my first issue. i'm not so sure the current administration's agenda is based on a desire to "experiment" on the public. most of the policies i'm reading about have been tested on small scale, state-run pilot (paid for with tax dollars) or have been demonstrated in other countries with similar economic structures. if these are deemed experiments, i think reason may be on the fringe. . . The experiment is not "whether wind power will produce electricity". The experiment in question is whether it is economically benefitial to the nation as a whole to redirect resources into these projects. On that score, recent evidence from Europe suggests not. See Portugal and Spain as well as Germany and Norway. In all cases, efforts to increase the consumption of "green energy" have cost more jobs in terms of harm ot economic productivity than they have created. Progressive always only consider the jobs of the people directly employed by any government program. They never consider the jobs lost through higher consumer prices, and higher taxation on the economy as a whole. Your head is up your ass. Clean energy is a necessity. Government can easily make it more profitable than environment-destroying energy by moving the subsidies around. In the long run, the expense is much less by any measure (assuming you believe in science). Actually, from an economic perspective, and you can easily calculate this cost, it's still probably easier and cheaper in the long run just to move your city or adapt