They won't follow exorbitant spending, unless it has an equally high return. We don't pack our livestock full of waste water, for example (though possibly Skittles, WTF?). They do that out of lack of ethics. That's a systemic issue and those pervade into all policies.
China would absolutely embrace green technology if we moved forward on a solar world-economy with those cells being manufactured in a free market system that China was a full participant in.
China simply wants to be included, as a full partner, in any move towards a green economy.
And this isn't an ethics issue; culturally, for the Chinese, that's not how they look at it. Instead, they see themselves as wrapping up 300 years of developmental progress in only 3 generations. They still feel they are playing catch-up, but, throughout the population, there is a "trickle-down" of wealth from the wealthiest into the hands of a new, burgeoning middle-class.
It's not an ethics issue, it's one of inclusion for the Chinese.
I would rather not drive costs high to produce things in our country for what would be little global return.
There would be massive global return.
If the United States moved away from fossil fuels, Europe would applaud us and follow suit; they've been asking the U.S. to lead the way on this front for two decades.
A united West can absolutely dictate policy to China and India through economic treaties that mandate specific clean energy conditions.
We already do this today with 1990s clean air regulations.
So the notion that we cannot influence China and India makes no sense; these nation's economies are based upon building products that we use.
Oil and gas won't go away overnight, but both China and India are nuclear nations - they do not need oil if the
world were to subsidize (through loan guarantees, direct funding) a larger shift towards nuclear power in those countries.
Space-based solar power is a technology that could stop climate change in it's tracks. The Japanese and Chinese are developing competing implementations as we speak. The United States has the capability of rolling out an SBSP system with in a decade -- we simply don't do it, because we're locked in an ideological battle with people who demand government behave as it did in the 18th century.
So what's going to happen, as has happened over the past 8 years with the Obama Administration, is that the United States is going to get left behind technologically.
Don't think that's possible? Look at our national space program. Oh yea, that's right...
What national space program.
Climate change, let's not get into all that. Let's just say, clean air is good for everyone.
Why not get into it? Why is climate change even remotely controversial?
This is part of the problem.. Dealing with this notion of "alternative facts" over objective reality.
Climate change is a massive problem that can very likely kill off the majority of the human population if not put in check. You will not find many in the scientific community who would disagree.
Let's continue to research and discover efficient energy sources and migrate to them.
Agreed, but the point is that we have to have a national effort, that requires national funding. Oil and gas companies aren't going to put themselves out of business.
Unfortunately, legislating these things to the extent they have been just hamstrings our ability to run a marathon. There MUST be reasonable limits. I don't know scientifically if fracking is causing earthquakes. I do know pumping chemicals, be it for waste disposal, or for purposeful gains such as fracking, sounds like a really bad idea.
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm against fracking for the reasons you just stated; but
'legislating these things to the extent they have been' is where I'm getting lost. We've been behind the curve on these technologies for decades. It would be great if government could be more proactive in these areas.
I think most folks agree on the end-game, I think there's just a lot of disagreement on how we get there.
I don't think most folks agree on the end-game; that's the problem.
If people understood the full-on danger of climate change, there would be more calls to action to stop it. You wouldn't have the GOP denying it's very existence solely to support the profits of their corporate paymasters.
This is a very dangerous game we're playing, and the way it's being played means duping the American people; shielding them from empirical facts, data, and the realities that await their children and grandchildren.