congress should tax fossil fuels, and use the revenue to subsidize alternative energy

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 13
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
this would speed up the free market. it already makes sense for people to switch to alternative energy, but if you sweeten the deal, it will happen faster. everyone wins in this situation, except those who dont want to do what's best for themselves and the world. 

there should be a tax exemption for lower income people though. 
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
You first. Go buy an electric car and save the planet.

You will be helping to lower prices on alternative energy by showing people how profitable it is to sell electric cars to you.
Topic's author
#3
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
i think u r intending to use sarcasm to debate me, but your sarcasm is actually making my point 

except, i'm not sure if electric cars should count, cause most of them r powered by fossil fuel power plants. i would be okay if they were included, though... let the free market decide which alternative power should be prioritized. 
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
 let the free market decide

It already has. People would rather individually choose to drive cheap fossil fuel cars than believe the world is going to end when AOC says it will.

Maybe if you joined AOC's propaganda team then more people will choose alternatives.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Did you know that a fossil fuel derivative Kerosene was promoted as saving the environment? It's true, many producers weaned the American consumer off of whale oil by showing how it burned cleaner and saved whale lives.

The US government never had to subsidize Rockefeller.

They don't have to subsidize Elon Musk either, just get a more believable message than that BULSHIT you hear on CNN.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
What would really speed up the free market would be a rollback to 1970's regulations on nuclear plants since every nuclear plant built around 1970 has had historical fantastic success with no fatalities. And it didn't take billions of dollars or 10 years either.

Good luck pushing THAT past the fossil fuel lobby.
Topic's author
#7
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
solar and windmills are cheaper than nuclear. id support nuclear too, though

alterantive energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels. people just dont like making initial investments. the free market is just taking the path of least resistance, even if it's all around the worst path. just gotta make it worth people's while and speed up the free market. 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
solar and windmills are cheaper than nuclear.
Just wait till the Fossil Fuel lobbies push for regulations against solar. They don't have to right now though since most consumers hate solar. Nimby has also eliminated windmill competition for fossil fuel lobbies so no regulation on windmills are needed yet.

The free market is just taking the path of least resistance,
We haven't had a free market since FDR started the age of lobbied crony regulations.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
The U.S has the benefit of a huge Back Yard, so I'm surprised to here that there are so many NIM's.

Of course, less reliance on fossil fuels would mean less of a need for a military presence in the Middle East.....Which makes you wonder who all the NIMBY's are.


Everything is powered by the Sun anyway...So it would seem more sensible to utilise a  limitless  direct supply of energy....Well, limitless for as long as it lasts,  and after that there will be no one here to care, as there won't be a here to care about....Perhaps we will be elsewhere by then, and will have worked out how to do things properly....Including how to engineer out the selfish gene......... Or perhaps Another Intelligence will already have things sorted.

Nonetheless.

And then there's human over dependence and unnecessary or necessary, use of energy to consider.

And nuclear is problematic from start to finish and beyond....Well, it is for carbon based lifeforms. 
#10
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
this would speed up the free market. it already makes sense for people to switch to alternative energy, but if you sweeten the deal, it will happen faster. everyone wins in this situation, except those who dont want to do what's best for themselves and the world. 
I don’t think you understand the value chain of solar or wind power lol. You’d need a shit ton of rare earth metals, which ofc won’t be mined in the US for the millions of batteries you’ll need to store the energy. To make the panels and batteries you need petrochemicals and plastics. You need an electric grid a million times bigger and capable of holding much more power. 


Watch that video, it should help. You need wayyyyyy more R&D to even come close to the stuff required, not to mention waste.
#11
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Of course, less reliance on fossil fuels would mean less of a need for a military presence in the Middle East.....Which makes you wonder who all the NIMBY's are.
See that’s the thing.  The US has more than enough energy here, but the Establishment don’t want that. They want to rely on oil from the Middle East so there’s always an excuse for the Military Industrial Complex.
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ILikePie5
Exactly.

And who do you think this benefits.
#13
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly.

And who do you think this benefits.
The establishment. Bigger reason why we should get oil from within the US while we continue doing R&D to make stuff cheaper and more feasible in the long run.