Tualcoloop
New member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
First time poster, I just found this site and am excited to have an actual discussion. I have a few questions related to global warming.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.
I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.
If we can all agree that we prefer clean air and water, to the air pollution found in China, why not let EPA continue their work?
The arguments against regulations by the EPA are the cost and time required to meet the clean energy mandates. Further, the overall regulations suppress growth creating a barrier to entry that reduces potential job makers. I realize these are significant costs, but they would pail in comparison to moving backwards with environmental regulations if future catastrophes like rising oceans prove to be true. What short term gain we make nationally with oil and natural gas will be obliterated by property damage insurance claims and lawsuits in the ocean level cities in the US.
Why rely on old technology to fill our demand for middle America jobs. We could be the world leader in green energy technologies, creating a manufacturing and installation industry rivaled by none. Due to the potential employment growth in the energy sector, I naively don't see this debate as a partisan issue. We can create jobs, protect the environment for future generations, and if we plug back in to global carbon cutting agreements worldwide, we could export our new energy all over the world.
I know I am missing several keys including the power of American oil companies, the strength of the union fitters working on the pipeline etc, but I honestly believe it should be a win win for both sides of the aisle.