Core Principle: Practical, gradual transition guided by free-market innovation and sentient-rights considerations. Avoid disruptive mandates or taxpayer-funded subsidies. Prioritize human (and herbivore) welfare over apocalyptic framing while conserving nature where it does not conflict with rights or development.
Climate Change
-
Both natural and anthropogenic. Real but not apocalyptic.
-
Policy should support long-term wellbeing of sentient beings without upending energy supply chains.
-
Prefer slow, phased shift to greener infrastructure.
-
In ideal society: animal agriculture elimination would greatly reduce the human-induced component.
Energy Mix
-
Fossil fuels remain available for industries that benefit most from them.
-
Greater effort into renewables via private innovation and incentivization rather than forced phase-outs.
-
Free-market competition drives advancement.
Regulation & Conservation
-
Environmental regulations focused on conserving sanctuary lands and herbivorous animal populations.
-
Pollution and waste regulated to protect public health and consumer standards.
Subsidies & Mandates
-
No government subsidies for green tech (taxpayer funding viewed as theft unless opt-in).
-
No mandates (EVs, net-zero, etc.).
-
Goals encouraged through free-market competition.
International Climate Agreements
-
Support awareness efforts, but primary human-induced driver in ideal view is animal agriculture.
-
Not bound by accords that infringe on American freedom or rights.
-
Follow only if consistent with reasonable US conservation and public-safety regulations for sentient beings.
Nuclear Power
- Expand. Proven safe when properly managed; safety standards remain crucial.
Conservation vs Development
-
Preserve nature as long as sentient rights are not violated.
-
Resource extraction preferred in low-sentient-density areas (deserts, quarries).
-
Technology and development should integrate with rights-respecting nature rather than wholesale demolition.
Climate Change:
Man-made or natural? Severity of the threat? Priority level for policy?
Climate change is both natural and anthropocentrically induced. The threat exists, but is not apocalyptic. Policy should be enacted which benefits the long-term wellbeing of sentient individuals, but not so much as to disrupt and upend current energy supply chains. Phasing out slowly to more green infrastructure. In my ideal society (unrealistic) climate change would be much less of a severe issue since animal agriculture would be eliminated.
Energy Mix:
Fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables — preferred balance? Phase-outs or free market?
Fossil fuels can remain for now as we put greater effort into renewables. Fossil fuels may still exist for certain industries that are more benefitted from them, while other industries can phase to renewables that are more benefitted from them. I don’t necessarily believe in entire forced phase-outs, rather incentivization and innovation from private companies to advance renewable technology.
Regulation & Conservation:
Environmental regulations strength? Land use, wildlife protection, pollution standards?
There should exist environmental regulations on the specific grounds of conserving and maintaining sanctuary lands and herbivorous animal populations. Pollution and waste should be regulated to a certain level of consumer and public health standard.
Subsidies & Mandates:
Government subsidies for green tech/renewables? Carbon taxes, EV mandates, net-zero goals?
Government subsidies for green tech means tax payer money. This is theft, the government should not be subsidizing anything unless tax payers opt-in. No mandates. Goals should exist and competition should boom in the free-market.
International Climate Agreements:
Support, reform, or withdraw from Paris Accords and similar?
We can support international effort to raise awareness against anthropocentric climate change, but the main issue of climate change induced by humans should be animal agriculture. This aligns with sentient rights protections of the United States in my idealistic view. In a more realistic view, we should not be beholden to any kind of accord that goes against the freedom of our people and nation. As long as the accords are in line with the reasonable conservation and regulatory laws for U.S. public safety of sentient beings, then it can be followed. Otherwise, I don’t wish to mandate policy that infringes upon rights-respecting citizens of the country.
Nuclear Power:
Expand, maintain, or restrict? Waste and safety concerns?
We should expand Nuclear power as I believe it has been proven safe. Safety is crucial, as it is everywhere else.
Conservation vs Development:
Balance between preserving nature and economic growth/resource extraction?
This is tricky. Nature should be preserved so long as sentient rights are not violated. Resource extraction generally occurs in places like deserts or quarries that do not have massive populations of sentient animals living. Technology should, mostly, be built in and alongside sentients-rights respecting nature, rather than demolishing it.