You know, it’s like playing whack-a-mole. All of the above reasonable, cogent points will be completely ignored, and in a while a new (or sometimes even the same) poster will pop up with the same discredited complaint.
Rinse and repeat each time some bogus claim like this is repeated on talk radio or FOX.
How about this? I don’t care if we lose a trillion dollars, we NEED green energy because fossil fuels will hit its peak in our lifetime. Continued use of FF is also contributing to massive climate change which will kill us more handily than not having any oil.
Whatever money we spend on green companies is a net positive, as it advances the science.
So I want Obama to invest in more green companies. ANY green companies. I want him to give them taxpayer money by the billions with no accountability because if even one of them can revolutionize solar or wind or whatever other types of fuel we’ll be using in the future, it’ll be worth it.
Amen, Yog, amen. If we dumped what we spend on advanced weapons into advanced energy imagine where we might be right now.
Fast approaching 2030s style death rays?
When you say “we”…
Sorry. If you want to invest in “green”, go ahead. I would never stop you. Just don’t make me.
I’d rather make money.
When Green wins, you’ll win big too.
Maybe I’ll invest when I think I’ll get a return.
Got grandkids? Like 'em?
I’m curious about whether you are going to address the fact that this is a Republican program.
No, I’m going to make you do it too. Because you don’t get to live by one set of facts and laws by yourself and only profit when you can breath clean air and drink non-toxic water. We’re all in this, that’s what you fail to see. And when green energy becomes a reality, you’ll be happier and profit too, unless you are in the funeral industry. In the meantime, you are going to have to use some of that tax money to fund green jobs and green industries. Just accept it
I don’t want to invest in drones, planes, bombs, or ships. Just don’t make me.
I don’t want to invest in roads or bridges or airports or ports. Just don’t make me.
I don’t want to invest in more law enforcement officers or judges or prisons. Just don’t make me.
You live in a society. You don’t get a line-item veto on how your money is spent. Get over it or get yourself another country.
I think we have an answer on that.
All of this “Green Energy” stuff was predicated upon “Cap and Trade” being passed by Congress. The idea was to artificially increase the price of energy to American business and consumers. At gasoline prices of >$7.00/gallon, electric cars would make sense.
Of course, the carbon credits market would also make guys like Al Gore enormously rich, while impoverishing ordinary Americans. It would also exacerbate the movement of jobs to India and China (two places that will never sign up for carbon credits).
How in the hell is the carbon credits market going to make Al Gore rich? Does he get a cut?
If all this is true, why did GWB support A123?
Actually, when they pass it, there are quite a few electric companies and steel mills who will make a lot off of the deal. They’d worked out major credit allowances that I’m sure they’ll end up selling to other manufacturing plants.
I don’t think Al Gore farts quite enough to qualify for any grants, so he’d have to be investing in exchanges (e.g. right now they already sell/trade clean energy credits and I think they were somehow going to be tied in to the carbon credits.)
I wish I could find out how much clean energy credits are worth. Our power company is doing an Energy Star program and is paying $50 for old appliances so long as you sign your energy credits (from recycling the old appliance) over to them.
Cap and trade is nothing new. They already control emission from plants into water ways. Go stand on a bridge over a major river with trade upstream around 2am, you’ll see all those plants taking advantage of their pollution credits as it goes floating down the river in a frothy, chunky gooey mess.
River enhancement.
Both India and China have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.
No, the idea was to stop artificially decreasing the price of energy, by making it subject to free-market forces. Why do you hate the free market?
Yes yes, the Government should NEVER fund new technologies. Everyone knows that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market creates them from whole cloth and provides the funding when such things are needed!
Meanwhile the Chinese suitor is not giving upso easily.
What was the point of this snark? No, YouTube is not scary, but it is 99.7 % dreck and 100% slower than reading text, so, yes, most of us are reluctant to view a video without some indication it will be worth our time.
You know, you don’t win any converts - or even raise any questions - by implying your audience is too stupid or … what? stodgy? … to evaluated the evidence you will not make the effort to summarize.
There are means of communication beyond posting a link. If you would explore them, and present a nonpartisan argument, people might consider your position that government should not invest in infrastructure. They would still disagree, but they might consider it.
Does any one has a link to contemporaneous objective evidence of this/these statements? (Like a WH press release, congressional budget bill, …?) I’d really like to be able to say, “Didn’t you read S. 5720 from 2002? Section IV or V, I think …” in my next argument.