Or even if they don't, they're acting like it. (http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2010/09/china-leads-clean-economy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)
"According to a pithy report from Deutsche Bank titled "The Green Economy: The Race is On" (PDF), in the years 2000 to 2009, the U.S. invested (public and private) about $67 billion in clean technology. Similarly China spent $72 billion and Germany $38 billion. However, as a percentage of GDP, China, Germany, and even Brazil are investing at a rate three times greater than the U.S."
and
"But it was [China's] ten-year plan that made some jaws drop. Between now and 2020, the country will invest 5 trillion yuan in the clean economy. That works out to about $75 to $100 billion per year for 10 years running (smart grid investment alone is estimated at $60 to $100 billion over the next decade). Imagine the U.S. Congress passing the equivalent of the highly controversial stimulus package 10 times over (not likely)."
This is entirely in line with what I've been saying is the problem with our national response: we're stuck arguing about whether climate change is actually happening. This is an old and outdated argument, because it doesn't matter whether it's true or not.
Our major competitors are acting as if it's true. It's become an accepted feature of the global economy. The argument now isn't whether we accept it or not, it's how we ramp up to compete with climate change as part of the picture.
Based on China's population vs. natural resources available and their consumption rates of energy, it makes good sense for them to seek "green" alternatives whether or not the intention is to cut emissions.
Energy efficiency is the next big money maker that can drive an economy. Now the question is, who will have the best tech. *Smart Grid doesn't exactly = clean but can reduce the number of power plants built*
Was listening to NPR the other day and a guy from the BBC was in China doing some interviews and was shown an area where they are building a new city that will be the center of their laptop industry. Their plan... in 5 years will be making one third of entire worlds laptops. The guy was floored and was like, What? They were also talking about their high speed rail and how much they have built and are building. It was amazing how he was describing how fast, solid and smooth the rides were on these trains. Will soon have more than all the rest of the world combined and will double and quadruple that in short order. I think they said the government had quickly mobilised 10 THOUSAND engineers, scientists and technichians to design these super high speed rail lines (the trains themselves, and the routes, bridges, etc.). and then got them built. Lots of superlatives and I am sure many more on the way. Neat to watch.
The USA is investing heavily in "Green" projects. Where do you think China is getting their money?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 23, 2010, 08:09:58 PM
The USA is investing heavily in "Green" projects. Where do you think China is getting their money?
It's true that we're investing (much of which is coming through Obama's stimulus program BTW) but China, Germany and others are investing a much higher proportion of their GDPs to green investment. And per the article, China has pledged several trillion yuan over the next decade.
We're still mired in deciding whether this market is real or not. I don't believe that -- even if we had the money to spend -- that we'd have the political fortitude to go forward with an investment of that size and scope.
That's going to be the true story of the 21st century: the ability of democracy to compete with a successful command economy (the USSR was an unsuccessful command economy, but China is the exact opposite).
It's a matter of priorities. There's little doubt this is the next industrial frontier. The difference is, the US has different priorities. We want to be the top cop in the world, we want to send foreign aid to every single banana republic you can imagine and many you've ne'er heard of. We have a space agency which is kept relevant by way of trying to prove a global warming agenda which consumes a lot of $$. We are perfectly cool with all sorts of parasitic entitlements and are bent on funding comprehensive health are for everyone. We also have multiple bureaucracies which manage to discourage potential players in fields like energy and development from participating.
Personally, I do believe alternative energy makes great sense and is a no-brainer as an evolving industry. We are getting lip service even from the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Even if we choose not to believe in Global Climate change or choose not to pursue a Green agenda, etc, that doesn't mean we cannot produce products for those who do. There are definitely some $ to be made.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 23, 2010, 09:44:42 PM
It's a matter of priorities. There's little doubt this is the next industrial frontier. The difference is, the US has different priorities. We want to be the top cop in the world, we want to send foreign aid to every single banana republic you can imagine and many you've ne'er heard of. We have a space agency which is kept relevant by way of trying to prove a global warming agenda which consumes a lot of $$. We are perfectly cool with all sorts of parasitic entitlements and are bent on funding comprehensive health are for everyone. We also have multiple bureaucracies which manage to discourage potential players in fields like energy and development from participating.
