Are GW proponents more likely to invest in ecologically sustainable technologies than GW deniers?
Question by d/dx+d/dy+d/dz: Are GW proponents more likely to invest in ecologically sustainable technologies than GW deniers?
1. Energy efficiency technologies
2. Alternative energy production
3. Sustainable agriculture
4. Recycling
Can you help? Leave your own answer in the comments!
6 Responses to Are GW proponents more likely to invest in ecologically sustainable technologies than GW deniers?
Leave a Reply
Here is something that you might not know about. There are plenty of efforts to produce and use energy efficient equipment already taking place. An example is the electrical industry voluntarily developing a standard for energy efficient transformers. These transformers were being used more and more often, and now by federal law they must be used. It did start as a voluntary action. There are other examples, such as variable speed drives for motor control, which also save a lot of energy. And many new buildings have lighting control systems, so the lights don’t get left on overnight. I don’t believe that man is the main cause of the small amount of global warming that is taking place, but I advocate the use of these energy saving technologies because they make sense.
Ron T
October 8, 2012 at 9:02 am
Please be specific when talking about this. You mean Man Made Global warming. not just Global warming. big difference. Does the earth go through warming and cooling periods with or with out humans (man) YES, is it man made? NO.
to answer your question is NO! the MMGW deniers are not against any technologies that will help in the long run. or REASONABLE controls and oversight. its just that the technology is not ready for cheep mass production. last year, a hybrid pick up truck was on the market, but it was 10,000.00 – 20,000.00 more dollars than the gasoline version.
so the price was just too high for most. people have said if it was at the same price as the gasoline version; they would buy the hybrid.
Even those greedy oil companies have over the years on their own at times found better ways of reducing Environmental impacts and containment.
bio fuels are a crock. it does effect the food supply. duh…….. brilliant right?
and they want to increase the amount of bio-fuels in the gasoline mix. well anything over 10% will cause your car to break down, costing hundred if not thousands of dollars to fix. sound like a great plan. unless the plan is to force everyone on public transportation. i can just see it; buses filled with plumbers pipes and tools to get to a job site.
the Law of Unintended Consequences. is not being followed.
a report that i heard about 3 weeks ago said they recycling is starting to become a problem. too much recycling. so they are going to start just dumping everything as is in to land fills. go figure. and these are recycling compines
Charlie A.
October 8, 2012 at 9:39 am
I’m for whatever works.
Most “sustainable technologies” are currently unworkable boondoggles that believers like to waste other people’s money on.
I’ll spend my own money on things that are economically sensible and efficient. In the long run, that will do more for the environment than chasing a bunch of fantasies.
And to be clear… there are many things that are promising that still aren’t workable. Making large financial commitments to forced conversions will slow progress down, not speed it up.
A perfect example of the stupidity of the greens is illustrated in switching lightbulbs.
Compact florescent bulbs are not earth friendly, they have mercury in them, their light is bad, and they may save energy while they’re lit, but they don’t last nearly as long as advertised. Yet they’re being forced upon the American consumer….
LED technology is one of those that is MUCH better, much more efficient, and if given time people won’t need to be forced to use them, they’ll literally run to the new technology because of it’s clear superiority to what currently exists. Saving money and energy in the process. (And it won’t poison the environment in the process, and won’t restrict the freedom of consumers)
Peter J
October 8, 2012 at 9:51 am
Not this one
I invest in breweries & pub companies
Weatherman
October 8, 2012 at 10:13 am
I would be shocked if that weren’t the case.
GW deniers will probably invest their money in whatever is the cheapest, because frankly, their denial has a lot to do with perceived economics (e.g. an irrational fear of carbon taxes). In many cases, energy efficient technologies will be cheaper in the long-run. So if people consider the lifetime costs of a purchase (which many people do not), they may buy the more energy efficient technologies. But I think many AGW proponents will also consider the environmental impacts of their purchases, and thus more frequently invest in the more efficient technologies and such.
For example, I pay extra on my utility bill so that PG&E (my electrical utility) will invest money in alternative energy (they call the program “Climate Smart”). But I don’t anything out of it, except that I’m helping contribute to the advancement of alternative energy. I don’t think any AGW denier would do this.
As for 3 & 4, again, deniers will invest in whatever agricultural products are the cheapest in most cases, whereas proponents are more likely to consider the sustainability of the agriculture. Recycling I think even most deniers will do as long as it’s made convenient enough, but again, proponents are more likely to make the effort to recycle.
Dana1981, Master of Science
October 8, 2012 at 10:45 am
The brainwashed alarmists believe that wasting their money on nonsense is the way to go. Throw money at any problem and it’ll go away.
The agw empire has turned them into clones without minds.
davem
October 8, 2012 at 11:11 am