"You can't love God and ignore the earth"

Do you call dumping cyanide tailings from mining into pristine rivers; mining off the tops of mountains; logging every national forest in the world, clear cutting the Amazon, pouring lead and other heavy metals into our drinking water; radioactive waste into our oceans, fracking every square inch of land, a "human impact"? I call it a human tragedy; and by all indications, we are not in the least weaning ourselves off these practices, but instead, it is full steam ahead. Anyone who challenges or criticizes these practices is standing in the way of progress, and is a "radical".

No one is asking for zero pollution levels; and saying that we expect zero pollution levels is patronizing--like we are children and just don't understand how the world works. Here is a little understanding:


http://www.greenerideal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/china-air-pollution.jpg

 

I actually agree with much of your post. I am a huge fan of solar, wind, and water turbines in small applications (like a small business and homes) because it allows generation at the point of use, there are no distribution grids needed, and there is no need for the government to get involved.

The problem is cost. Its very expensive to power even a basic house using alternative methods. The installation is expensive, and the maintenance is expensive. People think alternative systems last forever, they do not. Batteries have to be replaced every 5-7 years, over time seals in solar panels break down and leak, water gets in cables and wires corrode and break, lightning damages the system. Wind turbines have their own issues plus all the problems encountered with moving parts. Water turbines have all the above problems plus the problem of being submerged often in salt water.

I don't agree with govt subsidies, but if obama was honestly serious about alternative energy, he would not have handed out $billions to solar panel and battery manufacturers. He would have given 100% tax credits to anyone who installed an alternative system in their home or business. That would have created not only an immediate demand and a large population of people on alternative sources but more importantly a long term ongoing demand for solar/wind/water systems and maintenance.

But his cronies were more important then energy conservation.

 

Examples please.

 

I agree with you, but would this congress have ever let 100% tax credits go through for something that a appears to have an environmental agenda?

 

This congress would get rid of the EPA altogether if they could. They hate "entitlement" programs used by the poor because people should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps and simply work harder." Welfare, food stamps... They hate programs like those. They fight for things like Keystone XL and drilling in the Arctic. A petition is circulating in Colorado right now because some Texas business man is planning on developing a ski town near Wolf Creek ski resort including condos, shops, hotels etc. it's right in a migration path for Lynx which are still trying to recover. Does that seem to matter? Not if there are enough $$$ rape the Lynx back into extinction they seem to say.

 

You mean the Congress that has whined and complained but in action has given in to every obama demand, including fully funding obamacare and the illegal alien amnesty, passing the Trans Pacific Partnership, rubber stamping the Iran swindle, cash for clunkers, UAW bailout?

If obama had directed the $Billions that went to Solyndra and the rest of the cronies (who all pocketed the money and then went bankrupt) to tax credits or some other scheme that got wind/solar into homes, Congress would have whined but done it.

 

Obamacare was a compromise. Liberals want single payer, republicans wouldn't go for it so you're left with this weird awkward love child between single payer and what we had which is Obamacare.

Possibly, but doubtful. There are examples of them compromising with Obama, because if they didn't literally nothing would get done. There are things they've stomped the foot on and aren't budging though, Supreme Court nomination the most obvious example. That said, I am disappointed he didn't at least try a tax credit like that or something. He could have done more for the environment in his 8 years, but he did do some great things.

 

They are not. Republicans are in favor of increasing the standard of living on a global basis at a maximum rate. They are not in favor of reducing that rate by implementing energy policy which will achieve nothing but that reduction.

 

The EPA has become a joke and the punch line is labeling C02 a pollutant. Most of the rest of your response was social programs and a local issue

 

Did you forget that the "progressives" had total control of the govt at that time? If they wanted single payer then they would have rammed that down our throats, but they did not because they could not get all of the Democrats to go for it - the Republicans had nothing to do with it.

The Democrats lost total control only after Scott Brown (who ran exclusively on obamacre, his campaign slogan was he would be the 41st vote not the 60th) won the Massachusetts Senate seat. That deprived the Democrats at the end of the process their chance to further modify the legislation because it would require one last Senate vote - and it would not pass thank you Scott Brown.