The energy companies plant propaganda that it is impossible for wind and solar power to solve the global warming problem. However, is it really impossible? Here is a method that would greatly increase the building of new wind power and solar power installations, The United States, the EU, and any other nations which cared to join, would enact legislation that: Any business with more than 50 employees, domestic or foreign, in order to do business within the US, EU, and others, would be required to spend 5% of its gross receipts from anywhere in the world, to build new wind power and solar power installations, which the businesses building them would continue to own after building them. Businesses set their profits, to the extent that they can, by the profits of their competitors, so that if all businesses have the same expense, it won't impact on profits in a significant way. Therefore, businesses could easily afford to spend 5% of their gross receipts on wind and solar power facilities as long as all the other businesses have to spend the same amount. In any case, the businesses would own what they spent their money on, so it would be more an investment than an expense. A business could avoid the requirement by simply not selling, directly or indirectly via a third party, what they produce in the US, EU, and other participating nations. However, that would lose them such a large market that most of them would follow the requirement so they could do business in the US, EU, and others. In addition, building more wind and solar facility would create a number of new jobs. The current Gross World Product is about 60 trillion dollars per year. Not all of it would come under the legislation requirement, but if half would do so, that would produce about 1.5 trillion dollars per year. That is more wind and power facilities than are being built now. If the new figure didn't produce enough new wind and solar facilities per year, the 5% could be raised to a higher requirement. There would be a provision that when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere stopped rising, the requirement would be temporarily suspended. Then, if the level of CO2 began to increase again, the requirement would automatically be revived. Essentially, all carbon emissions from all sources only needs to be brought down to the level of the carbon sink. Therefore, some use of fossil fuels will still be possible. That only needs to be limited to the extent that fossil fuel burning produces more CO2 than the carbon sink can absorb.
Actually, if you are going to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, maybe I can hypnotize you. You are feeling sleepy. You can hardly keep your eyes open. You are beginning to understand the real climate science evidence.
You're correct you put me to sleep. that's why the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's. Rehash. Like you all haven't posted enough silly threads. Hey, great idea, let's post one more and therefore I can demand to have those who disagree repost all of what they already did. Yep, sleepy!
You probably have some rational reasons for your opposition. Since global warming will cause major damage, so if you are wrong, you would be contributing to the damage, which most humans would not risk doing, your reasons to be against solving the global warming problem must be quite strong. For example, the energy companies might be political allies, so you have to go along with then. Or you don't understand how just a gas like carbon dioxide could trap heat. You might wish to think about why you oppose solving the global warming emergency.
