Why do climate change sceptics think investing in green technology and green...

[MasterMorte]

...jobs is a bad thing? great circular logic Philos...
Don't we need more jobs and some way to secure future energy needs when fossil fuels run out?

[Philosulfer]

Because the same people pushing this agenda are the energy cartel.

[Philosulfer]

Because the same people pushing this agenda are the energy cartel.

[Diablo Blanco]

From a private standpoint I wholly support it. We should be responsible stewards of our planet; it's the only home we have. If I have a choice between two comparable products or services relatively close in price, I choose the "green" choice. However I disagree with "investing" when it comes from my tax dollars. If we have individual liberty, then we vote with our wallets. By choosing the green products and services or investing your own capital in green companies, then we are investing in both green technology and jobs.

BTW... Look into the small capital wind energy companies. You may be surprised by the investment potential you see.

[jeeper_peeper321]

Because green energy, cost 5 times more than abundant sources we already have.

Coal isn't going to run out any time soon.

Plus, green energy sources, even at full funding, full implementation, can only supply around 15% to 20% of our energy needs.

And to meet those goals, they will still have to develop technologies, not yet invented.

Using existing technologies, your looking at 10%of the energy needs meet.

So the money could be better spent developing clean coal or natural gas.

[socrates]

I don't know anyone who thinks investing in green (renewable) energy is a bad thing. I do know many people that are pragmatic about it though. Ethanol production uses more energy than it produces. It hasn't fallen on it's face because it's subsided by the government (another too big to fail story). Because of this, many farmers grow field corn for this instead of sweet corn for food. People are starving around the world because the Breadbasket of the World is making ethanol instead of food. Now, once the technology matures to use switch grass for ethanol instead, you might have something.

This is an example of how liberals throw money at a problem to fix it. They also think this approach can make jobs. All it does is create a $50,000.00 dollar job by spending $150,000.00. All you are doing is having the taxpayers support this job. You need to create a market demand for this job. To do this, you have to create a market demand for a company's product or service. In this case, green product.

Demand will be created if
A. If consumers have more money to buy stuff. This can happen by a stimulus that goes TO THE PEOPLE. This worked under the Bush Administration. You could also cut taxes across the board (especially on those "evil" rich). This will allow consumers (people and companies) to buy these things.

B. The company lowers the price on their product.

C. The company invests money into R&D to develop a better mouse trap. Investing means the company has to make a profit. Liberals have been demonizing companies lately for doing that.

Once the demand for the companies goods or services grow, the company can expand. When they expand (or resume their prior operations), they need to hire and there's your job creation.

When solar cells, wind power, superconducting power transmission and the other green technologies mature and become cost-effective (i.e. without government subsidies), that's when you'll see real job creation. Real jobs are created by the private sector, not the government.

Want to make more jobs? GET GOVERNMENT OFF THE BACKS OF THOSE WHO KNOW HOW TO DO IT! National healthcare and Cap & Trade will be HUGE costs to the economy and business respectively.

While we are allowing companies to develop this new whizzbang green technology, let's not go through this self-imposed guilt trip about fossil fuels. Drill, drill, drill! We gain energy independence, keep fuel prices low until the green tech is ready for prime time.

One of these technologies is solid state lighting (SSL) or high-intensity LEDs. This tech is taking over the flashlight industry and making moves into home lighting. They are at least twice as efficient as compact fluorescent bulbs, have no mercury, can be dimmed like incandescent bulbs and last longer. Why haven't you heard more about them? Because the government is fixated on CFLs. Only recently has the government offered 10 million bucks to the company that can make an SSL to replace a 60w incandescent bulb. They can't even do that right. Phillips is close to doing this anyway. Instead of spurring R&D of companies with prize money, this will be "free money" to Phillips. The government should have done this long ago.

[con man]

They really don't think it's a bad thing when they come up with the ideas, only when the democrats do.

[D T]

I just ordered a 120 watt solar panel for the doublewide, what did you do?

[Thalia]

I am wondering if these prominent climate-change sceptics are actually being funded by the oil industry and large corporations whose only motivation is to avoid carbon taxes.

When these "Climategate" emails came out, surprise, surprise, the Saudi Arabian government was the only one in the world which jumped on the "its all a hoax" bandwagon. Coincidentally they supply the world with most of their oil.

[jeeper_peeper321]

Because green energy, cost 5 times more than abundant sources we already have.

Coal isn't going to run out any time soon.

Plus, green energy sources, even at full funding, full implementation, can only supply around 15% to 20% of our energy needs.

And to meet those goals, they will still have to develop technologies, not yet invented.

Using existing technologies, your looking at 10%of the energy needs meet.

So the money could be better spent developing clean coal or natural gas.