My demand was, to show, where I have said or propagated, what PunkMaister has imputed to me.sonofccn wrote:That would be because a green economy is a no profit economy,hence why the EU tends to ignore the various carbon limits it's signs. Now when and if this changes that's another thing but at that point it will occur naturally via the evolution of free markets. So no need for heavy handed tactics.
Your post does not answer that question.
And it is wrong.
Have you read the from me already provided articles at all?
- US Solar Market Had Record Growth in 2008 Despite Economy or
- Only Greentech Can Save U.S. Economy, Says Ãœber-Investor or
- How Green Technology Can Spark Economic Growth.
- »[...] global warming is something that does not happen in next to no time. And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations. That makes it difficult for dunderheads like you to understand the long-ranging dangers respectively it makes it easy for you to ignore them because you will probably not be affected by them and what happens to other people and nations or to your descendants maybe does not matter to you.«
sonofccn wrote:You said and I quote Make a law:One that is draconianaly heavy handed and yes reeks of fascism. Second that fact that you proposed that and somehow think that it wouldn't send every industry reeling for the forseeable future is a very good example of you not thinking beyond talking points.
- Only non-polluting cars are to be produced after 2010.
- Only non-polluting cars are allowed to be driven after 2015.
Do you know, what fascism is at all? It seems not because such a law would have nothing to do with fascism.
And it may be, that it is not the best solution. But it is a solution and better than to do nothing. If you have a better solution, I'd pleased to hear it.
I've never said, that such changes wouldn't »send every industry reeling for the forseeable future«. Quite the contrary:
- »It's good for your economy if all have to buy new cars. It's good for your economy, if the whole infrastructure has to be changed because that means work for workers. Yes, that means also, that certain jobs no longer exists, but new jobs are created in the same time. «
- US Solar Market Had Record Growth in 2008 Despite Economy or
- Only Greentech Can Save U.S. Economy, Says Ãœber-Investor or
- How Green Technology Can Spark Economic Growth.
sonofccn wrote:The problem or at least the specific problem being addressed is the abundance of their fuel sources and ease of extraction. Face it fossil fuels are almost the only thing on this planet plentiful enough and cheap enough to use as a fuel source either directly in your tank or in your power plant producing power for your clean electric car shaped toy unless you prefer nuclear energy but I don't think that is considered "green".
- I have not necessary a problem with the use of fossil fuels. I have a problem with polluting. The one does not necessary mean the other. You have to differentiate and to recognise the real problem. There are filter techniques, who can solve the problem. But they are not cheap. And, as I have said already, that means, that an economist will not decide to install such a filter, if he is not compelled by a law.
- I have nothing against nuclear energy as long as it is reasonable safe the wast is safely stored.
He has said: »Again it would be short term because once the world is in the devastated impoverished economy you seem to dream off there won't be anybody left to pick up the pieces as everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally...« His words are clear: I seem to dream off a devastated impoverished economy.sonofccn wrote:Punkmaister never claimed that you dream of the above, or at least I didn't read it as such, he is saying that your goal if accomplished would cripple industry, reduce first world nation citizens to live as peasants and in general make everyone, excepting our ruling elite, lives miserable.
And, although I have asked already several times, he still has not answered, why that would be the result.
Mr. Oragahn has spoken of »[...] a hypothesis has gained support in a way or another, and has progressively turned into a truth or religion [...].«
The same applies here. Why would lead the forced adaption of a green economy, as you have called it, to »a devastated impoverished economy«, »where everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying«? As I have shown, there are recognised economists, who have another opinion and are seeing a real chance for the U.S. economy in it. I really see no reason, why I should assume, that the whole economy will collapse.
People are stupid and are not always doing, what would be the wisest. Insofar, what you have said is not a real argument but a fallacy. It is an appeal to authority or majority without a shred of a further going argument.sonofccn wrote:The fact that you feel it needed to basically put a gun to people's head to carry out your goal, that whole no more car law you proposed, pretty much proves that their is no profit in it. If people could expect a reasonable chance of a payoff down the road someone would have already done it. Yet every green tech fails and is only due to government funds and or edicts that any of this stuff gets built.
And I have never said, that green economy, as you have called it, would be in each branch of industry as profitable as the hitherto existing economy. Yes, it is easier to preserve the the status quo. But that leads probably to a climatic change. And that is probably much worse than the disadvantages, an adaption of a green economy would bring. Not necessary to you. But to many million other people.
And with that argument, you are also confirming, that profits are more important to you than environment and these people.
I'm also not a climatologist. If you have such a question. You should not ask me but a climatologist.sonofccn wrote:Also I admit to not being a climate scientist guy but if you are afraid of global warming shouldn't the planet be you know be getting warmer as this one hasn't been since 1998 I believe, after rising the blistering amount of 3/4 or so of a degree over the last hundred years, with the bulk of that being 1950 earlier when there was less of the so called problem around. I mean at this rate I'll die of frost bite before I get my water front property.