(01-08-2019 08:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 03:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not quite. I don't fully support the idea of completely removing fossil fuels from energy production within 10 years (natural gas is a pretty great energy source). And I also saw that nuclear was off the table, which I disagree with as well.

But I very much support her push to focus on government support for technology development. Government funded research has been shown to generate an incredibly high return on investment, so it's a very efficient way to use dollars. I also support using taxes or a cap/trade system to fully realize the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels, since the market will not capture that (we already do that for things like pollution control, since it does not cost energy companies $$ to release pollutants like ozone producing compounds, but those pollutants do affect the public).

You can go back through my posts and see that I've always felt this way regarding sustainable energy development and pollution emissions. At some point, I'm going to have to inhabit this rock, and any potential children will too, so I'd rather err on the side of caution regarding environmental issues.

You are blinded by the wind/solar research. That’s like the people who welcome totalitarian dictators because they will make the trains run on time. Yay!

What she is proposing is Big Brother government, anticapitalistic and anti democratic. If solar power is such a goal to you that you would accept the Sovietation of the USA for it, that’s your choice. But we can have research into alternative power without also killing fossil fuels and without draconian tax increases. Liking a part of does not make the whole enchilada edible.

Yup, totally blinded! I can't see a thing at all... Sheesh

First, what about what she is presenting is Big Brother-esque?

Second, as I've said, I support privatizing the negative externalities of fossil fuels that the market fails to capture, which has historical precedent. We have regulation in place that requires certain emission requirements be met. Are you someone who would argue against lead limits in fuel that have literally changed the world by reducing airborne lead concentrations which have been directly linked to brain development issues. Just one of those pesky, anticapitalist regulations? So I don't see how regulations that create a situation where someone is fully burdened with the actual cost of their actions is anti-capitalist.

Third, I never said you had to tie these taxes/regulations directly to increased funding in alternative/sustainable energies, and I even said I wasn't thrilled with the entirety of AOC's plan. But yeah, totally blind!

Your “first” shows your blindness.

Your “third” is her plan. Why does you think she wants the extra taxes?

Can you explain what is Big Brother-esque about the plan? I don’t see where there is an increase in surveillance a la the Patriot Act.

And again, I mentioned that there are parts of her plan I’m not thrilled with. Wouldn’t someone who was blind not criticize or say anything contrary to a proposal?