The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Global Warming, er Climate Change is a National Security Threat
|
Quote:What are you on about. Science shouldn't be about political opinion. Let's say the science is wrong, isn't using renewables better than using up finite resources anyway? What do you mean by "renewables?" Solar and wind are very bad for the environment. Home rooftop solar is marginally useful, especially if stored using a battery array, but trying to use wind and solar to feed the electrical grid is wasteful. Because they are intermittent sources they need to be backed up by other power plants on standby, so the savings in finite resources is minimal. Until we have a major breakthrough in storage technology (e.g. batteries) it's stupid to push for wind and solar, and wind still has the problem of killing endangered birds and bats. Hydro power is useful, but pretty much every place it can be used it already is, so there's not a lot of growth potential there. Corn ethanol production requires the use of fossil fuels, so much that it's nearly useless in reducing their use, and raises the price of food to boot, which disproportionately hurts the poor (as does more expensive electricity from wind and solar). Speaking of regressive policies, r ight now tax dollars are subsidizing electric cars, which only the rich can afford. I'm not opposed to the government investing in research in renewables and other advances that enable them. I prefer the X-prize method, where the government offers a huge prize to the developer of a wanted technological advance; that way it only costs the taxpayer if successful. I am opposed to using force to require or subsidize the use of technologies that have not been fully developed. There's no need to push inefficient technologies today. There's plenty of time. We have sufficient fossil fuels for hundreds of years. Think of how much technology has progressed since 1816. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" |
Users browsing this thread: |
2 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.