Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi
link 1: Was mostly positive with questions about the IPCC ideas of globally pricing carbon.
No, it was a straw-man attack on Krugman for promoting solar energy.
link 2: 2011 6 years old!
Why does the publication date matter? Is it not relevant that conservatives have been hostile to renewables and conservation since the 80s? (Reminder: Reagan yanked Carter's solar panels from the White House roof.) It's an attack on teaching solar power in schools, and another instance of conservatives attacking renewables.
link 3: Correctly states that requiring renewable energy purchases, disrupts market forces.
It's an attack on a law that requires states to purchase 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.
link 4:Same as 3 except the renewable energy requirement was for the DOD.
Or, it's an attack on the idea that the DOD should put money into renewable, sustainable, independent energy supplies.
link 5: Was pointing out that Solyndra was in trouble, hint, they were!
Actually, it was using vague suggestions of trouble at Solyndra to hammer the idea of any government involvement in supporting R&D into renewables.
link 6: Allowing the energy tax credits to expire. They have already done their job....
Yes, it is Cato finally finding a tax cut that they didn't like.
I'm sure I could find lots more, notably among right-wing pundits like Limbaugh, Malkin, Krauthammer, Coulter etc., but I'm not sure what the point is, since you seem incapable of recognizing that most conservatives are antagonistic to environmentalist concerns.
You want to say in one breath, that people have to make choices that you deem acceptable,
and at the same time say it will not bring down anyone's lifestyle!
I would ask according to who, you?
I'd say, according to anyone with half a brain.
Americans are
incredibly wasteful, in all sorts of ways. We throw out half the food we buy; we buy -- and throw away -- nearly 80
billion new items of clothing, amounting to 14 million pounds of textile waste; we throw out electronics like used tissue paper. The average American generates 1600 pounds of trash per year, nearly 30% of the Earth's waste.
And does it make us happier and healthier? Nope. Americans are stressed, don't get enough sleep, are getting heavier and sicker, are frustrated and unhappy, drowning in stuff that we don't need.
So yes, I feel quite comfortable pointing out that those particular aspects of the American way of life are unsustainable and harmful. I'd also say criticizing consumerism is seldom a hallmark of modern conservatism, with the exception of some social conservatives.
People will adopt alternate energy without any government regulation.
They will use it because it is the best value choice, selected by market forces.
Efforts by the government to pick a winner through regulation, will almost surly select an inferior path,
Examples include corn ethanol, and Solyndra.
OK, again? Corn ethanol is not renewable, is not sustainable, is not green, is not promoted by environmentalists, it doesn't save much on emissions. It was pushed by
conservatives like Bush 43, who pushed it for energy independence and as a sop to Big Corn.
Solyndra didn't fail because it borrowed money from the government. It failed because the price of a major component for competing solar tech (polysilicon) cratered, and was exacerbated by (*cough* subsidized) Chinese companies dumping cheap solar PV on the market. Despite how many other companies with similar loans and government support succeeded, Solyndra became a convenient target for anyone who thought government shouldn't be involved in R&D. Unsurprisingly, this is leaving China and other international competitors a
huge window of opportunity to dominate the renewable energy space.
In most cases, market advantages to low-emissions fuels like natural gas are a fluke. NG
happens to be cheap -- for the moment -- so the environment might get a break. Solar, wind, tidal and other alternative energy didn't get cheaper on their own, it happened in part because governments invested in the R&D. I.e. the market doesn't give a **** about environmental concerns, and cannot be trusted to make the most environmentally sound choices.
And let's not forget, the government already is picking winners -- specifically in the fossil fuel space. Subsidies, pipelines, opening up pristine land to drilling, waging wars to secure oil supplies... the list goes on.
So yes, I feel pretty good about saying that with the exception of a small percentage of social conservatives and evangelicals who have caught on to environmentalism, conservatives are generally hostile to green technology
