Do people really get the point of energy and climate legislation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sgt. Baker
  • Start date Start date
S

Sgt. Baker

Guest
Even though those pushing it have actually been somewhat straight forward about the effects and the purpose of causing those effects. They want prices of energy to skyrocket to force people to switch to other energy sources. Problem is that those other energy sources are not in place to handle even 10% of the nations power needs. How does the government expect this to work? How does it intend to handle the effects of skyrocketing energy prices on a population struggling as it is in the midst of a recession.
 
It seems most things the government does these days doesn't consider whether or not people can actually afford it. As long as "they did SOMETHING" it's worthwhile.
 
Doing what's right may pay off in the long run, but procrastination pays off right now!
 
Or they can just do slow (reasonably so as to keep pace with the building of infrastructure) transistions.

We absolutely should go into different energy sources for varying, valid reasons but you can't just do the "pull it off like a band aid" method.

There's no reason to procrastinate on the matter, but there's no reason to rush it through and have it done by 2018 because it makes the government feel good that they "did something."
 
We should have been switching to nuclear power much more swiftly 30-40 years ago.

Instead uneducated hippies and a massive nuclear weapons program swayed the public. Now you have the same hard heads living on and affecting these things thanks to modern medicine. I dont like the "band-aid" scenario but that isn't really what's being proposed.

I'd really like to find a way to continue to use coal because it is so plentiful but its just so...damn....dirty. Most plentiful source of energy has the most carbon dioxide and pollutants per unit of energy. If there is a god, he really fucked that one up.
 
All I hear from energy activists around where I live is that we need to do it NOW NOW NOW so I may be slanted towards that comment, but I didn't mean to assert that was what you were stating, merely that's what I keep hearing.

To make my point clearer, I am in favor of energy reform, but I don't want the government to enact a legislation that is going to put undue stress on the country just for the sake of moving to renewable resources. If they make a plan to have all renewable energy in the nation by 2020, but infrastructure won't be solidified until 2025, I am against it. Progression to alternate energy and its infrastructure need to go in sync imo.
 
The problem is it was rejected and rejected and rejected and rejected all back when we were building this new infrastructure. Lo and behold, we really DO need it.

People just dont want to listen and the population has grown too fast. Chalk that one up for big business.
 
It's Eichmann. Should we just shout cliches at one another through bullhorns? Is that the level of dialogue you're going for?
 
Yup.

Hell, even enviro-nimby-fags like Senator Kennedy blocked "Green Power" for years. He wouldn't allow off shore wind farms.

Enviro-wackos certainly don't want nukes, even though it has next to no C02 emissions and generates HUGE amounts of electricity.
 
Many environmentalists are re-assessing their stance on nuclear power, but we would have to build hundreds of nuclear power plants to supplement our current fossil fuel usage. It's a part of the solution, but in no way the only solution. Wind, solar, etc still need to be used.
 
Throw in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, public outcry, and the lack of investors willing to build more nuclear power and you'll understand why CBF's assertion is retarded.
 
Nuclear power is a great solution. Two incidents, one cause by complete incompetence, are not a good argument against nuclear power. But hopefully Emfuser will find this thread or someone with a sub will search and find his many posts regarding nuclear power.

But way to ignore the rest of my post so you can try and start an argument.
 
Anyone with a brain would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal or petrol plant.
 
Yeah, like 3MI and Chern weren't build on "state of the art" late 1950's technology.

Here in Baltimore, we've been using modern nuclear plants for DECADES (from '80s technology) and the red tape has stalled a proposed 3rd nuclear plant, with even more modern technology. Haven't had an accident yet.

France has a shitload of nukes, using modern plants, and haven't had a problem.
 
Your opinion is wrong. You can't ignore the facts of the political and social climate at that time about nuclear power, so stop being a buffoon.

I'm all for nuclear power, but you can't ignore the fact that we haven't come up with a solution for disposal.
 
Back
Top