A fabulous article here by John Stossel about the ruse that is green energy. His points are not even debatable.
From the article...............
Obama claims that if we "invest" more, we can "create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate the "green transition." What could make more sense? A little push from the smart politicians, and -- voila! -- an abundance of new jobs and a cleaner, sustainable environment. It's the ultimate twofer. Except it's an illusion, because governments do not "create" jobs.
"All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others," writes Green. "It is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector -- and most likely in other industrial sectors -- through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition. The subsidized jobs 'created' are, by definition, less efficient uses of capital than market-created jobs."
This is good, solid economic thinking. Many years ago, Henry Hazlitt wrote in his bestseller, "Economics in One Lesson," "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
RealClearPolitics - Keeping Nature Exactly as Is ... Forever
So yup.........we can go green.
But heres what it means ( in part). We're all going to be driving around in little gay 2 door death traps. No more plastics in our lives ( how thrilling is that thought?
). Live in homes the size of a two car garage! Exist for years with pronounced food shortages. Agree to a significant decrease in take home pay.
And thats just a start.
The reward? ( according to the environmentalists). We can thus live in a world surrounded by nature as it was 1 million years ago!!!
The reality is................the k00ks dont mind ******* over a vast majority of the population to attain their vision.
cool
I'm for doing anything that costs little but consideration, to address issues regarding 'green' until there is more than snake oil science. That includes the money generated to politicians that approve all the different gasoline 'requirements' for individual states. No one has proven effectiveness, but they get their kick-backs and we pay more. Same with taxing fossil fuel industries out of work, because of the 'hope' of alternatives not yet feasible. So too with the feds slapping private property owners with orders that, 'no further improvements on the land allowed,' because some group got an insect, plant, or bird 'protected.'
On the other hand, I've no problem with spending money to clean up rivers, creeks, ponds, lakes, etc. It's beyond proven that a myriad of poisons have been dumped into fresh water since the beginning of the industrial revolution and it's been proven that they kill smaller bodies of water. That includes the fish, insects, birds, etc., that relied on them. It also leaves less fresh water around the planet. Man, animals, and plants all need fresh water.
Now cleaning up the landfills? That's much harder. Truth is I recycle like a crazy person. One, because I believe it's important. Two, I don't pay for recycles, I pay for refuse. I use one refuse sticker a month on average. Recyclables? A 30 gallon and 2 or 3 bins. I do have my doubts though, how much is really reused. In Chicago there was a huge scandal just a few years ago. The 'recycle' trucks were dumping in same places as refuse.
For any tree harvested, two should be planted, minimum. There should be restrictions on how many mature trees can be harvested, but that's for the companies and scientists to work out. I do know though that two saplings do NOT replace a 40 year old tree. Not to look at, not to use, not in ability to create oxygen.
How many species of animals became extinct before man roamed the earth? How many after, but before coal was burned? How many before cars?
Don't get me wrong, I love tigers as much as anyone, but can't say I'm unhappy looking at the Saber Toothed variety in natural museums and books, rather than in person.
Think of all the different races of man. Funny thing there, while earlier species, ala Cro-Magnon evolved eventually into the current form, the races indeed have blended throughout the millenniums. I believe current anthropological theory still holds that current humans first evolved in Africa? Blacks certainly weren't wiped out. Nope, as man hunted and gathered, wandered farther away and the skin adapted to new climates, getting lighter. Problems arose when these groups met again, much, much later.
Nature too adapts, much quicker for the most part than humans. Logically one could say that some men are underestimating the abilities of nature.
