Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
It's not a switch that gets flicked and suddenly the job the guy had on friday doesn't exist on monday. It will take a decade or more to begin to start phasing in serious alterations to the power infrastructure of the country.
Many of these jobs are artificial anyway and exist because of societal support and a real, definable underwriting of the cost of doing business.
There used to be an ice exporting industry in the north east. Huge blocks of ice carved up and shipped all over the world. It employed nearly 100 000 people!
Now though, we have machines that dispense fresh ice for us in a manageable size whenever we want.
I get what you're saying about people won't vote for something that kills their job, but that sort of goes into the whole social fabric thing which we've been destroying for decades. It's more efficient to pay to retrain someone than have them collect paltry assistance cheques.
Why can't a power engineer work for a public transportation company or a geothermal generation plant instead of on a SagD site?
I can't think of many careers that would be too adversely affected from a switch from one kind of power generation into several kinds. Geoscientists, maybe?
It's all a big 'won't somebody think of the children' that comes across more like "I fear change".
|
No, but it starts with some plants here and there.
The government of the US can't even stop buying tanks they don't need because of a few thousand jobs that are affected. What do you think happens when it comes to a few mines and a few coal fired plants?
This is the reality, nothing is going to get done unless those people are accounted for. Their government is practically a holy war as it is, imagine adding this?