had been their longer than the formation of the United States just so we can save $100 on a price of an Electric car, which there are many bills running in the congress which trying to stop as well, because the Democrats seem to like them.

Or perhaps the companies will just need to find cleaner ways to collect and process that material.
My family is mostly from Maine, they live primarily around a post-industral city. During the last family gathering last year, I heard many stories about family members, and their friends being ill, getting cancer from the polluted water supply from a hundred+ year old industry where many of those polluting companies have long been out of business. Now that area, has a hard time growing and recovering economically too, because no one wants to put a new business in a city with polluted water. Which puts the general city in decline spiral.

We see the likes of China who is trying to sprint a marathon, and we think we are running too slow. But Chinese lack of environmental concern is going to cost them big in the long run. Much like it has for a good portion of the Rust Belt in the United States.

While I am personally a big fan of Electric Cars, (I own one myself and quite happy with it) and want them to become more affordable and available over time, and I know the battery cost is the biggest roadblock to affordability. However I don't want to unnecessarily trade off help reducing global warming, and forgen energy dependence with destroying our water supply needlessly. Especially if they are ways it can be done cleanly, even at the expense of a bit more expensive products.
 

Strange as it may seem, the SCOTUS disagreed with you and said they did have standing. Alas, I'm sure your vast knowledge of Constitutional Law exceeds theirs, not to mention the hundreds of other lawyers who worked this case trying desperately to prove lack of standing. I'm sure you're right. So sure. So very, very sure. I mean, it's not like you can be wrong. That would be a tragedy.

It's quite simple if you do reading comprehension. Here's the relevant text from the Act itself:

"Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 - Authorizes the Secretary of Education to waive or modify any requirement or regulation applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as deemed necessary with respect to an affected individual who: (1) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (2) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war, operation, or emergency; (3) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (4) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency."

Team Biden tried to take the last words from items #3 and #4, claiming COVID was a "national emergency" and hence the Act empowered the Secretary of Education to broadly waive vast swathes of student loan debt. The problem is, that's not what the Act was meant to do. It was meant to assist military veterans as stated in sections #1 and #2. Pelosi knew this and that's why she said Biden couldn't waive the debt. Team Biden knew this also but did it anyway, banking on the SCOTUS reversal happening after the latest election cycle (which is exactly what happened). It didn't help their case that they tried to do this after publicly stating the "COVID emergency" was over and lifting COVID restrictions. Kinda hard to argue a national emergency in the past needs such sweeping re-interpretation of a law now, but that misses the point. Team Biden knew this wouldn't pass muster and didn't care. It was -- and is -- a political stunt.

If Biden and Pelosi really want to relieve student debt, why didn't they do it when they controlled Congress and the White House? They could've passed a law and it would've withstood SCOTUS scrutiny if they'd done it the proper way. It doesn't take a genius to realize why they didn't do it when they could: because it's not broadly popular with the people who will actually pay the bill for student loan relief. Biden's ploy was to give Congress shelter from the consequences of passing such a law, knowing the SCOTUS would deem it illegal, but after reaping the political benefits of trying to do it.

The SCOTUS did no such thing. It ruled Congress does not have arbitrary abilities to delegate. That is a very different thing than what you suggest. If Congress had such an ability, it could -- and effectively tried to -- completely sidestep the Constitutional separation of powers. Congress holds the power of the purse, not the Executive branch.

If Joe and Nancy want to abolish student debt, they can do it the legal, proper way: pass a law through both houses of Congress. Since they refused to when they controlled Congress and now cannot do so without GOP support, that is unlikely, so they attempted an end-run around the Constitution. The SCOTUS rightfully put a stop to that.

False. There are literally thousands of currently-unfilled jobs that pay quite well, some even more than you can expect with a degree straight out of college. They're called "trade jobs". I've seen ads for welders and pipefitters in the oil and gas industry where you can make around six figures. Sure, they're not cushy office jobs, but it's a lie to say the only way to make a good living in this country is to get a degree.

You also suggest -- somewhat rightly -- this is a "government-created problem." It's a bit more complex than that. Universities used to be much more affordable. Then government-backed student loans became a thing. With students having easy access to big money, universities hiked up fees. As fees increased, so did the size and number of loans. It's a self-reinforcing cycle. The solution, however, is not another government program. The solution is to get government out of the student loan business, the catalyst that started this in the first place! This "debt relief" money doesn't come out of thin air, you know. People who paid off their loans, or didn't take loans, or didn't even go to college are being forced to pay for it.

Let's assume you're correct. What about all the people who paid off their loans? What about the people (like myself) who worked themselves through college and graduated with no debt? They worked hard, sacrificed, and planned effectively so they wouldn't be saddled with such debt. What kind of "relief" do they get out of this?

The answer, of course, is none. Indeed, these are the poor sops who end up paying the taxes that pay off these "student debt relief" programs! They'd have been much better off not working so hard and sacrificing so much, depending instead upon the Almighty Hand Of Government to bail them out at someone else's expense!

There is an old saying in government: if you wish to discourage something, tax it; if you wish to encourage something, subsidize it. Student debt relief encourages irresponsible behavior and discourages sound financial activity.

While Manned missions may not be as practical, they are more politically beneficial. Nothing says look how cool our nation is, by having people be first to a new planet.

The moon landing inspired so many people and our culture, over a half a century ago. However with media today, it won't be the Big event like the moon landing was.