Personally, I do believe alternative energy makes great sense and is a no-brainer as an evolving industry. We are getting lip service even from the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Yes there are some timid Dems who can't quite get up the gumption to support climate change legislation but, really, the problem is that 99.9% of Republicans won't support it because they don't believe it's true. They've built a pretty rock solid constituency for the statement "global warming is a hoax and so we can't dignify it with legislation."
With that kind of cultivated opposition, how is it possible to mobilize our government to even approach something like China's investment? Not possible, IMO.
That's what I mean about the challenge of the next century There are suddenly plenty of issues (global warming being but one of them) that will pit our slow-moving, incrementalist form of government against the five guys at the top of the Party in China who get to say exactly where and exactly how the next laptop-building city is going to be built.
I'm personally thankful we don't have five people making all the Federal decisions. Wait a second... Our gov't sure seems more and more like that the last 20 years or so.
If the capitalization of green energy had been presented as replacement for rapidly depleting sources of energy and less efficient methods of producing energy, that was far more plausible to the majority of people than this cockamame crap of major population centers on each coast being under water in 50 years.
Point being, apparently a climatological apocolypse isn't the right story to sell to move green energy up the priority list. You'd think job creation alone would be good enough reason if DC really understood what it takes to create private sector jobs. I'm not sure anyone there knows how to do that anymore. Tax cuts and stimulus sure don't seem to be working, do they?
Quote from: we vs us on September 23, 2010, 10:57:41 PM
but, really, the problem is that 99.9% of Republicans won't support it because they don't believe it's true. They've built a pretty rock solid constituency for the statement "global warming is a hoax and so we can't dignify it with legislation."
With that kind of cultivated opposition,
Of course those who believe "global warming" is a hoax will say that the "global warming" position is a cultivated program to spend money on projects that will accomplish nothing regarding warming or climate change.
I agree that an approach based on energy availability and economics would be better received.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 12:30:02 AM
I'm personally thankful we don't have five people making all the Federal decisions.
Just so it's clear, I don't like that kind of thing, either. But if you look at how many stars had to align just so Obama and Congress could pull off a watered down version of HCR (as a for instance), I think the prospect is exceedingly dim that our democracy is capable of building enough consensus to make huge changes, either to our government or our economy.
Whereas, the five-guy Chinese Politburo can go ahead and just say "Make it so," and it's done. There's obviously nothing about rule of law or freedom or consenus-building about that, but it's exceptionally efficient.
Quote from: we vs us on September 24, 2010, 08:56:57 AM
Whereas, the five-guy Chinese Politburo can go ahead and just say "Make it so," and it's done. There's obviously nothing about rule of law or freedom or consenus-building about that, but it's exceptionally efficient.
Absolutely that's much more efficient decision-making rather than having 537 people weighing in on issues and multiple czars and other department heads setting policies within our myriad of agencies. Our system of governance would be ideal if you could take all the favors, paybacks, and the clinging to power which come with every major vote these days out of the picture.
Do you get the point though that there were better ways to sell green technology rather than a highly controversial hypothesis that we are cooking the earth? The head cheerleader for this effort being a hypocritical, opportunistic former politician with self-serving intrests in these industries does very little to quell the skepticism.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 09:16:39 AM
Do you get the point though that there were better ways to sell green technology rather than a highly controversial hypothesis that we are cooking the earth? The head cheerleader for this effort being a hypocritical, opportunistic former politician with self-serving intrests in these industries does very little to quell the skepticism.
I think, hypothetically, there might be better ways to sell it. I can see different parts of the electorate responding to different arguments, and that's as it should be. Obama has been saying this since he was elected, and he's actually followed through on his promise via the stimulus.
He's out there saying this stuff every day, but you would have to be listening to the right channels to know that. And unfortunately, the wrong channels have no interest in showing him saying this at all.
What's unfortunate about Gore is that he's been so vilified here at home but abroad, he's done more than any single person to advance this as a cause and to translate it into real world effects. It's not a stretch to say that he's been instrumental in convincing these other countries to invest the way they have. He didn't invent the internet, but he sure as hell lit a fire under green markets worldwide.
