3 ms·
Aaaaand... you lost me at "virtue signaling". You make a pretty solid point, but the smug right-wing terminology hurts it, because now I know you have a bias an
by dguaraglia 8y ago
Aaaaand... you lost me at "virtue signaling". You make a pretty solid point, but the smug right-wing terminology hurts it, because now I know you have a bias and might be against this on principle, rather than because of the point you are trying to make.
Using "virtue signaling" is the "virtue signaling" of the right.
- ironjunkie 8y agoWould you support the same tax bill if it was subsidizing something less hype such as... nuclear energy? The wording "virtue signaling" is indeed not the best in this context, but what I was trying to say is that because green energy is so hyped right now, this bill is riding on that positive wave to the point where the economical hard questions that should be asked for any government subsidies are not always asked correctly (or overlooked more easily).
- dguaraglia 8y ago> Would you support the same tax bill if it was subsidizing something less hype such as... nuclear energy? Absolutely! Anything that'd move us a step away from oil and it's constant cost in human life would be a step in the right direction. > what I was trying to say is that because green energy is so hyped right now... To be fair, green energy is hyped right now because it's one of the fastest growing job sectors. There's a reason China is betting big on it. California is trying to ride that wave (or rather, stay on that wave) and see how far it'll take us. Tesla alone employs some ~30k people, while the whole coal industry in the US employs ~50k. Why wouldn't California want to encourage companies looking to build "green energy" solutions to bring their job openings here? Like everything else, this is a bet. I guess we'll know whether it pays off in a few years.