Originally Posted by JonIrenicus
The attitude problem mainly effects policy, and the delusion is that the climate change incurred by global warming is the biggest thing we need to worry about.
If that is what you believe then it makes much more sense to ignore the added costs of higher transportation costs, slower growth, and retarded development of the third world.
It would be one thing if we already had an alternative for our current transportation needs and it was mainly an issue of speeding up the process of switching people over to cleaner tech... I guess you can say hybrid subsidies are just that, but the real goal is zero emission transportation
, and that is not here en masse yet.
You know that, all of you KNOW that, so why are you opposed to continuing to develop the infrastructure we still need to utilize? Getting this delayed was nothing more than a petulant protest vote against oil that serves no purpose but to make certain groups feel better about themselves. It does nothing to stop extraction of oil from the tar sands in Canada, it can't do that, because we still need oil.
And here is the truth the enviro catastrophe nutters cannot accept
, the benefits we gain from utilizing oil, dirty and filthy that it is, FAR outweigh any problems with global warming and climate change in the foreseeable future.
Take a look at this Bill Mckibben interview:
a bit after the halfway point its mentioned that the alberta sands are the second largest pool of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Bill says it made sense to go plunder the oil from Saudi Arabia before we knew about climate change but that to do that again would be crazy...
So let me get this straight Bill/rest of you enviro catastrophists
. If we DID know about the impacts of climate change from burning oil back then, we would have been BETTER off by just leaving that oil in the ground? really?
That seems to be the thought process this man and many others have. And it's crazy.
In case you haven't noticed, oil is not that cheap, and using less to achieve the same result is a cost savings and pollutant reduction, not to mention a foreign policy advantage.
I thought that
was the goal.
But don't let me get in the way of your rants against "enviro catastrophists". I was merely stating that investing in this might backfire as the science behind the "nuts" just might make it unprofitable.
But you are the kind of guy that gains a hundred pounds after a warning from the doctor to lose some weight, 'cause you feel just fine, and eating nothing but fried foods for 50 years hasn't killed you yet. Not only that, but you are incensed by anyone who suggests even a moderate plan of action.
I'm saying let's get started on some diet and exercise, not "put down that cheeseburger now, or your gonna die!"
Like I told Badhat, the extreme anti-environut stance has moved from denial to acceptance, that's progress, but the day you have to turn your back on that fried chicken is still gonna be tough. Because it was sooo much easier to just let it find it's way down your gullet, and chase it with a big gulp and a nap on the couch. Now you'll have to plug in your car at night.
Yes we still gotta use oil, but how 'bout we do it a lot smarter? Wait, we already are, and the strides we are making are no thanks to your "attitude".