ForaTv asked:
Complete video at: fora.tv Venture capitalist John Doerr argues that environmental regulation is not a “job killer” but actually a huge economic opportunity. Comparing the US to Denmark, Doerr argues that America desperately needs to a make a segue into green industry. —– The seminal conference on the Smart Grid, GreenBeat 2009 brought together leading entrepreneurs, investors, utilities, technology executives, and policymakers to accelerate the development of a leaner, more efficient …
Let me know how that green energy works out for you…
Good vid.
Hey, somebody’s building coal plant down in Chaco Rio, NM. It’s called desert rock. Yipeee, all that pollution on native land. A beautiful landscape destroyed by an ugly building that will poison the water and air. Yeah, the U.S. is really onboard with clean energy-only after it destroys every acre of land in the U.S.
Uh, yeah. I think I just said we should build nuclear plants. Like, twice. Because in the long run it’s worth the cost of investing in the new technology, in the interest of long-term conservation and efficiency. Which is the same argument I was making for CFLs.
Besides, coal plants have more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants. Where do you think Madam Curie got radium?
Your Data is flawed please reboot and then move away from the key board and Glenn Beck….
YES WE SHOULD! Coal is dirty, once we bring the new nuclear reactors in, that don’t release any radiation AT ALL, and it’s more efficient than anything else we have. How about that for new technology?
Coal extremely cheap, but it produces a great deal of mercury pollution (way more than CFLs, anyway). Going by your first comment, we should stop using coal. Going by your second, we shouldn’t. Which is it going to be?
Mirriam-Webster on sustainable: “of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” In other words, it’s the conservative approach. If tax dollars are going to be spent on anything, it should be for promoting long-term security of citizens. Environmental conservation is part of that.
Yes, 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury is extremely small. Compare that to the CFL to the 500 milligrams used in an average old-school thermometer. Or, as I said, compare it to the pollution generated by overhauling our national energy infrastructure to run on nuclear power (which I think we should do).
Yea because mercury in even small amounts isn’t toxic right? You know people in Brazil panning for gold got Minamata disease from being on the second floor while the mercury vapors were coming from the first floor by burning the mercury off to get the gold? But the vapors are so small… And we ALL recycle these bulbs right? And you only use one of these bulbs for the 300 million Americans in each household for how many ever years right?
Sustainable = pricey and inefficient, needs tax dollars to work because it’s not profitable. Recycling also pollutes more than just burying it and using it to make fuel for electricity.
To anyone who thinks investing in green is bad because it has to be subsidized by your taxes, I will introduce you to the auto-industry, farming, banking institutions, etc. I could go on but really you get the picture. You can’t argue that what we have is a viable economy based on good investments.
There’s nothing crazy about promoting sustainable, efficient technologies over outdated ones, which is why green advocates should back off on nuclear. But their critics should hold themselves to the same standard on things like CFLs.
Honestly, this green debate is all about image. “That guy likes that thing? Well, I hate that guy, so I’m against it.” It’s fucking stupid.
But CFLs are cheaper and more efficient over the long run, so that would support your first statement. And they’re not “full of mercury.” It’s between 4 and 5 milligrams, which is a tiny amount, and a good deal of that is reused. I seriously doubt if ecological harm caused by mass-produced CFLs would be greater in the long run than building more nuclear plants.
@kevintype Green tech will be a good investment in the future possibly. By then the tech will most likely evolve and obviously the profit motive would out weigh the risk. Today the risk is very large and the profits are null unless tax payer subsidized. Its costs are too much for the consumer currently. One can only wish it becomes cheaper. My initial statement applies to all industry. Mercantilism does not work. I have no vendetta against green tech as do you for the free market
You know that in States like Washington, people still choose the cheaper energy a majority of the time. The other thing is green energy is highly inefficient compared to nuclear power, we need more nuclear power plants. It takes toxins to produce these more efficient energy products, perfect example? You know those efficient light bulbs? Full of mercury, the kind that damages nerves. And I’m sure everyone will dispose of those properly, the green industry is BS.
@kevintype My first statement had nothing to do with pollution or corporate ethics involving pollution. My comment was based in economic fact solely. We can’t steal from individuals using gov force to give to corporations of any sort for their gain. That takes resources out of the market that the market decided was best spent elsewhere. If green energy is a good investment for anyone it would have been done on a voluntary basis as all other investments.
@kevintype Its your mind that is tired not the argument. Your calling me a corporatist while defending a corporation because you deem it somehow more virtuous then corporations that don’t take tax payer subsidies. Flawed logic and in fact not the realist you claim to be.
The reality is I commented on a failed and fraudulent policy of corporate welfare and you replied with your collectivist lack of respect for property rights, your lack of economic knowledge, and environmental fascism
@kevintype If you purchase a spot on earth. What lies beneath it is yours. If you pollute the public space such as air or a stream of course you would pay a monetary restitution for it. Of course you would try and limit you impact or face a civil case. Many companies have been sued for this. Fact is taxes don’t make the air or water cleaner. In fact they aren’t even costing the corporations you hate. The costs are always passed down to the consumer. The diff is Taxes aren’t voluntary. Trade is
Daniel, reality is what drives my thinking. Your attempts to paint me into an ideological corner are nothing more than a sad indication of the your own ideological blinders.
Now you are returning to the same tired old arguments you have already attempted previously, making this conversation circular, and exposing your admission of defeat.
So I bid you good luck, and good bye.
@kevintype Exposing what drives your thinking as well.
I am not against green tech. I am against these so called green corps using their political connections to loot the people for their own gains.
Taking money from the tax payer to fund green tech is like breaking windows to create jobs for the window industry without regard for the fact that some resources both monetary and commodity based are being deprived from other sectors in the economy. You obviously never owned a business.
Daniel, I seek to return the discussion to basic facts, and free it from all ideology, whether of capitalism or of socialism.
The facts are there on the ground, in the earth, and in the air.
The truth will not be found in the textbooks of the economists, no matter how eloquently they spin their justifications for the few to vastly enrich themselves at the expense of the many.
@kevintype I am not a corporatist. In fact you are. You are defending the practice of mercantilism which can also be called corporate socialism or welfare. It is very much like fascism. Stealing from the tax payer with government force to start a CORPORATION with no CORPORATE risk. Somehow green CORPORATIONS are more virtuous then others? It is clear you are taking this argument out of the realm of economic fact and into ideology.
@kevintype There is no forest there are only trees. Community is formed by many individuals cooperating to provide goods and services that any one individual cannot provide on his/her own. Capitalism is a natural phenomenon not an ideology as socialism is.
Daniel, I am neither a collectivist nor an individualist. I am a realist.
Reality includes certain facts: that individuals cannot survive in isolation, and that communities cannot prosper without respecting the individual.
Corporatists such as yourself fail to understand the nature of these facts.