Quote from: we vs us on September 24, 2010, 10:51:11 AM
I think, hypothetically, there might be better ways to sell it. I can see different parts of the electorate responding to different arguments, and that's as it should be. Obama has been saying this since he was elected, and he's actually followed through on his promise via the stimulus.
He's out there saying this stuff every day, but you would have to be listening to the right channels to know that. And unfortunately, the wrong channels have no interest in showing him saying this at all.
What's unfortunate about Gore is that he's been so vilified here at home but abroad, he's done more than any single person to advance this as a cause and to translate it into real world effects. It's not a stretch to say that he's been instrumental in convincing these other countries to invest the way they have. He didn't invent the internet, but he sure as hell lit a fire under green markets worldwide.
But Algore has also done just as much to hurt the image amongst skeptics, especially with made-up footage in his "documentary", living a different lifestyle than he espouses for everyone else, and his known ability to stretch the truth when it suits him. That and the whole carbon credit scam he's reputedly heavily invested in.
To President Obama's credit, he's not been a climate change alarmist. For the most part, I think he's handled the issue with dignity since he's been in office, I've noticed and I'll give him credit. I have no issue with people believing in
global warming er climate change. I do have a problem though with using hysteria to sell it and demanding draconian measures which could wind up costing jobs, result in more government intrusion, and disrupting lives without properly examining the far-reaching effects of "best intentions".
Quote from: we vs us on September 24, 2010, 08:56:57 AM
But if you look at how many stars had to align just to prevent Obama and Congress from passing a full version of Obamacare (as a for instance), I think the prospect is exceedingly dim that our democracy is capable of building enough consensus to make huge changes, either to our government or our economy.
Different viewpoint.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 11:00:41 AM
But Algore has also done just as much to hurt the image amongst skeptics, especially with made-up footage in his "documentary", living a different lifestyle than he espouses for everyone else, and his known ability to stretch the truth when it suits him. That and the whole carbon credit scam he's reputedly heavily invested in.
So you're saying it's the CG polar bears that made people disbelieve? An interesting point of view.
What I really don't get is why it is that conservatives are so diametrically opposed to a market-based solution that has proven to work well for sulfur dioxide.
Quote from: nathanm on September 24, 2010, 01:54:43 PM
So you're saying it's the CG polar bears that made people disbelieve? An interesting point of view.
What I really don't get is why it is that conservatives are so diametrically opposed to a market-based solution that has proven to work well for sulfur dioxide.
Oh and calving styrofoam on a Hollywood back lot, kyped footage from another fiction production, exaggerated claims which have been refuted or characterized as exaggerated by respected pro-warming scientists and his whole credibility issue to start with. Why would that make for an interesting point of view. If you wish to continue to trust a man who makes millions trading on trumped up fear, have at it.
What market based solution are you referring to which conservatives are supposedly opposed to?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 24, 2010, 12:53:26 PM
Different viewpoint.
But absolutely proves my point. Consensus is great at producing moderation. Not so great at engineering system-wide change.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 02:11:45 PM
What market based solution are you referring to which conservatives are supposedly opposed to?
Cap and trade. The entire point of which is to align the profit motive with the environmental need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Quote from: nathanm on September 24, 2010, 02:19:09 PM
Cap and trade. The entire point of which is to align the profit motive with the environmental need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Oh no, not crap'n trade again...
(http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u354/MechaAshura/JesusFacepalm.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on September 24, 2010, 02:19:09 PM
Cap and trade. The entire point of which is to align the profit motive with the environmental need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
How is cap and trade a "market based solution"? Anyway, remember this from Obama?
If for no other reason I would support this tax only because your and all other Obamabots' electricity rates would go up.
Quote from: guido911 on September 24, 2010, 02:32:58 PM
How is cap and trade a "market based solution"?
It creates a market for the right to pollute, thereby creating financial incentives to clean up your act so you can sell some of your carbon credits to somebody who would rather pay for credits than reduce emissions. There's a reason why Republicans had been strongly in favor of that solution rather than a straight carbon tax for years and years..until Obama got elected and they decided obstructionism was the way to go on every issue.
I don't remember some vast increase in electricity rates after the sulfur dioxide credit trading went into effect, and that pretty much only applied to large power plants.
Basically you've got three options: cap and trade, a carbon tax, or arbitrary limits enforced by large fines. Which one would you prefer?
