[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Bryan

So the only reason we should switch to green energy is because we ran out of fossil fuels? I've always felt a cleaner planet was a compelling enough reason.

Agreed.

The earth has finite resources. Should we as a world population just extract and burn all the fossil fuel simply because it is economical?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Bryan

So the only reason we should switch to green energy is because we ran out of fossil fuels? I've always felt a cleaner planet was a compelling enough reason.

If the majority of people felt that way, they would pay the premium, and government intervention still wouldn't be necessary. So clearly it is not a good enough reason.

[Art]

Originally Posted by normajean777

If the majority of people felt that way, they would pay the premium, and government intervention still wouldn't be necessary. So clearly it is not a good enough reason.

Right. Whether I believe it is a good enough reason is beside the point. What does the market believe?

To answer earlier points, Natural gas vehicles have been around since the 90's. They have a white diamond on the back that says CNG in the middle.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by normajean777

If the majority of people felt that way, they would pay the premium, and government intervention still wouldn't be necessary. So clearly it is not a good enough reason.

It isn't people that pay the premium for alternative energy, though. It is corporations. And paying a premium hurts the bottom line. Clearly at some point, we obviously need to stop using oil almost exclusively, the question is, do you trust corporations enough that they will do the responsible thing for the earth before it is too late?

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by Bryan

So the only reason we should switch to green energy is because we ran out of fossil fuels? I've always felt a cleaner planet was a compelling enough reason.

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Agreed.

The earth has finite resources. Should we as a world population just extract and burn all the fossil fuel simply because it is economical?

To use an automotive analogy, the problem with this stance is that for 99% of the people who say it, it's all show and no go. Sure, people think that having a cleaner planed is a good enough reason, until they have to throw down the money to make it happen. I have $20 that says neither of you drive electric or hydrogen vehicles.

Originally Posted by normajean777

If the majority of people felt that way, they would pay the premium, and government intervention still wouldn't be necessary. So clearly it is not a good enough reason.

This.

Originally Posted by Rainer.

It isn't people that pay the premium for alternative energy, though. It is corporations. And paying a premium hurts the bottom line. Clearly at some point, we obviously need to stop using oil almost exclusively, the question is, do you trust corporations enough that they will do the responsible thing for the earth before it is too late?

No. Not a chance in hell. The government won't do it either, they're too busy trying to pin the end of the world on the other party. This is humanity. Everyone is looking out for number 1.


People are advocates of alternative energy until one of a few things happen:

1) It results in a nuclear power station somewhere near them.
2) It has an impact on their checkbook.
3) It makes them less comfortable or causes a slight inconvenience.

To be honest, the easiest and most efficient way of reducing vehicle consumption, is to encourage people to ride motorcycles. We already have them, they are proven technology, fuel economy is usually at least double what 99% of cars will provide, they are cheap to purchase, and the infrastructure for their use is already in place.

Mine gets 56 MPG, and it's a worn out piece of crap from 1992. It will also go 12.4 @ 112.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

It isn't people that pay the premium for alternative energy, though. It is corporations. And paying a premium hurts the bottom line. Clearly at some point, we obviously need to stop using oil almost exclusively, the question is, do you trust corporations enough that they will do the responsible thing for the earth before it is too late?

Of course not, and you can't rely on corporations to be responsible unless there is some profit incentive to do so. And that's why the market fails on issues like this. There's no reason for the market to support alternative energy until it's too late.

[S.B.Nichols]

Figure out a way make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels for the amount of energy they deliver and it is problem solved. Until then, the government subsidizing companies that can't compete in the market is just wasting our money.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

It isn't people that pay the premium for alternative energy, though. It is corporations. And paying a premium hurts the bottom line. Clearly at some point, we obviously need to stop using oil almost exclusively, the question is, do you trust corporations enough that they will do the responsible thing for the earth before it is too late?

Pure BS.

Do you heat your house with geothermal? I'm guessing not, its expensive.
How many solar panels are on the top on your house? None? None on mine neither, it was to expensive and we didn't want to climb on our roof in the middle of winter to shovel them off.
Electric or hydrogen car as mulletman suggested?

Heres the point, my family bought a geothermal system for their new house. It didn't hurt the companies bottom line, that company was extremely excited to sell another system for double or triple the price of a conventional system. It hurt my families bottom line. But they help spur change by showing the market that there was another 60k in demand for geothermal systems. If enough people do that, instead of only having 3 or 4 companies in the city that do that, we will have tons. And the prices will drop because they will compete with each other.

Ultimately corporations do not have the power. You do. Consumers are NOT forced to buy from them.

[Rainer.]

I think you missed my point.

And I don't know how far you are going to get by trying to pick at me in particular. My apartment is heated with electricity, according to the electric company, 91.2% hydroelectric, 4.4% nuclear, 2.3% wind, my school is heated with even more hydroelectric. I take public transportation almost every day, I don't have solar panels because that would be stupid because I live in Seattle, but almost all my power is renewable anyway. Hydroelectric power provided by dams built by... oh hey, the government.

But that's completely aside the point. The point is that however many average people's houses and cars we get running on sustainable energy... do you think we'll be gaining a real solution until factories are run on sustainable energy? Until all these big, diesel guzzling trucks and ships and trains moving consumer goods from one place to another are replaced with a more fuel efficient solution?

Do you think the average consumer would have food to eat if he/she refused to buy any produce at the store that was brought there on a vehicle that burns fossil fuels? Do you think they would personally go to the farm lobby and tell them to develop a greener way to transport their greenery to the store?

It's a nice thought to think that consumers have all the decision power, but having decision power necessitates consumers being given options in the first place.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

It's a nice thought to think that consumers have all the decision power, but having decision power necessitates consumers being given options in the first place.

Precisely. What's being argued here, in extremis, is the difference between ideology vs. practical, good governance. Just on its own merits, funding alternative energy is a no-brainer. But since ideology says No!, then we're left having senseless debates over the "size and scope" of the government.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Precisely. What's being argued here, in extremis, is the difference between ideology vs. practical, good governance. Just on its own merits, funding alternative energy is a no-brainer. But since ideology says No!, then we're left having senseless debates over the "size and scope" of the government.

...and the imaginary genius of the market.