Climate change. You mean the planetary evolution that has been going on for 4.6 billion years? You really think government regulation that stop that?
Answered By: Andrew E - 1/27/2009 |
|
They don't care that it will actually produce lasting jobs, they care that it will be taking money out of their bank accounts.
So they will oppose it until they are literally forced to change.
Answered By: Stephanie is like cereal w*f?! - 1/27/2009 |
|
Why should we weaken our economy to stop the unstoppable? How is man going to stop whats been going on for millions of years?
Answered By: truthistrue8 - 1/27/2009 |
|
Because it costs a lot of money and it is a hoax.
The planet has been cooling since 1998, hence the name change. And suddenly every conceivable weather pattern is "climate change" and we're all going to die. Give me a break.
Answered By: Pied Hussein Piper - 1/27/2009 |
|
"Cooling" is a myth propagated by the "don't make me sell my SUV" crowd. They'd rather f*ck over their kids and grandchildren so that they can stick to their wasteful lifestyle.
The so-called market advocates aren't factoring in all the costs and benefits of climate change and alternative energy.
They prefer to keep these "externalities" out of the calculations, so that they can defend the status quo.
That's why we need to price carbon, which is the biggest externality and a true cost to the planet. Once that's factored in, many of these new technologies will be more than competitive.
Many of the people who got laid off once Maytag closed its factory in Iowa are now working at a plant to make wind turbine blades.
Answered By: Reality has a Liberal Bias - 1/27/2009 |
|
Answered By: Cdude591 - 1/27/2009 |
|
First of all, the Earth is in a cooling trend - not warming.
Secondly, the environmental wackos are blocking everything green. California is ready to build a Solar farm in the Mojave desert but it is being blocked because of a squirrel. Any "green job" is about 20 years away at least because we can't get started on ANYTHING.
Answered By: bluelotussmellslikebananas - 1/27/2009 |
|
Because there is evidence to refute our role in climate change... look at the patterns of underwater volcanic activity in the last 10-15 years... it jumps off the chart. We have no control over that.
Answered By: habsburg - 1/27/2009 |
|
To be fair, you should point out that once the wind turbines are installed, there is little or no need for a person to do any work after that. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but you can't argue more jobs will be created when it's simply not true. Not to mention, who the heck wants those monstrous ugly towers anywhere near them? They're hideous. Same for those vast oceans of solar panels.
And we are not going to go extinct if we don't adopt wind or solar energy power.
Answered By: Galaxie Girl passed the PE exam! - 1/27/2009 |
|
Dude seriously people cant afford to eat and you want the government to spend money on climate problems? You need to put life in perspective. The world survived this long with out the government. Promise
Answered By: Chelsea P - 1/27/2009 |
|
Global warming is a scam. The climate is always changing.
We need to worry about the next ice age more than the temp going up 1 degree.
Answered By: T S - 1/27/2009 |
|
The free market advocates are right, many jobs would be lost if we took extreme action on climate change. The energy industry in this country (coal, oil, etc...) employs hundreds of thousands of people. If we were to put limits on emissions from plants, thousands of manufacturing jobs would disappear. You say it yourself, "if wind power becomes a major source...", the key word there being 'if'. As of this moment there has not been enough R&D in alternative energy tech to make up for the jobs lost. The free market advocates say that if there is enough demand for a certain technology or industry, then it will develop. We are seeing this with alternative energy tech right now, it is just not happening as fast as environmentalists would like.
There is also the question of what impact we can realistically make. Climate change is a very complicated subject, and there is a lot of evidence that suggests that humans have minimal impact on the environment. There is also evidence that shows that no matter what we do, we can't stop climate change. If either of those are the cases, then why waste money forcing regulations?
You also make the leap that we will go extinct. That won't happen. Humanity has survived periods of extreme climate change (see mini ice-age in the middle ages), and you really shouldn't buy into all the "end of the world" stuff you hear on TV.
Answered By: Syko Vagabond - 1/27/2009 |
|
Rational policies will always dictate the free market.
so the question doesn't work in a republo-demo-crat socialist democracy where right and wrong are as blurry and aggression and defense.
the truth is, if it makes sense someone would go after it.
now we may want to look at how oligopolies in oil, auto, and insurance have prevented the free market from working on alternative energy.
as far as just saying climate change - its been proved that the sun and it's solar activities are the only thing that cause climate change, and we can't change that.
we still need to be efficient with resources, but do to political pocket pool with major/friendly companies and associations (BAR association and other unions) the free market has been quieted.
free the market and you will see investment every where it makes sense.
if you want a free market, first you have to free the market.
Answered By: Brad - 1/27/2009 |
|
You mean like more wind turbines? or new solar panels
in my opinion it would hurt more then it would help
Answered By: jamie - 1/27/2009 |
|
I think you're missing a LOT.
First...oil. I agree, we should get off of oil--and I don't know if you're picking up on this or not--but it's not exactly like flipping a switch. We're talking about hundreds of millions of cars, trains, trucks, airplanes and boats that run off of fossil fuels. It's going to take awhile to either update them, or let them wither off into obsolescence. The talk of jacking oil prices, or gas prices, or hiking taxes on the oil companies or straight pilfering their profits does nothing to promote actual new science as much as it does choke the current economy. They talk about the taxes being used for alternative sources. That's all well and good, but how about that lag time for A) getting them the money, B) creating a new source, C) proper testing and all that good stuff, D) mainstreaming it, E) and building the infrastructure to supply the country on as grand a scale as gasoline already does? How about for the companies who can't afford to switch a fleet of 1,000 diesel trucks into hydrogen or whatever else? Furthermore, we've got a lot more to consider than just gasoline when it comes to oil, like textiles and synthetics (plastics are used EVERYWHERE), different grades of fuel (a ship for example uses different grade oil and fuel than your Toyota), lubricants in EVERY metal-to-metal connection and more (think industry). SO yes, in short, we do need to move off of oil, and I certainly agree with getting away from Middle Eastern oil...and Venuzeulan and Russian and....but we can't just do it overnight or try to mandate everyone economically. Oil literally is the lifeblood of the world.
Second of all, I think the bigger and more concerning argument republicans especially have started was after the whole Carbon Credits scheme came to light. Here, environmental concern was being used to create meaningless profits. You could buy more credits (the right to pollute more) and somone else could sell them to you if they create less pollution? Are you actually removing or stopping pollution, or just moving it around? Does this mean that there actually is a set level where pollution is acceptable? Even more acceptable if you have enough money? How is that environmentally responsible?
Third of all, look at CAFE standards set for automobile manufacturers. How is it that anyone in their right mind thinks a legistlator in Washington knows what automobile technology is capable or, thereby giving him the foresight to set technological goals in the future? That makes zero sense.
Look...even the staunchest republicans and free-market individuals will still hold a bit of concern for the environment. If you'll notice though, many of them take measures into their own hands, and without any government help. Prius' were the hottest car on wheels for a bit, and it didn't even have to do with the tax breaks (government intervention that I can get behind). People genuinely took matters into their own hands and started to act. Next time you're home sick, watch some mid-afternoon television and count the cleaning product ads. Then count how many mentioned "green". Ditto with just about any and every product being sold in America right now. The free market is catering to a demand not created, or catered to by the government.
Government intervention in any sense is almost always a losing prospect. Why would you put something so HUGE in their hands alone?
Answered By: jdm - 1/27/2009 |
|