A New Hope for Beating Back the Regressive Green Movement
I agree with your initial premise, that every form of energy has negative consequences. I assume we differ at the next step, I would ask what is the least harmful, and you would ask what is the cheapest. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I think your approach suffers from looking to short term. Current prices of energy do not take into account the externalities. Obviously, if you destroy a mountain top in West Virgina to get coal, there are going to be lots of externalities. Lets look at ozone depletion and acid rain, both unintended byproducts. Companies were not paying for the damages they were creating though their products, and without government regulation would have continued down the same path because it was a cheap method of production. Thus, we were all paying for the cheaper methods, by being stuck with the consequences.
I think the situation would be more akin to her sitting outside the NIH asking for it to invest in Malaria research. Malaria research is not profitable, unlike hair loss treatments and erectile dysfunction drugs, because the recipients will not be able to afford the drugs. So should we not put our minds toward malaria research? Furthermore, the NIH does pick medical research to fund. Do you think that process should stop?
Lets talk about nuclear. Without government backing there would be no nuclear power stations. Do you think that was a mistake, or are you pro nuclear?
