Climate change denialism is not a winning position

We’ll have to disagree. Businesses are noticing how the issue(not necessarily the reality) of climate change is affecting their bottom line. Thousands of busineses each year are taking advantage of tax breaks for green energy. Thousands are on that particular gravy train. Recieving millions if not billions in state subsidies. All these businesses are already a powerful vested interest lobby group.

I also doubt actual real climate change will affect busineses to any great degree(you can probably tell im wary of the catastrophic climate change argument). When China is increasing co2 emmissions by staggering amounts each year there is little the US Government can do. I do forsee increasing amounts spent by the US on green technology. However, I think this will always be a self limiting amount of money.

Today’s headlines:

Why self-limiting?

I think there will always be a vocal group/electorate in the US pointing out that America and the West cannot fight co2 emmissions on its own. That China and India are vastly increasing co2 levels yearly, and they will continue to do so for some time. I believe the US will not vastly increase its spending on green energy while this imbalance continues. In a competative world economy the US will not overly burden itself much more than it already does.

I was wrong to say the amount will always be self limiting. But it will be self limiting until green energy does become a true economic alternative to fossil fuels. For the forseeable future it will not. If it ever does become a self sustaining alternative then spending on green energy will rise. At the moment it is a sector which is reliant on State aid.

Not really as seen by the stupid things the Republicans leaders said recently.

Since most of the people agree with the latest EPA limits one has to say that it is the fossil fuel and right wing think thanks the ones putting those words in their mouths BTW.

We are now discussing the difference between a few feet in the increase of the oceans level vs the complete loss of coastal cities in the long run. You bet business will be affected. And that difference is made in big part by the ones that are telling us that we should do nothing. In reality the first thing we need to do is not to vote Republican until they get the idea of not rejecting science.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/20/these-20-cities-have-the-most-to-lose-from-rising-sea-levels/

I didn’t read the whole article, but the snippet in the OP is rather comical. It’s easy for someone to say they wouldn’t vote for a candidate for “x” reason, but you don’t vote for candidates in a vacuum. It’s always going to be a choice between two people, and it’s easy to overlook the “I wouldn’t vote for x” if the other guy looks worse. I’m sure many people voted for Romney in the last election who would have said they couldn’t see themselves voting for a Mormon if asked that question in a poll.

Besides, the true “deniers” are few and far between. What you hear today is “sure, humans may be contributing to climate change, but it’s not as bad as the Chicken Littles are saying, and it’s not worth crashing the economy over”. I’d be very surprised if climate change played a big role in the next election. Further down the road maybe, but short-term, no.

I expect the end of the Communist Party in China if they do not work harder on controlling their emissions, in any case as we are one of the biggest consumers we have a lot of power and influence once we begin to change on a larger scale.

They are already competitive once the cost of us using the atmosphere as a sewer is added. And as we see now there are a lot of moves from energy companies to stop people from putting solar panels in their homes because they are finding that it makes economical sense.

Even conservative media is noting this, and how silly it is to support the big energy companies on this issue:

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/11/04/solar-industry-takes-on-crony-capitalism-in-arizona-n1735569/page/full

Unfortunately they are being elected, and thanks to powerful interests and think tanks.

I dont believe solar is yet anywhere near making economic sense apart from in places such as Arizona. Arizona is well placed to take advantage of progress in solar development. Most locations are not. That’s why it is silly imo to push solar in so many geographic areas. Green energy policy in Vermont ought to be entirely different to green energy policy in Arizona or New Mexico.

Which is precisely why places like Vermont should be implementing pro-solar policies. Yes, solar doesn’t make sense now in those places, but it will, once the technology improves enough. And how do you think the technology improves?

German implementation has been the result of a national policy, the Energiewende, that provides subsidies and guaranteed feed-in tariffs for renewable resources. The FIT’s expire in 20 years, enough time for the technology to mature economically while the environmental benefits occur.

That’s a heck of an assumption. You can’t just assume that a technology will become viable, and a subsidized technology shielded from competitive pressures is even less likely to ever become viable.

You’re not getting it. The technology has become necessary. Viability is a secondary consideration, believe it or not.

Quick question: What technology did you use to post that? :wink:

Just so long as you realize that solar may never exist free of taxpayer support. And that you might even have to make people use it eventually.

BTW, how much as Germany reduced its emissions? And when are the rolling blackouts scheduled to start?

And here’s the other problem. Germany isn’t replacing fossil fuels. They are replacing an already clean energy, nuclear.

It’s the 21st century already. We’re not going back. Deal with it.

So you’re walking across a bridge that isn’t finished yet and you’ll just walk right over the edge whether it’s finished or not by the time you get there.

Well it doesn’t improve efficiently by installing 2014 solar technology in Vermont when that technology will be out of date soon. If some really efficient solar/storage technology comes along then thats when it needs implemented in Vermont. How efficient is it to replace 10’s of thousands of solar panels in Vermont when the next era of solar comes along. The 2014 era solar technology is simply not good enough for such environments.

The longer you drag your feet, the worse the problem gets, 'kay? And the less you work on the technology, including its manufacturing costs, the slower the costs come down, 'kay? And if others are working on it but you aren’t, they’ll control the market and you’ll have to pay what they tell you, 'kay? So it’s time to stop the footdragging.

adaher, you’re leaving out the part about the raging fire catching up to you.

Sorry, I disagree. If another form of cost efficient/cleanish energy comes along we will jump on it. It all depends on the technological improvements to be made in the future. Where these technological improvements in energy will be made no-one knows. Its as likely to be in something we find unimagineable today as it is in solar.

Interesting that you mentioned others working on it. What is the goal here? Is it to combat climate change, or to create jobs? If the goal is to combat climate change, then having the Chinese do all the research is win-win. We get the technology and the taxpayers don’t pay for it. And if it doesn’t end up working out, they wasted their money, not us.