The vanity is in paying more for your energy to “make a difference”, while us normal folks are enjoying the natural gas boom which is actually reducing emissions substantially.
If the government was competent in picking winners, it would have placed a big bet on natural gas.
You do realize that natural gas creates emissions, including CO2, don’t you? That it’s a greenhouse gas itself, when it’s just vented, as is pretty common, don’t you? That it’s a fossil fuel just like oil, and will eventually be exhausted? That it does nothing to reduce consumption of oil, most of which is used in vehicle fuel? What, *none *of that?
Never mind. Let’s just work on comprehending predatory pricing strategies, for now. A basic tool of capitalism that China, Inc. is using expertly in the PV panel industry, to our detriment in every way.
It emits less CO2 than oil or coal.
It will eventually be exhausted, like oil, but we’ve got new techniques for getting at huge reserves.
It does reduce oil consumption, but it reduces coal consumption even more, and coal is a bigger greenhouse gas.
It is viable, right now. I guess you’d prefer we just continue to rely on coal until your magical green energy can be used to power a country?
And once again, thank you for showing all that you are better than the Tea party leaders. But we all know that you will pass their denier pamphlets once election time comes.
Using the Al Gore card is common among climate change deniers, I wonder if adaher minds that it makes those guys look like fools for using it.
Once again, virtually all Tea Partiers are from the same cookie cutter of “Climate Change is a hoax”, as pointed before adaher does not seem to mind that he is working to make sure that the blind continue to be elected.
See Gore’s Law: “As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.”
There’s nothing magical about it, although I do understand that your party loyalty requires you to denigrate anything contrary to Big Oil’s interests. Roughly a third to a half of all electric power in Europe, which has taken the problem seriously, is *already *from renewable sources, for instance. Already. The tech is proven, so is the economics, the problem is the obstructionist politics of The Entrenched Interests.
Actually we do not have to do anything, see grid parity
We certainly do not have to let China cheat us though.
Of course, a great deal of that is . . . nuclear! :eek:
And Europeans pay much higher energy bills, and face the threat of there not being enough power to boot.
Actually the problem is an aging grid, specially from former communist countries and it is over production (wind(!) in this case in the following cite) what is creating more risks of a blackout.
And still the worst blackouts are reported to be from 2006, of course they used the “May” or “if” but cover qualifications. BTW, I do think that just like Japan, Germany and others will eventually reconsider the idea of facing off nuclear power.
Incidentally solar power does remove a big threat from blackouts as the grid becomes less dependent on few sources during peak hours, and the USA has a more viable environment to increase the use of solar power compared to Europe.
In essence, the point made before is still valid, there is a need to add the real costs to our use of fossil fuels. Once the real costs are added then other options will be deployed faster as it will become clear that the costs will be less than continuing to depend mostly on fossil fuels, by delaying adding the real costs to our use of fossil fuels the Tea Partiers are only playing dice with our future.
Once again, adaher goes off on a tangent, trying to distract us from the theme of the thread: The Republicans have nothing to offer…
Even Mittens is telling the extremists to stop running into windmills. 
As I also pointed before in an election thread, one reason why Florida did in the end voted for Obama was thanks to the ACA as a lot of minorities do not have access to affordable health care.
Going forward, the fact that many will see benefits in the states that are implementing the changes will also be an important factor in future elections because Hispanics in states like Texas will wonder aloud why in other states they are getting a better deal.
No wonder Mittens is worried, but as it was seen, even he has not much interest in finding out why they lost, here is a hint Mittens: The Republicans in power spit on moderates like you.
Ross Douthat had an interesting argument, backed up with cites, about how racial polarization of the electorate isn’t something that Democrats are innocent of. He argues that in the Obama years, Democrats have sought to appeal to minorities in ways that alienate working class white voters:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/republicans-white-voters-and-racial-polarization/?_r=0
On the other hand, he agrees with most of you guys that the GOP needs to become more moderate on economic issues. I think the opposite: I think it’s social conservatives who need to be listened to less.
That’s not counting nuclear as renewable. Check this out. In fact, Germany is well on the way to eliminating what nuclear they do have as a matter of national policy.
Which is, of course, somehow the Democrats’ fault and will cost them in the next election. Or maybe the one after, or the one after that, but someday.
Hmm, wonder what Douthat, with his record of accuracy rivaling adaher’s, meant by “pushing working-class whites toward the Republicans” - does that mean “no longer catering to fear of social progress”?
Freer immigration is not really social progress, given that it pushes down working class people’s wages. It also makes a generous welfare state impossible, which comes from Paul Krugman’s mouth.
The Democrats’ stance on immigration is pure politics, it has nothing to do with social progress.
Same goes for environmentalism, higher energy bills for consumers and rolling blackouts is the opposite of progress, it’s actually Luddism.
The Republican attitude on immigration reform isn’t really based on economics, now is it? 
C’mon, look us straight in the eye now …
And are you seriously claiming the Democrats are somehow *for *rolling blackouts? Dude, you need your own show on Comedy Central, right after Colbert. This is great stuff!
All my nieces and nephews that are straight A students and are finishing college will become the taxpayers that will fund your medicare and social security, you are welcome.
And you are welcome to post nonsense like that one, as shown before, the propaganda from the right ignores that a good reason for the problems are coming from old systems and excess energy production from renewals, that is, problems that are bound to be solved soon thanks to the current price they are paying. Oh, you mean you could not deduce that when there is a lot of improvements to be done that would be a reason prices would increase today but be lower tomorrow once all those improvements are done and the real price of using fossil fuels is taken into account?
All those things that are missed on purpose by the pamphlets coming from the Tea Party are coming from the real Luddites, with a good pinch of demagoguery.
I think he personifies the theme of the thread.
That’s why the left fails when they do. They believe that the only thing that matters is intentions.