I am sorry CD, I rarely do this but I am going to break your argument down. It is not mean to irritate but to make the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad
Especially if we make no attempts to get off of it.
It is not our job to get rid of it. The economics will eventually take care of it when there is something more economical that does not exist today.
And always will if we do not find another solution.
Not true..."always" assumes an unlimited supply. If there WERE an unlimited supply we would not need another solution. Of course if another CHEAPER solution appeared, it would not matter whether we had oil to burn or not. There is plenty of incentive to supply the world with cheaper energy.
I would buy that argument if we were anywhere near being able to supply ourselves with whqat we have. Not even on the highest, most improbably scenarios can we even come close to supporting ourselves.
They said we would be OUT of ALL oil by 1990. I suggest that improbable scenarios do come true. In any case...if we can keep 10% of our oil dollars or 25% of our oil dollars in this country and creating US jobs and NOT tilting the balance of payments while other technologies come to maturity that is a good thing. Better than sending it to the Arabs and Chavez...and better than letting them control our foreign policy options like Putin is doing to Europe right now.
The infrastructure and labor necessary to bring renewable energy sources to the market will generate hundreds of billions in sales and wages too. No difference from that persepctive. THe difference is that one runs out and has no chance of ever supplying us long term, one doesn't run out and has the potential to supply us long term.
Great...LET THEM...APPLAUD THEM. The difference is that they can't do it profitably even when competing against $4 a gallon gasoline. So they want MY money to make up the difference...all while blocking the only technologies that CAN power our country profitably and economically today without requiring my $$ and indeed while PAYING into the Treasury. Nukes and Oil and Coal and Gas.
Me too - if we can keep it going. Why throw good money after bad??
No one is asking taxpayers to throw ANY money into the pot EXCEPT the industries that cannot compete on the world stage. THAT is throwing good money after bad...just like ethanol.
- CD
|
Sorry CD...your arguments just don't hold water. There IS nothing that can replace oil etc. currently. If there is to be something else that works...it will certainly take time to develop AND it may NEVER develop. In the meantime..we need to allow what DOES work today develop further in the interest of our country and our economy. Nukes and oil and gas and coal.
And none of these need any taxpayer subsidies...just permission and an end to obstructionism.