Economic consequences of combating climate change

[Chloe]

So you are ok with them moveing over seas, and the pain and suffering this would cause on the elderly?

I'm not saying that but if a company chooses to leave then that's fine, maybe it could make room for other companies who value progress over profit and the status quo.

[zelmo1234]

I'm not saying that but if a company chooses to leave then that's fine, maybe it could make room for other companies who value progress over profit and the status quo.

I wish the world worked that way, but if they leave, you will have no tax incoe from those companies, you wil have to tax the end product which will come from the people , not the company.

If we can discover a technology that makes it cheaper, the people will demand it!

It is great to think of a world with green energy, So we have wind at 2 time s the price of coal, and Solar at 3 times the price, and we wonder why people do not want to invest in these system.

[CAS138]

Zelmo1234, it seems like the main reason why you are opposed to green energy is because of the high cost and the struggle that it will cause for the lower class. What do you feel about government subsidies for green technology and green energy sources to decrease the burden that it would have on the poor and elderly?

[Chloe]

Hi CAS138 what is your opinion on this?

[CAS138]

I'm still trying to cement my opinion on the issue, which is why I'd love to hear arguments from both sides. I like to acquire all the knowledge I can about a subject before coming to an opinion. Thanks so much for presenting your viewpoint! I'd like to learn as much about this topic as I possibly can!

[Agravan]

I'm not saying that but if a company chooses to leave then that's fine, maybe it could make room for other companies who value progress over profit and the status quo.

No such company exists, Chloe. People don't go into business to be altruistic. They go into business to make money. This is why your vision of Utopia is doomed to failure. No one wants to, or will, bust their butt just for "progress" if there is not profit involved. Not everyone comes from a wealthy family and can think of environment over food. Think of all the people your plan would condemn to either eating or staying warm. Once again, your concept of "compassion" for others is incomprehensible to a normal, non-utopian, person.

[zelmo1234]

Zelmo1234, it seems like the main reason why you are opposed to green energy is because of the high cost and the struggle that it will cause for the lower class. What do you feel about government subsidies for green technology and green energy sources to decrease the burden that it would have on the poor and elderly?

I am a capitalist, and a cConstitutionalist. right now they are subsidising the industry at a rate of 92 billion a year, and instituting policies that have falsly driven the price of gas, lp and heating oil up, by more than a dollar a gallon!, And they still can't sell these products. States to comply with EPA anti coal designes have instituted green mandates for their power companies, and ethonal standards for gas, because of this the price of corn has skyrocketed, and E85 is more expensive in MI than regular unleaded gas, even with the farm subsidies on the product.

Next the government is 17 trillion in debt, they have no money to do a direct subsidy to the poor and middle class, so you would have to get that money from the oil companies, which will cause them to off shore and drive the price of gas even higher as they will pass this cost on to the consumer.

Add to the fact that Solar and wind for much of the country must have fossil fuel or battery back-up and you have a very expensive system, even with subsidies. This drives the price of manufacturing up, and now you have more companies that are forced to off shore to stay competitve?

All these must be taken into account.

So unless you can show me how we can subsidise the current green energy technology, without raising the debt, hurting manufacturing, and causing the price of energy to skyrocket, and costing a lot of US jobs? I would not be for it! And keep in mind you are talking about a subsidy of 3 to 4 thousand in cash payments for about 100 million people!

[zelmo1234]

I'm still trying to cement my opinion on the issue, which is why I'd love to hear arguments from both sides. I like to acquire all the knowledge I can about a subject before coming to an opinion. Thanks so much for presenting your viewpoint! I'd like to learn as much about this topic as I possibly can!

This is a sign of wisdom, you will go far in life with this attitude!

[zelmo1234]

It all comes down to the Green movment is determined to force a technology on the people of the USA, before iti si reliable and cost effective. Even when you look and see the cars like the volt, and solar power generations stations are more enviromentally unfriendly through the manufacturing porocess, and because the plug in electricity is likely to be generated from coal than their fossil fuel alternatives.

The green movment like in the 70's has little reguard for the effects that is has on other people! Now saying that their desire is driven by a rational plan to improve the planet, but they tend to disreguard the facts. They care little for the jobs that it would force overseas, and the unemployment it would cause. They could care less that it has a financial effect on others. which would most likely explain why many or I should say most of the people in the movment come from upper income families and they have little need for income as they can count on family wealth to support them.

They care little that the jobs they would force overseas would mean more world pollution, as long as they can be seen as reducing polution in their area. which leads me to beleive that they really do not beleive in global warming either, or they would understand that sending jobs to china where there is little in the way of enviroment restrictions would be counter productive.

This is what will cause the poor and middle class to reject green energy so strongly that it will be once again defunded and sent to the wood shed for decades. Which will once again delay the technology that will one day make green energy the cheap alternative to fossil fuels. Energy policy will turn in the next 5 years toward massive production of fossil fuel energy, clean coal, and natural gas. All to remove the governemnt imposed burden of high energy prices. President Obama stated it perfectly when he said the price of fossil fuel energy must necessarily skyrocket for green energy to have a chance. It has, and green energy is still 3 times more expensive!

Instead of wasting billions in subsidies to companies that have no customers, we must put this into reasearch and development, through the university systems to develope the technology that will drive the conversion to green energy! unless this becomes the policy of the future, green energy is doomed!

[Chloe]

No such company exists, Chloe. People don't go into business to be altruistic. They go into business to make money. This is why your vision of Utopia is doomed to failure. No one wants to, or will, bust their butt just for "progress" if there is not profit involved. Not everyone comes from a wealthy family and can think of environment over food. Think of all the people your plan would condemn to either eating or staying warm. Once again, your concept of "compassion" for others is incomprehensible to a normal, non-utopian, person.

Why do you have to make it personal?