Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
To finish, we need to start changing now. No matter what the damage to the economy. The simple truth is, the economy (oh, and the world) will be hurt far worse if we do nothing. Massive loss of urban areas, destruction of arable land, mass migration, poverty, war. You think these things are going to harm the economy less than fixing the energy economy to be more green?
|
I recognize your passion for this issue. I can be equally ardent when I see an issue clearly, yet "others" refuse to agree with me. But by putting forth an argument in this manner you are widening the gap. To say "no matter what the damage to the economy" is extreme, and opens you up to being attacked as a one-sided zealot. Economy, production, standard of living...it matters A LOT, and you'll have to face the fact that your "simple truth" is not the least bit simple at all. There is a balancing act to be done, and unfortunately some people are urged to go to the opposite extreme in order to balance extreme statements like yours above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. There are options right now that aren't nearly as doom and gloom as some believe. There are countries on the right track and there are success stories. And most of all, there is PROFIT to be made by early adopters. There is money in a new sector of the economy that is ready to boom.
|
I do not deny that there is profit to be made in "green energy." But it needs to be pointed out that "profit" in this case refers only to wealth re-distribution, not wealth creation. Energy is the "lever" we use to take basic human productivity (wealth creation) and make it industrial (MORE wealth creation). Hydrocarbons are a dense source of energy, and relatively cheap to obtain. The difference between the energy needed to extract the oil and the energy we can obtain from the oil is available to magnify our productive efforts and actually produce wealth.
"Green" energy does the same thing, as long as it costs less to harvest than it provides. But if the difference between production energy and usable energy is less favourable than for hydrocarbons, then the choice to pursue these sources will be negative in terms of wealth. Sure...some people will profit, but humanity as a whole will produce less.
That is...util the "green" energy balance legitimately exceeds that of oil...without the artificial impacts of subsidies, carbon taxes, etc.