Except that the left has spent the last century proving that they will never, ever accept 'minimally invasive' changes. They will relentlessly push for one change after another, eroding away every right, every freedom, and every bit of opposition to them, until it is ground into dust.
You are literally asking to play exactly the game the left has been playing against the right for so long, and winning far too much of the time.
If you had a better suggestion than 'ship cattle feed from the ocean to inland cattle ranches across the country,.' I might be more inclined to listen to you, but as it is, the idea that this would have minimal effects on the ranching industry is ridiculous.
As things stand, animals that are grown for meat are (last I checked) primarily fed from grazing and the parts of crops that are inedible to humans (corn stalks, etc), so the current costs of feed are pretty small. Just the shipping alone to bring seaweed in to all the ranches would be a very significant cost, and that's before you get into the costs involved in farming and harvesting it.
'5% increase in cost.' Do you have any kind of basis for that projection? Because it seems preposterously optimistic to me.
I gave an idea, not the only workable idea, and I am actually trying to find common ground to work from.
I know admitting the Left isn't always wrong is anathema to some of you, but that only shows why Horseshoe Theory is acturate for US politics.
Unlike some here, I can accept change for environmental reasons, and would prefer the Right to have some ability to shape environmental policy in their favor, rather than just letting the Dems set the narrative, rules, and regs on all of it.
But hey if trying to dig your heels in, and denying there are legit issues with solutions that can benefit the GOP voter base while mollifying a part of the Left, you can keep trying prevent change, instead of trying to guide change in your favor while resolving issues that affect everyone, regardless of politics.
I think you're probably right about the specific question of feeding seaweed to cows, but in general the last century has also proved that "standing athwart history yelling stop" is not effective at preventing the left from enacting changes either. What needs to be done is to push our own set of changes, ideally ones that are enough anathema to the left that they can't co-opt them and interfere with the leftists own preferred changes.
Yes, the Right cannot simply try to prevent change and try to reclaim past glories or social situations that are moot in today's social, ecological, and technological context.
The Right must be willing to adapt and try to guide change, rather than try to prevent change.
Okay, looking into it more per
wikipedia this is questionable. What happened was that the Bow Ridge Fault Line was discovered to be hundreds of feet east to where it was thought to be, beneath a storage pad for spent fuel canisters. Upon discovering this they moved the storage pad several hundred feet to the east. This was criticized (by Nevada officials) because they should have known about the fault line's actual location beforehand, but with the change I'm not sure there's anything to indicate the site is significantly less safe than the original plan.
There's essentially always going to be
some risks, regulating nuclear enough that there are zero risks regulates it out of existence, just as it would fossil fuels and even "renewables." And those who wanted to kill Yucca mountain or want to kill any given plant are always going to focus on those risks. Unless something happened where it dramatically changed nearly everyone's opinion, by the risks being orders of magnitude worse than originally thought or something, I think it's fair to say it was hamstrung by politics.
Ah, ok, it was a mislocated fault, not a hidden fault.
The reports I saw years ago made it sound like it was a completely new fault in the mountain that was responsible for the issue.
It likely has run partially afoul of the general anti-nuke sentiment in the US, though there may also be engineering issues the fault's location could cause that were not anticipated before.