Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
The positive impact is elsewhere in the equation: to allow us to live, in numbers, in comfort, and to move around as necessary to drive the economy and improve the standard of living of the entire world.
|
And we can only accomplish that by a further reliance on fossil fuels and, if we want to be solely reliant on US oil, by drilling in sensitive environmental areas, which will still not meet US demand?
Weak argument, IMO. Not just weak, baseless.
Quote:
Here are two of them:
Weakening the economy could prevent the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence and will, that will be necessary to get China, India, and Russia to go along with the plan.
There may not be enough general political will to embrace an environmental project aimed at helping something highly abstract, especially during a recession with a deep budget deficit and other big budget items on the table.
|
No one is suggestion cutting off all use of oil tomorrow or even within the next 5 years or 20 years. There is no evidence that reducing (not eliminating) our reliance on fossil fuels by reasonable amounts over a period of time (20+ yrs) would weaken the economy....unless you believe the "sky is falling" oil industry and free market crowd
Another weak argument....much like the arguments made decades ago about the tough environmental laws that were enacted (they cost too much, they will make the US less competitive....). In fact, the economy became more diverse and innovative and thus stronger.
As to "preventing the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence.....", my only response is "huh"?
Leading by example has served us well, at least until recently, when, in many cases, our examples have not been so positive and have weakened our influence. Becoming a leader in developing, then exporting (selling) energy efficient technologies to other countries would more likely have a positive impact.