Ahh, but Guido, don't you know there will be a government-subsidized system which will comp part of lower wage earner's electric bills and it will be paid for on the backs of the wealthy.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 02:23:49 PM
Oh no, not crap'n trade again...
Yeah, you wonder why Bush continued to use it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/14/politics/main329372.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/14/politics/main329372.shtml)
Oh, you mean this successful little program?
"The Journal (WSJ) reported that the cap-and-trade market for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the United States, created in 1995 in response to what was thought to be the connection between SO2 emissions and acid rain, had "collapsed" in spectacular fashion.
Changes in EPA guidelines -- caused by court rulings -- rendered current SO2 emission allowances useless. Allowances that once traded for as much as $1,600 per ton were trading at less than $3, and traders predicted that they would go to zero shortly.
Spokespersons for environmental advocacy groups pushing for a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide (CO2) claim that the failure holds no lessons for their proposal, but they could hardly be more wrong. The SO2 market arose from concerns remarkably similar to those behind the push for CO2 markets, and the mistakes leading to the collapse of the existing market portend disaster for the one on the drawing board.
The market for SO2 emission allowances was created to address widespread concern that SO2 emissions from power plants were causing acid rain, which in turn was acidifying lakes and damaging forests. That connection, though heavily hyped by environmental groups and the media and still regarded as an article of faith in both circles, was never scientifically proven. Shortly before the cap-and-trade legislation was enacted, a massive research project called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program found that most of the damages attributed to acid rain were in fact due to logging and natural processes. But it was too late: Congress didn't want to be confused by the facts.
The parallel to global warming couldn't be clearer. Congress is taking up cap-and-trade legislation for CO2 emissions even as the scientific community backs away from the sensational claims by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the like. Even one-time leaders of the alarmist side of the global warming debate, such as Phil Jones, now admit that the warming of the 20th century was not unusual or evidence of a human impact on climate. Estimates of the effects of "man-made global warming" on sea levels, wildlife, and weather have all been called into question or scaled back dramatically in recent years.
The SO2 trading program had a fatal flaw that only a few astute observers (such as economist Jim Johnston, at the time working for Amoco and now retired) commented on at the time: It did not give emission allowance the legal status of private property. This meant the government could change the rules of the game without fear of being sued by businesses and investors whose allowances became worthless. Predictably, government officials couldn't keep their hands off the program, and their meddling with the rules since 2005 destroyed the system.
Johnston further predicted that the failure to give property rights status to emission allowances would discourage businesses from buying the allowances, causing the market to be too thin to have much effect on emissions. He was right again: The volume of trading never approached that of successful "real" markets. This remains a strange blind spot for many reporters: An illustration in the July 12 Wall Street Journal article, for example, shows the collapse in SO2 prices and refers to "the once-robust market in sulfur-dioxide allowances." But high prices don't reveal whether a market is "robust." Volume does."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/capandtrade_market_failure.html
In arguments over carbon trading, both sides often assume that past emission trading schemes have been notably successful. But in practice, trading schemes have lowered emissions more slowly than rule-based methods, and have discouraged rather than encouraged innovation. Even in the area where emissions trading shows some success -- lowering gross compliance costs to industry -- net costs are probably higher than rule-based alternatives.
Compare the success of the often-touted sulfur dioxide trading system the U.S., instituted in 1990, with the speed and quantity of reductions under rule-based systems during the same period. U.S. SO2 emissions dropped by 31% between 1990 and 2001 [1]. Over the same period of time, under old fashioned rule-based regulation, Germany reduced its emissions by 87% [2], Italy by 62% [2], and Western Europe as a whole by 57% [2].
In both absolute and per capita terms, Western Europe and the individual nations within it have less acid rain-producing pollution than the United States [3]. This was not true when they began their regulatory programs in 1982....
...emission trading has a record of producing slower results than conventional regulation, with at least one example of complete failure to meet a goal. But doesn't the increased flexibility at least encourage innovation? The empirical record says no:
The best empirical study of sulfur trading to date ("Regulation as the Mother of Invention: The Case of SO2 Control," Margaret Taylor, Edward S. Rubin, David A. Hounshell, Law and Policy 27, No 2, April 2005, pp. 348-78, p. 372.) says ...
