Thanks

June 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
______________

Where do you think hydrogen comes from, moron?

And yes, I know some scientists figured out a way to extract it from algae but that technology is years away from commercial viability/

We should be willing to endure higher taxes and other sacrifices to get to a place where we are more energy independent and eco-friendly.

That’s where the debate should be. In this thread, there seems to be an effort to deny that there will be taxes placed on energy. Deny that there is a sacrifice we need to make. That we will get something for nothing.

I don’t think that is correct.

The honest (and more potent argument) is that we need to tax energy to both help us gain energy independence and to promote a cleaner environment.

Why GM failed.

For example, in electricity, we consume the most electricity per year and are 9th in per-capita consumption (as of 2005), yet our payment per kilowatt-hour of electricity in households is still relatively low (up from 8.2 cents a kWhr in ‘99 to 10.6 cents in 2007).

We’re paying a lot for energy because we use it like it was water. We need to learn to conserve our resources here while attempting to find better and ecologically-safer methods to produce energy. Perhaps we should learn to live with higher energy costs if it’s going to lead to less pollution and more conservation of resources.

Freedom ain’t free.

Wingnuts are only willing to pay with other peoples’ lives.

.

backup Says:

My point is that the cost is relevant.

It’s a perfectly fair question.

However…
1. The (forthcoming) costs of global warming are tremendous.
2. The (current) costs of dependence on foreign oil are tremendous.

These are two of the foremost problems facing our country right now. Balancing those against the costs of changing how we get energy seems at least an even break, if not a scale-tipper.

But then you add the benefit of developing new industries and markets. Not only domestically, but if we can become the technology leaders in clean/alternative energy, we can export that expertise over time as other countries eventually seek to change over.

Shifting to a cleaner and more diversified energy stance in this country not only averts potential climatological disasters and international instability, it also has tremendous opportunity to improve the economy, by putting it on a footing that involves a lot more technology and job creation than merely extracting and importing carbon fuels.

The way to spur that change is to impose costs on the current way of doing business.

If you’re unwilling to suffer some temporary disadvantage for a solid long-term advantage, then you hardly get to call yourself “conservative.”

backup Says:

My point is that the cost is relevant.

Your analogy is not…debris in yard does not equate to lack of clean air, water etc.,

Farms in my area use a 100 foot buffer to prevent fertilizer and cow flop from running into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Coal companies are required to have a 100 foot buffer around a mountain stream to prevent an entire freaking mountain from washing into the water. Does that make sense to anyone?

making our air and water cleaner and saving the planet seem like it’s worth it to me.

Uncle Fester. I agree.

But, consider this. Let’s say that after a hurricane, you have a lot of debris in your yard.

making your yard clean again makes sense. Everyone would agree. Let’s say if cleaning up your yard would cost a few hundred dollars.

But, what if the cleanup was going to cost $100,000? Would it still make sense?

My point is that the cost is relevant.

say, the “what we’re about” link, or even “hot tips”…

he can even submit a well-researched, well-sourced story of his own to TP…

but it should be said, again, TP is NOT a “news site”…
but, as much as he complains about the subject matter, the best course of action is to move on, find another site to pester…

those kind are so easy to ignore, otherwise…

Republic Fascist Party: All for corporate greed – Nothing for you.

I am a Canadian who is ashamed of our recent environmental policy.

We lost the moral high ground when we gave Big Oil a free pass to produce oil from tar-sands.

Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States and it’s mostly derived from mining tar sands.

Tar Sands production is destroying the environment of northern Alberta and it requires enormous amounts of natural gas to extract that oil.

Did I mention that both the Federal and Alberta Governments are right wing?