4 ms·

Good - renewable energy is becoming more efficient and within our lifetimes will become overtake fossil fuels as the most cost-effective forms of energy. Indeed

by pvnick 9y ago

Good - renewable energy is becoming more efficient and within our lifetimes will become overtake fossil fuels as the most cost-effective forms of energy. Indeed this will happen faster in the absence of taxes and regulations that slow innovation and do relatively little to combat climate change. Edit: Use this website to find your representative and urge them to support this decision: https://callyourrep.co/ https://callyourrep.co/

celticninja 9y ago
In the short term companies will use this as a way to continue to pollute because it will be cheaper to pollute than upgrade factories to make them cleaner.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Yes and no. Many companies in industries prone to regulation have accepted that the regular see-saw of political power means that roughly half their time will be spent under more stringent regulations, and so it makes more sense to stick with certain regulations instead of changing processes (which carry their own costs and complexities) every few years to shave a few cents on the dollar. An example: what if a Republican congress repealed legislation banning leaded gasoline? Would gas companies begin putting lead in gasoline again? Doubtful. Not only would it be a terrible PR move - since everybody accepts that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin - but as soon as government switches hands, the lead ban comes back, and all of that time and money switching to lead will have been an unjustifiable waste. Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    Yes but in this situation we aren't talking about rolling back changes they have made but about not implementing new changes, they are easier to ignore or put off until there is a legal requirement to actually make those changes.
boona 9y ago
Pvnick your opinion doesn't fall in line with evangelical progressivism, so downvoting rather than engaging you directly is in order. Don't you know that politicians always and everywhere make things better, and that billions of individual actors competing and testing various ideas simultaneously is doomed to fail. Also, make sure to ignore competing voices. Science isn't about skepticism, it's who has more people on their side. To quote Einstein upon finding out that there was a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein "If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!". Clearly he was an idiot. Also, ignore those who disagree with our world view like the ones listed below. They're literally Hitler. > Tom Woods Interview with Patrick Moore: http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-organization/ http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-... > The 97% consensus: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehoo... > The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...
- polotics 9y ago
  Hello boona, thanks for the lies in the links you provided, it is always entertaining to read bullshit rethoric. Also the appeal to a strawman like (quote) "evangelical progressivism" is a nice touch. On a serious note, none of the people behind the links you provide have done any serious research or climate modelling, have they? So, if you are legitimately deluded and ready to change your mind, then I recommend http://www.realclimate.org http://www.realclimate.org If you are a shill, let me ask you to consider that you may be exposed one day.
  - boona 9y ago
    I'm totally with you. Dr. Patrick Moore is a quack. I mean ya people will argue that he co-founded Greenpeace, has PhD in Ecology and a B.Sc. Forest Biology, but he believes that changes in solar activity that has a much better correlation than CO2 levels, but the sun is so far away am I right? Here's another interview where he elaborates on his quackery, and a link to a science denial website. > Steven Crowder Interviews Patrick Moore - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ > Climate Skeptic http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ I agree with you, these crazies are legitimately deluded and a bunch of shills for questioning the data and it's conclusions. I mean sure the government has poured money into this industry and demanded a certain result, but government already knows what the right results are, who are they to question them.

by pvnick 9y ago

celticninja 9y ago

In the short term companies will use this as a way to continue to pollute because it will be cheaper to pollute than upgrade factories to make them cleaner.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Yes and no. Many companies in industries prone to regulation have accepted that the regular see-saw of political power means that roughly half their time will be spent under more stringent regulations, and so it makes more sense to stick with certain regulations instead of changing processes (which carry their own costs and complexities) every few years to shave a few cents on the dollar. An example: what if a Republican congress repealed legislation banning leaded gasoline? Would gas companies begin putting lead in gasoline again? Doubtful. Not only would it be a terrible PR move - since everybody accepts that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin - but as soon as government switches hands, the lead ban comes back, and all of that time and money switching to lead will have been an unjustifiable waste. Maybe not the best example, but you get the idea.
- celticninja 9y ago
  Yes but in this situation we aren't talking about rolling back changes they have made but about not implementing new changes, they are easier to ignore or put off until there is a legal requirement to actually make those changes.

boona 9y ago

Pvnick your opinion doesn't fall in line with evangelical progressivism, so downvoting rather than engaging you directly is in order. Don't you know that politicians always and everywhere make things better, and that billions of individual actors competing and testing various ideas simultaneously is doomed to fail. Also, make sure to ignore competing voices. Science isn't about skepticism, it's who has more people on their side. To quote Einstein upon finding out that there was a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein "If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!". Clearly he was an idiot. Also, ignore those who disagree with our world view like the ones listed below. They're literally Hitler. > Tom Woods Interview with Patrick Moore: http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-organization/ http://tomwoods.com/ep-559-greenpeace-co-founder-repudiates-... > The 97% consensus: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehoo... > The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

polotics 9y ago
Hello boona, thanks for the lies in the links you provided, it is always entertaining to read bullshit rethoric. Also the appeal to a strawman like (quote) "evangelical progressivism" is a nice touch. On a serious note, none of the people behind the links you provide have done any serious research or climate modelling, have they? So, if you are legitimately deluded and ready to change your mind, then I recommend http://www.realclimate.org http://www.realclimate.org If you are a shill, let me ask you to consider that you may be exposed one day.
- boona 9y ago
  I'm totally with you. Dr. Patrick Moore is a quack. I mean ya people will argue that he co-founded Greenpeace, has PhD in Ecology and a B.Sc. Forest Biology, but he believes that changes in solar activity that has a much better correlation than CO2 levels, but the sun is so far away am I right? Here's another interview where he elaborates on his quackery, and a link to a science denial website. > Steven Crowder Interviews Patrick Moore - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ > Climate Skeptic http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ I agree with you, these crazies are legitimately deluded and a bunch of shills for questioning the data and it's conclusions. I mean sure the government has poured money into this industry and demanded a certain result, but government already knows what the right results are, who are they to question them.