... the majority of the performance and capital cost improvements in the dominant technology to achieve SO2 control occurred before the 1990 CAA ...
Consequently, the weight of evidence of the history of innovation in SO2 control technology does not support the superiority of the 1990 CAA--the world's biggest national experiment with emissions trading--as an inducement for environmental technological innovation, as compared with the effects of traditional environmental policy approaches. Repeated demand-pull instruments, in the form of national performance-based standards, along with technology-push efforts, via public RD&D funding and support for technology transfer, had already clearly facilitated the rapid maturation of wet FGD system technology that diffused from no market to about 110 GWe capacity in twenty-five years. In addition, traditional environmental policy instruments had supported innovation in alternative technologies, such as dry FGD and sorbent injection systems, which the 1990 CAA provided a disincentive for, as they were not as cost-effective in meeting its provisions as low sulfur coal use combined with limited wet FGD application
So SO2 emissions trading helped produce no major innovations, and actually provided a disincentive for technologies on the verge of maturation.
http://www.grist.org/article/emissions-trading-a-mixed-record-with-plenty-of-failures/
Personally, I prefer the limit and fine type approach. That's a pretty good incentive for utility companies and other large emitters to find rational solutions to finding and intalling lower emission equipment. Since I work in the combustion industry and have multiple clients around the country in non-attainment areas, that approach has benefitted them and the company I work for the best, so I've got somewhat of a vested interest in the issue. I also work with a lot of engineers in the field who view global warming through the same lens I do, with great skepticism.
OK, then let's just limit carbon dioxide emissions. I honestly don't care how it gets done, only that it does. The assumption on the left has long been that the right would be much more willing to live with a market based solution.
FWIW, the lack of trading volume in a particular market does not necessarily mean it is not functioning robustly (although it can), only that the participants don't feel the need to make trades at that particular time.
Quote from: nathanm on September 24, 2010, 03:05:52 PM
OK, then let's just limit carbon dioxide emissions. I honestly don't care how it gets done, only that it does. The assumption on the left has long been that the right would be much more willing to live with a market based solution.
FWIW, the lack of trading volume in a particular market does not necessarily mean it is not functioning robustly (although it can), only that the participants don't feel the need to make trades at that particular time.
Regs and fines help create market-based solutions all the time.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 03:13:55 PM
Regs and fines help create market-based solutions all the time.
That was where I was heading. There is very little "market-based" activity here; it's pure government strong-arming and coercion.
So where are we then? Neither straight taxes, nor market based incentives are acceptable. What's left?
Or do we plead gridlock and let China take the lead on this one?
Quote from: we vs us on September 24, 2010, 03:31:17 PM
So where are we then? Neither straight taxes, nor market based incentives are acceptable. What's left?
Or do we plead gridlock and let China take the lead on this one?
Why are we so obsessed with being first, second, or 100th on the list? A good bit of our spending on green tech is going to wind up in China, like it or not. It will be done as it becomes practical.
One thing ignored in all this is that fossil fuel energy companies have stayed pretty stable throughout this whole collapse of the last two years and have helped keep our economy somewhat afloat. A lot of people's jobs depend on fossil fuels.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 24, 2010, 03:50:15 PM
Why are we so obsessed with being first, second, or 100th on the list? A good bit of our spending on green tech is going to wind up in China, like it or not. It will be done as it becomes practical.
Why? Because being on top in emerging technology means more exports, which means more jobs and more money.
Look at the differences in our standard of living, as a whole, back when we used to make a lot of stuff here and now that we don't. Most people haven't had an increase in real wages since the 1970s. That's what it's like not being on top.
Also, we can both build solar panels, wind turbines, and other "green" tech and still extract oil and other fossil fuels. We're going to be digging oil up from the ground until the day the last drop is gone regardless of whether or not we keep burning it for fuel. Oil is a feedstock for a vast number of industrial processes. We need it to make fertilizer, plastic, and all sorts of chemicals that make our modern life go.
Quote from: nathanm on September 24, 2010, 04:05:47 PM
Why? Because being on top in emerging technology means more exports, which means more jobs and more money.
Look at the differences in our standard of living, as a whole, back when we used to make a lot of stuff here and now that we don't. Most people haven't had an increase in real wages since the 1970s. That's what it's like not being on top.
