Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Left behind? Are you sure that is how you want to describe it? If by being left behind they are more profitable than going green it may be the greens that are left behind.

It will all depend on price. As long as fossil is significantly less expensive world wide then it will be used. Obviously if green is less expensive, then it gets used.

____________

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

The quarter is always over by the time of the report. So for management this quarter is next quarter to shareholders.

But usually there is enough info from last report and the analysts to make a decision whether to sell, hold or buy this qtr.

Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.

But It Is. The Sickly, deformed, otherwise Weak Of The Litter Get Eaten By Mom, for The Strong Ones Survival.

Thus Tens Of Millions Of Mammalian Species Survival. Then Man Mammal Came Along.

And Now The Decline and Eventual Extinction.

Due To The Mom/Pops Not "Eating Their Young" So To Speak.

IGNORE Say: No IGNORING Evolution. Humans Have Disrupted The Natural Flow. Goodbye HumanKind. Unless You Get Hungry.

What a tangled web we weave when we practice deception via tax code ...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/cutbacks-in-subsidies-indicate-future-solar-may-be-dimming/
Solar Power

"The fundamental problem is it's not economically sustainable," said Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center, a think tank in Washington state.
...
At the heart of this dilemma are what's known as net metering customers. These homeowners and businesses produce solar power which they use, but then they're able to sell power they don't use back into the grid. They're compensated at retail rates and can currently receive a check at the end of the year.
...
She and her husband put solar panels on their house last year and anticipate breaking even in 14 years, but if the Idaho Power changes go through, they may never recoup the $25,000 solar panel investment they made.
...
"Everywhere you go, solar energy requires massive subsidies, which eventually blow a hole in the federal or state budget, and then are dropped," said Myers. "Solar is a bad way to go."

Gary, quoting slanted articles for Faux news is certainly not a solution. To say it depends on subsidies is false. To say someone overpaid for a system and might not get as much as they expected back is possible.

But this is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem. Cheer coal and petroleum, slam wind/solar. Even with weak arguments from slanted sources.

Ok here is a question for all of you. The oil companys get a tax break and or a subsidy. If the Government took that away how much would Gas and heating fuel be?
Also, then how would wind, and PV solar stack up?
____________

no difference. considering they just add the "gubment" handout to their profits. The last I checked some of the "oil" companies are raking in about $400 billion a year. taking $20 billion away is not going to substantially hurt their bottom line. BTW those handouts are to encourage them to explore for oil. Of note, Big Oil already explores for oil. its not like they weren't already going to do it.