It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.
"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.
You cannot find a more definitive illustration of the faulty thinking of the modern day liberal than the above post!! It is why you see bumper stickers that refer to "mental disorders" and "Disneyland". As Ive have said on many occassions in these pages, the two questions that the modern day liberal cannot answer:
1) At what cost?
and
2) As compared to what?
Indeed.......there are alot of things I would like to have in my life but simply cannot afford to have. I dont sit around and obsess about it.......its just the way it is. At some point, obtaining those things just becomes impossible due to prohibitive costs. Of course, this doesnt apply to the thinking of a liberal. "Costs" are some kind of minor inconvenience........but not in the real world. Luckily for the majority of us who do weigh the two questions above as part of the decisionmaking process, renewable energy continues to be nothing more than a fringe market. And it will always be a fringe market......of that, there is 100% certainty. And it is a fringe market today ONLY because it is government subsidized. In a free market, it would collapse within 6 months
. Only the environmental nutters dont understand that.
Unfortunately for the environmental activists/radicals, most people think like I do, which is why I have said repeatedly in here, that, "The science doesnt matter!!!". The environomentalists have been throwing mega-bombs for decades now and the landscape hasnt really changed in terms of energy production. Why? The answer is quite simple. Because the people who make the laws realize that
mandating that electricity costs double...........based on a hail mary pass theory.........gets your ass voted out permanently. When people like Obama publically state that as if it is a fait-accompli in terms of policy, its nothing more than a dog bone for the true believers who say to themselves, "This guy gets my vote.....he gets it!!!". Absolute fools.........of course Obama knows its not happening.
Lip service is golden however to obtain votes from the voting block of the eternal dreamers.
"Emmission standards" do one thing very effectively: they make people poorer and cause people to become unemployed and have exceedingly little effect on the environment. Energy companies are always going to pass on the cost of regulations/taxes to the consumers. Socialists like Obama believes that to be evil and seeks to destroy the capitalistic system, but attempts to do so just makes
more people poorer. Doesnt matter to him because the "cause is noble". Thankfully, The House is comfortably red until at least 2020 ( redistricting is magical!!!
) and no significant environmental legislation is coming anytime soon. Nor should it.........there are over two million people working in the coal industry. The environmentalist's attitude towards them? "**** YOU!!!"...........
Well.............**** them
According to the best estimates....your worst case scenario would still take on the order of 13,000 years before the effects became noticeable. Pennies out of my pockets? No, trillions of dollars robbed from the citizens of this planet you stupid twerp.
of today. Given the impact on the environment the faster we transition the better.
