|
Most of this was a debate on whether or not fossil fuels should be penalized financially to account for their externalities - the costs that are not born directly by the consumer nor producer of the fuel.
The pro-corporate debater refused for half the debate to answer that question, in spite of being asked directly at least twice.
Frankly, I'm disgusted that we are still having these kinds of debates.
We know that burning things makes waste that is bad for the environment.
We know that we will run out of things to burn.
We should know that as long as there is a buck to be made, "the market" won't give a damn about either of those first two things. Consequently, the pursuit of the all-holy economic incentive that the corporate apologist kept harping is only going to delay mankind's move onward to better energy solutions.
And it's really that simple. Mr. profit in the debate says that the market will get us to more energy efficiency. Sure it will. After we've painted ourselves into such a corner that that either there is no money in it or there is such a crisis that the problem can no longer be ignored. Who the fuck wants to wait that long? Is making a dollar so important that we will allow it to postpone what is good and necessary anyway?
I was annoyed that the pro-environment debater was so timid in the debate.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
