Originally Posted by Voltaire

Not to a point where it can replace oil, and it never will. The US already tried solar power during the early 80's, and as soon as big oil (in all its forms) got a whiff of competition, it made its prices to good to pass up. Supply and demand will always dictate.

The market for oil as cheap energy is an enormous roadblock for any alternatives. I do hope solar power can be used to help alleviate the need for as much oil, but we are still far off from a replacement.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

This is a logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. There are many measures that a person who is concerned about global warming can take aside from riding a bike and/or reading by candlelight at night.

Tell that to Al Gore, who tells me I need to take mass transit while he flies on private jets. There is no need to be biting however, so I digress.

Furthermore, the idea that conservatives must oppose the idea of global warming is a fallacious one.

I as a conservative do not oppose the idea of global warming, I oppose the idea that mankind is accelerating the process at a rate that GW alarmists would have the public believe.

Conservatives can listen to scientific opinion and favor measures designed to decrease America's use of fossil fuels for entirely legitimate conservative reasons. I disagree that taking measures to reduce a company's energy usage is necessarily anti-conservative.

It is not anti-conservative, but it IS anti-productive. China is becoming an economic powerhouse because of their unapologetic, ferocious manufacturing at the expense of the environment. I for one disagree with destroying the planet for profit, but their is a HUGE grey area when it comes to legislating corporations and such with regards to energy consmption.

A good example is Walmart corporation who saves billions of dollars on energy usage by selectively replacing light fixtures with skylights, light sensors, and flourescent lighting. In this instance, reducing energy expenditures allows the company to operate more efficiently and deliver a better product to consumers. This is the essential nature of capitalism, and is thus inherently conservative.

Indeed, a good example. However, there are bad examples as well. All those energy saving light bulbs that use 1/4 of the power of normal light bulbs that people are touting actually contain high trace amounts of mercury. Imagine all those lightbulbs going into landfills. Farmland is being used and abused at record pace due to corn demand for biofuels as well, being pummeled with checmicals, synthetic fertilizers, etc. Green is not always good long term!

Originally Posted by catzmeow

I think your arguments are outdated. Solar technology has made tremendous strides in the past 30 years. There are technologies currently being used with great success in Europe and elsewhere that are financially comparable to using fossil fuels.

Actually quite the opposite. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...icle653765.ece

In many cases, local power companies are providing incentives for consumers to replace energy usage with solar power because it allows these companies to avoid expensive increases to power grids and power generating mechanisms.

Good to know.

Furthermore, were the U.S. to stop subsidizing cheap oil (as it currently does), consumers might be more motivated to pay for replacements. By subsidizing the American addiction to cheap oil, conservatives are keeping the marketplace from adjusting properly and rewarding innovation. Thus, these measures are crippling the free market economy and capitalism itself. This is bad.

If consumers cannot pay for cheap oil, they have to sacrifice their spending elsewhere. The point of capitalism is to develop the least expensive yet most effective way to produce and distribute. Oil is it. Other technologies are simply too inefficient and not cost effective to the point where replacing oil is feasible. Period. Asking the American public to shoulder the burden of technological advancement in oil alternative WITHOUT concrete measures showing that oil burning is ruining the planet is unfair.

I do not believe that is a conservative practice to subsidize an unhealthy reliance on foreign oil. That smacks to me of liberalism. If companies cannot compete fairly in the marketplace without government subsidies, government should allow them to fail. To do otherwise is anti-conservative. Subsidies themselves are inherently anti-conservative.

I partially agree, in the case of agriculture and such. But oil is just too important right now now to NOW subsidize, IMO.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

I agree. But we cannot allow them to shift us into a position not of our choosing.



Indeed. However, there is ultimately a price to be paid in terms of quality of life and/or pollution and its impacts on the populace. It is my contention that in the long-term, clean energy pays for itself in terms of health costs, foreign policy, overall efficiency, and other less tangible savings. China is a good example of why the U.S. needs to lead the way by developing energy efficient and cost effective alternatives. Solar and wind are already almost there. For instance, on a consumer level, solar more than pays for itself looking over a 30-40 year span of cost-savings.




True. But, rather than opposing green measures in principle, I think there are legitimate reasons for conservatives to be leading the charge, rather than resisting it. Conservatives tend to see change with a far-reaching vision, thus, we would be better suited to lead this change. By abdicating the argument to the left, we ensure that these changes are led by shrieking lunatics, rather than operating from a premise of practical common sense logic that conservatives are known for.

As far as guilt, guilt has no place in rational discussion. Or, for that matter, in global climate negotiations. I dont' believe the U.S. should be held to any different standard, for instance, than non-industrialized nations. I do, however, believe we should be leading the way in developing cost-effective alternatives. We could only profit from such activities in the long run.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

I disagree. Solar is already at a point that it makes financial sense for many consumers, depending on the climate in which they live.

Originally Posted by Andaras

Holy crap America is backwards, while you guys sit around and do nothing the rest of world already has had this debate and it's proven that GW is man-made, and unlike our cousins in Backwardland we are actually doing something to reduce our emissions.

Originally Posted by gmb92

This appears in the classroom textbook "American Government" that a student recently spoke out on.



http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/20...mate-textbook/

The original story a few days ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348415,00.html