I’ve seen a number of stories on the horrific heat wave that’s baking the Eastern seaboard, and they usually mention that electric utilities are struggling to keep up with rising electricity demand as everyone turns on their air conditioners. But the stories are a little confused about what’s happening.

Arizona is threatening to leave Los Angeles in the dark — and its air conditioners without power — if the city doesn’t rescind its order to boycott the state over Arizona’s tough new immigration law.

Answer: Zero. The military shouldn’t even be involved in Afghanistan. If we want to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan, we need sustainable, civilian-only solutions.

By way of this Steven Pearlstein article, Ezra Klein wonders why natural gas doesn’t get as much attention as nuclear energy as a bridge fuel toward the clean energy economy:

My understanding is that natural gas is a really promising candidate as a bridge fuel (a cleaner energy source between the coal/oil economy and whatever comes next), for all the reasons Steve Pearlstein lays out here. But nuclear energy attracts all the political attention. Why is that? Is it just because nuclear energy has traditionally been opposed by liberals and so it’s become an article of faith among conservatives? Does nuclear energy have a more-organized or better-funded industry backing it?

I’ll look at a few factors that may play a role in this below.