patrickmcginnis59 10839 (4/17/2013)
Now, I'm willing to play devils advocate for either side, so I'm curious about what alternative motivations for each side we can think of? Obviously big measures taken against GW run counter to simple economic performance, and these same measures might be positive to green investors. But remember, simple economic measures also point to unlimited growth in economic activity, and this doesn't seem sustainable, especially given the growth in human population, and if GW is a real issue to be concerned about, we REALLY DO need to be investing in alternative green technologies.
Well I'll let you do the pro/con research into Agenda 21.
But as far as simple things like the CFL light bulbs. The old regular light bulbs pretty much anyone could make and were cheap and disposable. Some how GE and Phillips were the first one's to market when the CFL were being shoved on us. It was done for the environment -- right? So how does saving $0.75 of electricity a month lower the carbon foot print? How much more money is GE making off the CFL bulbs?
Then there are all these wind and solar farms. For the windmill to recoup it's cost takes about 17 years. The expected life time of a windmill is about 15 years.
Then there is Solyndra. They had $535,000,000 in loan guarantees from the federal government. When they went belly up the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for it and the CEO's walked away with millions.
When there are billions of dollars at stake for "green" energy, the altruism gets mighty powerful. 😛
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.