The environuts did the same thing to the lumber industry in the US. They did that whole hug a tree program and even had many movies dedicated to stopping the lumber industry. The end result was that the while our lumber industry plants 1.9 trees for every tree taken down, we get our lumber from other countries, who standards are MUCH lower and then we get the added benefit to the environment of the fossil fuels used to ship the lumber.
If you really want to know how silly these people are, consider that the cheapest and best alternative is nuclear power. It produces no CO2, yet the environuts have effectively killed all new nuclear power plant plans in the US. Their concern for human life is so high that they have been working at stopping third world countries from having power plants.
The sad thing is that these are not bad people. They are just easily fooled and unwilling or incapable of research and independent thought. They are being used for what they think will help.
It is SO EASY to demonize the oil and coal industry and pretty much every industry. BUT, lets review where we would currently be with the use of fossil fuels. How much of our new technology runs off of warm fuzzy feelings, rainbows and wishes?
North America is actually a carbon-sink, meaning the continent absorbs more than it puts out. I believe they are responsible for the majority of Smug Alerts(http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-epi... but these are mostly harmless.
In some cases, yes. I know of an industrial plant that burns coal as part of its chemical processing. Decades ago they built a co-generation power plant to create some electricity from heat that might otherwise be going to waste, which they would put on the grid and sell to the power companies. Now the power companies don't want to buy it because it is generated from coal, and they want to get their percentage of power produced from coal down, because coal is more polluting.
This is completely illogical from an environmental perspective, though, because the coal is still being burned, and the power that would have come from it has to come from another source. It is very wasteful, but is a product of rigid adherence to rules.
Yes currently we use the existing energy sources in order to build both renewable as well as conventional energy sources, however this will obviously change when more and more renewable sources go on-line.
The AGW cultists and leftists in general do not care about unintended consequences of their actions because what really matters most to them is how they feel about what they think and not the results of what they do. Leftist environmentalists will literally burn a forest to the ground to save the trees.
no , just the opposite .
Clearly the answer would have to be yes. Insistance on closing coal fired plants--natural gas plants--and investing in expensive green energy alternatives--the ultimate effect of these things on business is contraction of manufacturing. Given that--people will still want to buy manufactured goods probably at the same rate they are now. They won't be manufactured in the US or Europe--pricing relative to goods producted in china and the far east clearly will be in china's favor. So--in reality what you've done is move manufacturing from the states where there are controls on emissions to produce the same material in a country where the emissions are not controlled.
Thus--indirectly--you guys are responsible for pumping out more greenhouse gases are you not?
