"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Otherwise we'll just trade foreign oil dependency for foreign solar panel/wind turbine/home fusion generator dependency.
Companies that make televisions, computers, and cell phones have gone bankrupt too, is that evidence that those industries are failures?
One of you will end up here next!
Benefits hard to overstate? Same can be said for drilling and refining oil.
Minimize global warming? Dubious. Does global warming exist? Most likely. Has global warming existed in the past? Yes. Were fossil fuels used at the time of the last warming? No.
Where we differ is how we get to energy independence. Apparently, you believe that alternative energy is the only path to independence. In the long run, it may be, but there are other ways to achieve independence. First, let me say that I have nothing against alternative energy nor do I have anything against fossil fuels. I think we should proceed in developing aternative energy while continuing to drill and refine petroleum products.
I don't believe any energy source should receive funds from taxpayers. The government should not be picking winners and losers. We need all sources of energy. We do not need to be spending money for energy as the best energies will rise to the top if they are indeed the best.
We have enough domestic product of fossil fuels to last us until alternative energy sources can be developed and made financially sound. Let's drill and refine which will hold down pricies until alternative energy sources are ready to provide broad coverage for a decent price.
We don't need to depend on foreign countries for oil.
I understand that companies can and do go bankrupt in any industry. What I don't understand is why taxpayers should have their hard-earned tax dollars thrown down a rat hole. If solar is the answer to the future, let them prove it. If they can prove it and they can show that it is a financially viable product, it will make it on its own.
That the temperature has changed in the past has no bearing at all on AGW. That's like saying "I don't believe taking a bullet to the head can kill a person because people died long before guns were invented".
An interesting tidbit. Everybody who knows anything about it agrees that nanotechnology will absolutely revolutionize the way human beings live. Probably more even than electricity did. Unimaginable benefits. There really are very few, if any, scientists that disagree with that or don't think it will be possible. Ultimately it will astoundingly profitable. But nonetheless, it's a terrible investment for an individual investor right now. Even with heavy investment it is 20 years out, so investors would be smarter to invest in stocks that are escalating in value now because they are likely to make profits in the short term and then only jump on the nanotech bandwagon when it's close to fruition. So, it gets very light investment from the private sector and instead of being 20 years out it is 80 year out. In my view, investing in the long term is one of the legitimate roles of government. That's how we got the internet. That's the theory behind investing in education as well.
I think the same applies to green energy. It will be profitable, that's a certainty, but it might not be for a while to come still. Government investment gets us over that hump.
First, the people talking about the cars vs. horses were long dead before any discussion of alternative energy.
Second, I don't know why you injected your comment into this conversation. No one here has said anything about alternative energy never going anywhere.