>> You are classing wrongly fighting climate change on the same scale as a cometary strike on the planet.
No, I'm not.
EIA estimates subsidies to green energy today at 101 Billion/year; over the course of a generation that would go up to 223 Billion/year. I believe in green energy and always have, long before it was cool to do so.
But subsidies are a poor substitute for innovation. If you want to subsidize rooftop PV installations, you have to go into that recognizing it is a terrible deal for taxpayers. And basically is untenable (to produce 6% of the 2030 power requirement by rooftop PV would require 1.7 billion rooftop installations). Do you want to spend money there? Probably not.
OTOH, new technologies like Musk's new shingles may be more workable. You get far more bang for the buck out of innovation -- and the only incentive you REALLY need for innovation is tax breaks which pay for themselves anyway. WTF is so hard to understand about that?
If it costs nothing, then sure -- just go on solve the problem whether it is one or not. As the nutjob left often says, "What's the harm in fixing it? We have a cleaner planet." The harm, of course, is that in real life, it costs plenty. Trillions.
If we really wanted a clean, cheap source for energy we'd be building nuclear plants. But you cannot do that today because idiotic regulation.
As I've tried to point out, this is an economic issue more than any other thing. Were it not for economics, it just wouldn't matter what we did.
CJ, you've never been able to grasp basic economics for some reason. But if you want to understand this issue you're going to have to come to terms with it. Every problem has an economic component. When Barack Obama said, "We're going to raise your electricity bills through the roof" he was mistakenly stating the truth. But the subsidies, as it turned out, can be easily hidden in huge deficits. |
