"@ reasonable claims: "
If you want to make the argument for using solar on the basis that it is better for the environment, have at it. But it in no way makes more economic sense to be using it instead of cheaper traditional sources of energy. Just think about it, wouldn't utilities be using solar instead to increase their own profits if it was cheaper since the cost of their product would be less?"
That may well be so (i haven't looked at the data on how cost effective pv has become) BUT there is still an economic incentive for investing in it. If you look at the long/medium term. You actually want the US to be able to produce cheap solar power. Otherwie China will become the largest global producer of photovoltaics and will generate wealth of the future.
How you get sufficient investment may be a harder question. Government subsidies, grants and tax breaks may encourage private research.
A carbon tax on oil/gas/coal may push the price of those polluting options up (if you don't like tax breaks etc.) - and this option doesn't force any particular reaearch option, it lets people who want to invest in research choose to try whatever they think will work best... (Plus no paper work)
Direct spending and investment by the government on new tech - which is pretty much what the pentagon does for new military tech - would drive the economy, as it has done for years.
I would argue the sound environmental reasoning, but the like of ND don't care. So here is the good economics of this medium to lon term planning."
How production of goods and services work is that the world is best off when the country that has the comparative advantage in a good or service produces that service. We all are citizens of the same world, and we all can interact with each other to obtain what we want, that's what trade is. When each country specializes in what it is good at, we are all collectively able to produce and consume way more than if we all tried to manufacture the same things. Of course this simplifies things a lot and there is more to why we trade and all that, but you get the point that China being number 1 in solar production is not a bad thing. If they are the best at it, no big deal, we all benefit. That is also aside from the fact that companies around the world share technology with each other all the time, willingly or not, so we wouldn't be far behind China if they were to develop better technology first, there would just be a lag effect. This is why patents exist in the pharmaceutical industry, who in the world is going to spend a bunch of money to invest in new drugs if the next guy is just going to be able to copy you once you come up with something new at no cost to him/her?
The U.S. has the world's largest amount of coal reserves and we have the fifth largest amount of natural gas. We are also the best at producing coal at a cheap cost, the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is the cheapest coal producing region in the world. They are so good at producing coal effectively that they can mine it, ship it by rail to the east coast, and ship it by freight ship to Asia, and after paying for all of those costs still sell it at a profit for a lower price to Asian utilities than Asian coal companies can sell it for. We can produce the most electricity by using our abundant coal and gas resources and when technology develops to the point where solar is cheaper, I guarantee that will be the number 1 source of energy.
So, as far as our necessity for developing renewable energy technology goes and the government's role in doing that, it is purely a health and safety issue, specifically a carbon dioxide issue. Coal mining has become very good in terms of the health and safety of workers in the U.S. (not so much in other parts of the world), safer than natural gas I would say, but if CO2 emissions do have a significant effect on global warming (key word is significant, I don't think anyone doubts they at least have a negligible effect at minimum), then the government has an obligation to ensure they are not being emitted at dangerous levels for the safety of U.S. citizens as a whole. Unless you are advocating for a communist system in the U.S. where the government controls the means of production and is in charge of developing the economy, the health and safety of the population is the only legitimate reason for the government to limit fossil fuel use, and in that event I wouldn't even say they have the right to assist the renewable industries because doing so would be to redistribute wealth for a reason other than to prevent damage to the health and well being of its citizens which limiting CO2 emissions would have already done. It would then be up to the private sector to decide to make the switch to renewables with no form of government assistance or else we would just be limited on electricity for a while.
So, it all boils down to whether our health and safety is in danger because of CO2 emissions or not, that's really all there is to it.
)
Petition to ban petitions
)
)
)