|
|
 |
|
If neither dominant party represents you, consider the Libertarian Party.
Green?
IMHO, there are two main factors that need public recognition:
- Green energy is more costly to produce in 2023
- Green energy proponents are heavily invested in the solution (a.k.a. Insider Trading … conflict of interest …)
Co$t
Until an alternative energy source is cheaper than fossil fuels the majority of the US population will avoid a more costly choice. IMO, it boils down to this simple fact. There is a future day when alternative sources of energy will be competitive. Today is NOT that day.Gov't must NOT inject itself to make alternative sources seem more affordable. Any subsidy (at taxpayer expense) in effect increases the cost of Green. Again, the Free Market must drive the costs of various sources of energy.
AND are the following Green technologies recyclable? Or do they further stress landfills?
- Millions of car batteries
- Worn out turbine blades
Fossil Fuel Subsidies
I support the immediate end of all federal subsidies to fossil fuel producers. Gov't must never pick winners or losers. Never.
Conflict of Interest
With advocates as investors, there is a clear conflict of interest. Our already mysteriously wealthy overlords will reap further financial gain. Especially, if gov't subsidizes alternative sources of energy (at taxpayer expense).
Petroleum Producers
I'm sure you have seen petroleum producers advertising that they are exploring alternative fuels. If you trust the ads there is market movement to alternative sources. If you do NOT trust the ads how can their true motives be determined? This is a challenge to all who want to debate "Green".
A Green New Deal?
A little flippant … this if more New Deal than Green. How do undefined equity payments (provision 1E) of the Green New Deal advance Green energy?No. NO. Hell NO!!