06 Feb 08
Claims that spending on green technologies will create "millions" of new jobs, as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have repeatedly claimed, are false. Such assertions rest on fallacious economic logic that sounds good on the stump but in reality results in a lower standard of living and fewer jobs for all Americans, says Investor's Business Daily.
Why do we allow politicians to persist in such foolishness? Why are people so ignorant when it comes to the environment? Don't they know that if we cut our CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, that every American will have a level of existence comparable to Americans at the time of the Civil War? Think about it: You will have to drive a Toyota Prius and then decide whether to run your car for a year or your refrigerator. Needless to say, you will not be able to run your AC or big-screen television. That may be the "change" envisioned by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, but hopefully, enough Americans will see through these two lunkheads and vote against living like they did before the Civil War.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287106987501554
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAmericans were torn between Toyotas and refrigerators before the civil war? I'm also not sure how alternative energy will resurrect the slaves.
That may be the "change" envisioned by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, but hopefully, enough Americans will see through these two lunkheads and vote against living like they did before the Civil War.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterRidiculous argument. In 50 years time, technology will not be the same as it is now. The idea is directing research into alternatives, not simply cutting on emissions using the same technology.
Don't they know that if we cut our CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, that every American will have a level of existence comparable to Americans at the time of the Civil War? Think about it: You will have to drive a Toyota Prius and then decide whether to run your car for a year or your refrigerator. Needless to say, you will not be able to run your AC or big-screen television.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you have to subsidize "green" technologies, then they're not ready. Even worse, by taking money from one sector to prop up an unproductive one harms the whole economy. Like it or not, fossil fuels are going to be with us for some time.
Ridiculous argument. In 50 years time, technology will not be the same as it is now. The idea is directing research into alternatives, not simply cutting on emissions using the same technology.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell, 2050 is some way off.
If you have to subsidize "green" technologies, then they're not ready. Even worse, by taking money from one sector to prop up an unproductive one harms the whole economy. Like it or not, fossil fuels are going to be with us for some time.
06 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwithout the subsidy, they will never be ready, which is what the oil companies want, so they can drain every last dollar from your wallet.
If you have to subsidize "green" technologies, then they're not ready. Even worse, by taking money from one sector to prop up an unproductive one harms the whole economy. Like it or not, fossil fuels are going to be with us for some time.
So what's your answer? let India do the R&D, and then we can by the technology from them? Why not do it ourselves, and maybe we could have something to export besides our useless IOU's
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerMy solution: No subsidies; instead, offer a billion dollars prize money to the company that comes up with a solution to severing our dependence on foreign oil.
without the subsidy, they will never be ready, which is what the oil companies want, so they can drain every last dollar from your wallet.
So what's your answer? let India do the R&D, and then we can by the technology from them? Why not do it ourselves, and maybe we could have something to export besides our useless IOU's
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhy do we allow polluters to persist in such foolishness?
Why do we allow politicians to persist in such foolishness?
What point would there be to having a humvee and a 60" plasma, if you had to go around with oxygen masks, and there was no wilderness to speak of and the only way your kids could enjoy nature and the experience of all the animals that would now be extinct, would be to watch/experience them in tactile 3D high def TV??
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter2050 is 42 YEARS AWAY!
Claims that spending on green technologies will create "millions" of new jobs, as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have repeatedly claimed, are false. Such assertions rest on fallacious economic logic that sounds good on the stump but in reality results in a lower standard of living and fewer jobs for all Americans, says Investor's Business ...[text shortened]... before the Civil War.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287106987501554
You don't think technology will be different then? You can't compare todays energy demands to 42 years from now.
Besides, if we have indeed hit peak oil, then in 42 years if we haven't developed a new fuel source then you really will have a choice between running your refridgerator or running your car with the price of gas that high!
Another non-starter thread from the dsr. 😴
06 Feb 08
2 edits
"Why do we allow politicians to persist in such foolishness?"
I guess because a democratic system allows us to choose between different sets of ideas. The IBD article only presented one side of the story, and it wasn't exactly explicit with its reasons for rejecting the DNC's plan for a "greener" economy. This is an interesting subject, but I need more info. ...To the library!...
06 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYeah! Like how education harms industry and slows technological development!
If you have to subsidize "green" technologies, then they're not ready. Even worse, by taking money from one sector to prop up an unproductive one harms the whole economy. ..[text shortened]...
and don't get me started ont he Department of Transportation! Bunch of sponges they are!
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou seem to be missing a whole lot of points.
If you have to subsidize "green" technologies, then they're not ready.
A) Global warming might be true. If it is, the hit to the economy could be epic.
B) Nobody likes pollution. You can either pay for clean up operations when it may be too late (ie: dead zones in lakes, seas, etc, etc) or you can subsidize preventative measures now.
C) Fossil fuels WILL run out eventually. If, like you advocate, we wait until they have run out before even starting to look at alternate technologies, then we are goosed. Obviously, most items need fossil fuels during their production. If we wait until oil is practically non-existant, then we're still in trouble due to the high price. Why not move forward now while fossil fuels are still relatively plentiful?
My house requires no fossil fuels for heating/electricity supply. Are you so ignorant of renewable technologies that you think that cutting greenhouse gas emissions means that we have to go back to the stoneage?
Or are you just a propoganda machine? Seriously, do you get paid for spreading this rubbish? I can't believe that you enjoy having your links shot down time and time again.
D
06 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt's a fallacious comparison. CO2 emmissions would be comparable to the civil war era, but with investment in the technologies (which is already seen as a viable investment by large corporations such as Google) the standard of living should actually improve. E-paper (as seen in Amazons "kindle" ) is already at a colour phase with frequencies high enough for video, they are currently working on brighter inks, but within the next decade, you can have a TV as large as you want, which operates on so little juice that you can run it off a single AAA battery for days non-stop.
Claims that spending on green technologies will create "millions" of new jobs, as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have repeatedly claimed, are false. Such assertions rest on fallacious economic logic that sounds good on the stump but in reality results in a lower standard of living and fewer jobs for all Americans, says Investor's Business before the Civil War.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287106987501554
Googles offer on the electric car market (they're not presenting a car, but a fuelling option) allows utilities to buy back power from charged cars in times of high demand, which is so economically viable, they can actually pay the drivers to do it since they're saving so much on keeping back-up generators warm.
Furthermore, all of this is high-end R&D, an important tertiary industry, research which China is trying to become a world leader in, making investment NOW, a good option. Companies are already starting to cash in, it would be silly of the government not to help that along in the interest of the economy.