Excuse me if I bruised your feelings. But none of those things were solely for the reduction of CO2 emissions. Granted, some of them had that as a factor, but it wasn't high on the list. All of those things, even Solyndra, would have been done even if CO2 emissions were not a concern.
Which is why I described your argument as handwaving. Because it is. You have moaned about the regulatory burden without mentioning anything in particular. Probably because you would be hard-pressed to find any. True, there are things like tax credits for electric vehicles. But even then, it is as much about reducing our dependence on oil than it is for reduced CO2 emissions, Reducing our need for oil has a lot of benefits, not the least of which is to decouple the global economy from unstable and/or fairly unsavory regimes. It would be nice to not have transportation costs spike every time there is something that happens in the Middle East, for example.
But as to actual regulations, there just isn't much. Nothing that amounts to billions of dollars annually, not even close. EPA has a page where they brag about what they have done with respect to greenhouse gases.
epa.gov
Ever there, which you would expect to be puffed up, there just isn't much there that isn't a study.
Bottom line, you didn't make your case. |
