Eddie, almost everything in our lives has some sort of "Government Subsidy" think about our roads, Hospitals, firefighters, Sea Ports, Schools etc. etc. Their funding (all or some) come from the Government through collecting tax and redistributing it.
The real argument here is really about Co2 emission and the effect on our world, I know you do not believe in "Global warming" and so you just look at the immediate cost of coal fired energy generation. From my view point I look at the total cost including damage to the environment, whether it is Co2 emissions , mountain top mining, water pollution due to the spoils of mining and burning the coal, acid rain and all the other negative costs. I'm willing to pay 10-20% more for my energy in the short term to allow the technologies to advance quickly and reduce my cost over the long term.
I agree that government does spend money on our every day lives. Things like roads, and infrastructure are very good examples of government doing what they are supposed to do. I'm also in support of government grants to Universities and private industry to do research on new technology. These are what taxes are for and I support these things.
My point that you didn't respond to was the use of money to force technology on us that does not work, but it politically correct. Sort of like the ethanol disaster that we just went through. When government forces these things on us, it just delays the real research on developing that technology by removing the incentive to do so. Why make it work when you are making money on it anyway?
As for assuming that I'm for destroying the landscape or increasing pollution because I have never seen any evidence that humans are increasing the overall temperature of the planet, is just silly. You invented that position when I've never said anything like that. Nor do others who don't believe that the planet is getting warmer. Instead, we believe that NASA has demonstrated that the temperature of the planet has been decreasing for the last decade, that the polar ice caps are at 1970's levels and increasing.
Those who believe in global warming have to rely in distortions and bad science. Both are proven wrong over and over again, but with all the money involved, those so called scientist keep pushing the doom and gloom regardless of how ofter they are proven wrong.
Two questions for those who believe in global warming. Why was the planet warmer in the past? One example is that the Romans grew grapes for wine in England, which is still too cold today for natural grapes to grow. You have to use genetically altered grapes to grow there because it's still too cold.
The other question is what benefits would we see from global warming? All they tell us is how bad it "might" be if the planet warms up. They ignore the fact that the planet has been warmer then it is now many times in the past and none of those things they predict ever happened, but what are the benefits? Will frozen area be able to grow crops? Will it rain more often because of increased evaporation in the oceans? Will the polar bears be able to eat more seals with less ice for them to hide in? hahaha
I'm all for a clean environment. As a hunter, I believe strongly that improving the habitat of our wildlife is VERY IMPORTANT!! I think that allot of these so called green alternatives actually do more harm then good. Saying that it's worth the sacrifice because in the long run, technology will make it better might work, but then again, it might not. It's wishful thinking at it's best.
How much damage and pollution to the planet are those pigtail light bulbs causing when they break? In some states, it's considered too hazardous to live in your home if one breaks. They are full of mercury. What is the long term damage of disposing of them? There is no energy shortage except what the government creates. There is plenty of known coal and oil to last us for centuries, yet we're not allowed to use it and have to use technology that uses MORE energy to create and operate then it generates. The stupidity is mind boggling yet that's what we're getting.
For what little energy we get from windmills, which is the topic of this post, what are we left with when those windmills fall apart? Altemont Pass in California has thousands of windmills. The owners of that windmill farm have changed hand numerous times. They all go bankrupt and now those windmills are falling apart. Some have even fallen over. What will it cost to clean up that mess? Who will pay for it? What was the cost to get the land, but the windmills, install them, maintain them and now dispose of them? Compare that to what they generated in electricity and I think you'll find it's not even close to breaking even. The proof is in the bankruptcy of the owners of those windmills and the fact that they are abandoned and left to fall apart.
Maybe being from California and going for excitement over the creation of the windmill farm where I lived, to hearing about the problems it was having and knowing those involved, to finally seeing it fail gives me a perspective that those who haven't seen it don't have. In time, you will.
Eddie
