Common Sense Capitalism
Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 8
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The oil spill has allowed for the clean energy debate to be renewed (by the Administration). It makes me wonder what price for clean energy is too steep. Personally, I use water filters and reusable containers because it is green and cheap.
But, is it worth double the electricity bills for clean energy? What's the right price?
It's like some people think this is the only planet we have or something!Any price than it more than we currently pay is to steep.
What's so green about water filters and reusable containers?
It's like some people think this is the only planet we have or something!
Yeah. I'll just drive my car to mars. Doesn't take long.you're welcome to live on another one, if you can get their on your lifetime.
It's like some people think this is the only planet we have or something!
Project the cost of oil, coal and natural gas in 30 years when India and China have truly massive middle classes.
Is the cost of clean energy worth it? Hell Yes.
Of course we were being green, although being green was not our motive.
So as alternative renewable energy sources become efficent, they will become less expensive that our current energy sources, and we will make the switch to renewable energy not for the sake of saving the planet, but for the sake of saving our own bank accounts.
Generally, the most economical product is the greenest, although we may not always realize that.
So once again, what is "green" about filtering your water?
I suspect also that the real costs of renewables have been overstated
Actually I think it's the reverse. The real costs of fossil has been understated by decades of subsidies and non-allocation costs of pollution. Remove the subsidies and allocate back the pollution costs and I suspect renewable looks relatively cheap. Especially when we add back military operation costs to ensure the free flow of oil.
Have any of you been to Germany lately? What they have accomplished with solar power there is quite amazing.
If gasoline were $7/gallon right now, those gas-guzzling SUV's? They'd be parked. Major car manufacturers would be tripping all over themselves to get more-and-more-miles-per-gallon.
If it cost $3 to buy a bottle of water in its plastic container, nobody would buy it. They'd actually, heaven-freakin'-forbid fill a reuseable container with water at HOME. Free.
If it cost $3/day to burn a lightbulb, people would quickly learn to shut off lights/appliances they weren't using.
If Pampers cost $8 each, people would find other ways.
It people were charged $25 per bin of "garbage" and recycling was free, we'd be recycling everything we could.
If dentists charged $2,500 to pull a tooth and $10 to fill a cavity, we'd all be toothless.
Money is the greatest motivator on earth.
The only way to encourage living green is to price living 'otherwise' out of sight. It's the only way to change habits.
... that doesn't seem like the right solution because you're arbitrarily putting a price on oil. We need a more realistic price on the cost of pollution from oil.
It might not be an ideal solution, but other than "cap and trade" I haven't seen any alternate suggestions, and personally, I think anything is better than cap and trade.
So whats your suggestion? Having a government inspector riding on the tailpipe of every car?
Thats all very true.
Of course no brainwashed right winger is ever going to agree with you (by the way, I tend to be a right winger, I am just not brainwashed). Most right wingers would say that is "social engineering" and is evil. What they fail to recognize is that it is governments roll to social engineer.
Having laws against murder and rape and theft is social engineering and having a penale system that deals with lawbreakers is social engineering. Building roads is social engineering, having a military is social engineering, having tax breaks for borrowing money to buy a home is social engineering, the current tax deduction to companies that offer insurance to employees is social engineering, but even most far right wingers would agree that our government should be doing those things.
Extreme right wingers frequently shout about how unfair it would be to have "sin" taxes, and how wrong it is to tax income from investments, and how we need to repeal the "death tax", they will even complain about our progressive income tax system, and they love to point out all of the things that government shouldn't be doing, but rarely do they have the guts to suggest alternative ways to create income to support the functions of government that we all agree government should be doing.
If given the choice between our current system that encourages waste of resources and discourages work (the tax on working), or having a system that discourages waste (a tax on waste) and incourages working (by eleminating the tax on working), I would gladly accept the latter because I know that it would improve my life, my lifestyle, and provide a better life for my children an grand children and great great great grandchildren.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?