Also, the figure of $1.9 trillion per year was offered by an organization made up of "environmentalist," including Robert Redford, a former union leader, etc. My guess is this is a far from unbiased source.
At this point, I believe you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. However, if this is truly a critical issue that will cause monumental problems in the next 20 to 30 years, I would suggest that we ban automobiles and electricity and gas for heating and cooling our homes and businesses. This would go a long way to solving the problem. Do you agree?
Last edited by LesGovt; 09-08-11 at 06:33 PM.
IMO the biggest way the big energy companies sabotage renewables is with patent trolling. They buy or develop a key technology for making a particular renewable more economically viable, then they sit on it so nobody but them can use it.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Secondly, to use the reduction ad absurdium argument of banning autos, etc. is likewikse disingenuous as it doesn't allow for obvious incremental reductions such as increased efficiency and fuel switching to lower impact sources (e.g. natural gas.)
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire