The only issue is that some moronic non science fools refuse to accept reality but are completrely unable to disprove AGW. Ring a bell?
The winners will be solar, wind and geothermal power production It is sad all the time you have spent in this forum and still haven't got a clue about AGW
Economics certainly plays a part. If I decide to put solar panels on my roof, use batteries to store the energy and go "off grid", the utility company will have lost one customer. However the cost of the existing infrastructure will still have to be paid for and the utility company will have to either absorb that cost, or pass it on to other customer, making solar only more attractive to other customers and the end result is that the company will have to rethink it's business model.
Right now, when the wind is not blowing natural gas is the cheapest source of energy, however when the wind does blow, wind turbines does upset the economics of fossil fuel plants. Now a farmer can put in a wind turbine in their farm and still farm the land underneath it, chances are that they can make good money by putting one up as long as the utility company will buy it of him/her at market rates.
My current utility company will not buy from small producers even at market rates, I suspect they understand that when battery storage becomes cheaper people will go off grid rather then buy the energy from them.
The Rothschilds and their Babylonian Rockefeller allies in the Elder Protocols Council of the Federal Reserve have obviously infiltrated the whole capitalist system, allowing elitist common sense and Marxist business strategy to trump the few remaining resisters of Al Gore Arrhenius's Time Traveling Hoax.
it's more about correcting a market failure of free dumping into the atmosphere and not paying the cost the 'externality'.
Nat gas will win on the short term, certainly over coal, but there are other reasons. Gas plants can be located in cities while coal cannot. As well, gas turbines ramp up to demand a lot faster than coal boilers.
There is no debate just denialists claiming there is one, when there isn't. Much like Creation 'scientists'
If you're asking whether the "climate change debate" (a debate only among the public, not among scientists) is fomented by those with financial special interests in fossil fuels, then of course that's true. That's been obvious for years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-27/global-warming-battle-is-over-market-share-not-science.html?cmpid=yhoo.view
"Energy should no longer be thought of as a fight between clean sources (wind, solar) and dirty carbon (oil, coal) but rather a hierarchy of energy, with natural gas likely to be the big winner."