Also, we can both build solar panels, wind turbines, and other "green" tech and still extract oil and other fossil fuels. We're going to be digging oil up from the ground until the day the last drop is gone regardless of whether or not we keep burning it for fuel. Oil is a feedstock for a vast number of industrial processes. We need it to make fertilizer, plastic, and all sorts of chemicals that make our modern life go.
Being the top spender, which was the original premise, doesn't mean all the money is spent in our own economy nor does it necessarily impact exports. We can build whatever we want here in the states. Unfortunately, we keep delegating that role to China, India, Mexico, and anyone else who is willing to provide the products we want for less money than we can manufacture them for here.
The unfortunate reality is that China is becoming the leader in solar panel and wind technology.
How do we reverse that trend of exporting the demand for those goods is a better question. It's a matter of economics and how you go about modifiying buyer behavior.
Quote from: nathanm on September 24, 2010, 04:05:47 PM
Why? Because being on top in emerging technology means more exports, which means more jobs and more money.
Look at the differences in our standard of living, as a whole, back when we used to make a lot of stuff here and now that we don't. Most people haven't had an increase in real wages since the 1970s. That's what it's like not being on top.
Also, we can both build solar panels, wind turbines, and other "green" tech and still extract oil and other fossil fuels. We're going to be digging oil up from the ground until the day the last drop is gone regardless of whether or not we keep burning it for fuel. Oil is a feedstock for a vast number of industrial processes. We need it to make fertilizer, plastic, and all sorts of chemicals that make our modern life go.
Well have at it Nate. Create an idea, invest your own money, hire a bunch of people, and go for it. Otherwise, Conan's right. It's not practical.
Interestingly, regarding China and its "leadership" in PV, it's not quite true. The situation is more complicated than that. China makes cheap solar panels that require lots of silicon and are less efficient than the thin film panels like First Solar builds. The problem is that, at the moment, silicon ingot prices are so low that the less efficient panels end up being cheaper. When silicon prices are high, First Solar's panels don't go up as much in price and still have the efficiency advantage. The economic downturn (and First Solar's capacity limits) basically brought old-style panels back from the dead. Figure out a way to drive up the price of silicon and we'll be looking good on that front again. ;)
The other side of the coin is that due to our relatively half-hearted attempts at increasing solar generation capacity, we don't have a crap-ton of experienced installers to ship around the world like Germany (to use one example) does.
We also need to get on the stick regarding building more (and more advanced) nuclear plants, before what remains of our expertise in the field dies off without being replaced. Wind and solar don't make great base load without gigantic expenditures on electric infrastructure, thanks to their very high local variability. This is a significant untapped market. Rather than building evolutionary BWR and PWR designs, we need to be moving towards plants that we'd be comfortable with Iran or North Korea having, so as to have a wider market.
It's also unfortunate that most of our companies have significantly cut back on their R&D budgets in the last 20 or 30 years. Not only has that pushed fewer people into the sciences, but it's keeping us from bringing to bear one of our greatest strengths: our brain trust. Despite all the problems we have in schooling, we still manage to turn out a significant fraction of the best and the brightest.
Quote from: we vs us on September 24, 2010, 02:12:36 PM
But absolutely proves my point. Consensus is great at producing moderation. Not so great at engineering system-wide change.
My point is that sometimes that is good.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 24, 2010, 10:47:08 PM
My point is that sometimes that is good.
I agree as well (and so would the Founding Fathers, IMO). But personally I think we are entering (or have already entered) an era where taking sweeping action is necessary for our survival as a nation we recognize. I am more and more skeptical that we are capable of generating enough consensus to make those sweeping changes. I don't know whether or not it's just our current culture or that it's our system is just set up to make sweeping change impossible.
Instead of the government proposing worthless emission trade scams, they could be permitting nuclear plants, clean tech refineries, and make credits for alt fuel production permanent (Corp and crop welfare) but they refuse to approach it from an intelligent viewpoint like that. Nuke plants could solve a lot of future energy demand and emission issues in short order.
That would also necessarily include American workers and American companies.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 25, 2010, 01:32:42 PM
Instead of the government proposing worthless emission trade scams, they could be permitting nuclear plants
That is happening, with big loan guarantees to match.