well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

Why don't you join the rest of us and just take up a chair and listen to the wisdom and learn you a lil something.

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i got polled by some company last night. they asked if i would vote for gerlach or trevedi. as i mentioned earlier i thought i was in that district now and after double checking im actually not. anyways, polls have some serious flaws if i am included in a sample i shouldnt be included in.

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

Why don't you join the rest of us and just take up a chair and listen to the wisdom and learn you a lil something.

no point in looking into renewable energy, it'll never be cost efficient!

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

Geez that could be a thread unto itself. Where does electricity come from? Magic green fairies? What are the environmental costs of creating and disposing of the batteries needed for an electric vehicle? Your 1986 Crown Vic is greener. Plus better for parties.

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

I agree that the government will not "pick a winner" in energy, but that is not to say that they can't be effective in steering us away from harmful fuels to less harmful ones. For example, they could tax the ever-loving shit out of non-renewables; then greed would be more inclined to find a "greener" solution.

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

Geez that could be a thread unto itself. Where does electricity come from? Magic green fairies? What are the environmental costs of creating and disposing of the batteries needed for an electric vehicle? Your 1986 Crown Vic is greener. Plus better for parties.

what is your suggestion?

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

Geez that could be a thread unto itself. Where does electricity come from? Magic green fairies? What are the environmental costs of creating and disposing of the batteries needed for an electric vehicle? Your 1986 Crown Vic is greener. Plus better for parties.

you are one big ray of sunshine. geez louise. cynicism much?

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

Geez that could be a thread unto itself. Where does electricity come from? Magic green fairies? What are the environmental costs of creating and disposing of the batteries needed for an electric vehicle? Your 1986 Crown Vic is greener. Plus better for parties.

Serious question: I thought electrictiy generation, while of course ultimately done with fossil fuels, was more efficient than just burning gasoline straight out, or at least not as damaging to the environment?

CalvinBall wrote:i got polled by some company last night. they asked if i would vote for gerlach or trevedi. as i mentioned earlier i thought i was in that district now and after double checking im actually not. anyways, polls have some serious flaws if i am included in a sample i shouldnt be included in.

Did they call your landline or cell phone?

mozartpc27 wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

I agree that the government will not "pick a winner" in energy, but that is not to say that they can't be effective in steering us away from harmful fuels to less harmful ones. For example, they could tax the ever-loving #$!&@ out of non-renewables; then greed would be more inclined to find a "greener" solution.

I'm on board with that, to a limited extent. The problem is, the subsidy for green-du-jour will just cause useful effort to chase down more dead-end (Solyndra) or harmful (ethanol) paths

CalvinBall wrote:i got polled by some company last night. they asked if i would vote for gerlach or trevedi. as i mentioned earlier i thought i was in that district now and after double checking im actually not. anyways, polls have some serious flaws if i am included in a sample i shouldnt be included in.

Trivedi is a great guy. I was also taken out of the district. They took the urban votes and the democratic-heavy spots out of Gerlach's and gave it to Pitts because he dominates Lancaster county so much

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:i got polled by some company last night. they asked if i would vote for gerlach or trevedi. as i mentioned earlier i thought i was in that district now and after double checking im actually not. anyways, polls have some serious flaws if i am included in a sample i shouldnt be included in.

Did they call your landline or cell phone?

landline. i am less than a mile from the dividing line. so maybe they got confused.

tomatopie are you some sort of engineer or environmental scientist?

he probably shits in environmental scientists' cheerios

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

Geez that could be a thread unto itself. Where does electricity come from? Magic green fairies? What are the environmental costs of creating and disposing of the batteries needed for an electric vehicle? Your 1986 Crown Vic is greener. Plus better for parties.

what is your suggestion?

The government needs to regulate energy regarding:
1) environmental impact (NOT "global warming" but real impact)
2) national security

Other than that, the quickest path to cheap, green, renewable energy is free markets. There is plenty of incentive to find it.

Think about China. I've been to Xian, where the sky is thick with they acidic yellow-gray haze from coal burning power plants. Think of the collective human capital and nationalistic approach there. Think of their desperate need to move beyond fossil fuels, especially coal. If government could find green energy, it would. But it cannot.

Regarding technology, government is more often an impediment to progress, with notable exceptions coming from the military and from space exploration. Do you think government would have come up with the iPad?

laf837 wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:well if the govt invests in it and allows for it to be a wise investment for businesses, wont greed latch on to that?

You mean like ethanol? Burning food for fuel? Sure, companies will line up to make money from bad government policy.

The main point is that the chance of government picking a winner in energy is about the same as gary Johnson winning the presidency in 2012.

Well, actually, Johnson's chances are better than that.

i have looked into buying an electric car.

Geez that could be a thread unto itself. Where does electricity come from? Magic green fairies? What are the environmental costs of creating and disposing of the batteries needed for an electric vehicle? Your 1986 Crown Vic is greener. Plus better for parties.

you are one big ray of sunshine. geez louise. cynicism much?

That's not cynicism. I think the future is bright, and we'll stumble onward despite government continually being in the way.

You know what government has been good at? Steering us toward social progress. Slow, but the path is ever forward.

CalvinBall wrote:tomatopie are you some sort of engineer or environmental scientist?

Nah. Just a interwebz loudmouth.