Quote:
Originally Posted by Teppler
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Well personally, it's the tax payer in me that is asking for you to prove it considering there's huge money attached to 'green projects'. Shouldn't they be able to justify their positions?
If you just want to insanely scream about global warming, I don't really mind. When you try to get into my pocket about it, I have to ask that your position is strong.
|
Well, lets ignore global warming. Reducing global warming is just a bonus to the real benefits of ‘green projects’.
Dinojuice is rare, expensive to extract, and often requires military force to secure a dinosaurgraveyard.
Wind blow, sun burn and river flow. It’s easy to see why energy companies are interested in these options and becoming less reliant on old trees and dinosaur juice. The real reason for pursuit of ‘green’ is nothing to do with the environment.
It’s just diversifying suppliers of generated energy and reducing logistical problems (no more Iran taking control of ships that navigated the wrong route, Saudi price fixing, Russians turning off taps, etc as well as simply being able to generate energy closer to the point of delivery).
‘Green’ is just marketing. e.g. Interfering with waterways has devastating ecological consequences (whether blocking navigations with hydro, or using water as cooling for furnaces or nuclear).
So yea, ignoring environmental issues both ways, “green” has some advantages in terms of source, supply, competition, logistics and distribution but the best solution might be a mixed approach.