Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Those were my words.
|
Are you the objective party?
Quote:
|
I have no problem with science. Nor do I have a problem with the true costs to society including environmental cost being assigned to industrial production. If the goal was to honestly assign these costs, I would have no objection to what the EPA is trying to do - my gut tells me the goal is to be punitive.
|
Will you kindly ask your gut to elaborate on this?
Quote:
|
I believe if true costs are properly assigned, the best solutions emerge. For example why is our government pushing battery or electric powered vehicles rather than the use of natural gas to power vehicles? What does the science say about that? We should focus on real solutions and not phantom solutions - is the real goal to reduce CO2? If so, what can we do to have the biggest impact?
|
Are you suggesting that electric technology is unrealistic and phantom? As for the biggest impact, in a perfect world, we could just leap onto it, right? I mean, how many years did the aviation industry depend on prop tech before going to jet tech?
Solutions aren't about being in the best possible place and the best possible time at the best possible cost. Solutions are about progress and development. Industry is reluctant to face these challenges because they're more concerned with profit margins than they are with progress and development. But I get that. It's business.
I'm not against the development of natural gas. I understand that the U.S. is sitting on enough of the stuff to be considered one of the gassiest nations in the world. I have no answers as to why your politicians aren't more concerned with developing it, but I do have some ideas. I think there is a concern with fracking and whether there is an infrastructure barrier for fuelling private automobiles. Electricity grids are already widely available. The other issue with natural gas development, I think, is the low price vs. oil.