Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems like their have always been heat waves in the summer and it just depends on the year. I don't know if it's getting warmer or not but a degree or two if it's the case isn't worth a 10 trillion dollar spending spree over.
Shockingly expensive and for no reason. The air is good enough in most areas that don't have winter inversions. If someone wants clean air they have a wide selection of places to move to here in America.
She is just making life for Americans expensive just because at most there will be a slight temperature change of a degree or two and that is even up to debate.
Looks like very wealthy Kamala Harris wants to force American's into buying electric cars, she wants items in stores to get pricier as trucking companies and rail companies would have to have new fleets, buses and planes would need to replaced under her plans also.
If people want to put solar panels on their homes and wants to be more carbon neutral then that is there choice. If someone wants to drive an electric vehicle that is their personal choice.
But what we have now which is a mix of electric sources that are both carbon-based, wind energy, solar depending on which is cheaper is good enough and works well.
Also, I wonder what the cost for industry will be as they be required to replace their entire fleets. Taxes will go up as transit agencies have to allocate large amounts of capital to buying expensive carbon neutral fleets.
The price of airline tickets will have to go up, bus fares for those who are price sensitive will have to skyrocket or services will be diminished to pay for her climate paranoia.
Last edited by lovecrowds; 09-04-2019 at 10:11 AM..
Seems like their have always been heat waves in the summer and it just depends on the year. I don't know if it's getting warmer or not but a degree or two if it's the case isn't worth a 10 trillion dollar spending spree over.
Shockingly expensive and for no reason. The air is good enough in most areas that don't have winter inversions. If someone wants clean air they have a wide selection of places to move to here in America.
She is just making life for Americans expensive just because at most there will be a slight temperature change of a degree or two and that is even up to debate.
Looks like very wealthy Kamala Harris wants to force American's into buying electric cars, she wants items in stores to get pricier as trucking companies and rail companies would have to have new fleets, buses and planes would need to replaced under her plans also.
If people want to put solar panels on their homes and wants to be more carbon neutral then that is there choice. If someone wants to drive an electric vehicle that is their personal choice.
But what we have now which is a mix of electric sources that are both carbon-based, wind energy, solar depending on which is cheaper is good enough and works well.
Also, I wonder what the cost for industry will be as they be required to replace their entire fleets. Taxes will go up as transit agencies have to allocate large amounts of capital to buying expensive carbon neutral fleets.
The price of airline tickets will have to go up, bus fares for those who are price sensitive will have to skyrocket or services will be diminished to pay for her climate paranoia.
It's not about air quality, but rather about climate change.
I myself might be called a "climate change believer", but I don't think we need to spend trillions of dollars, and also I am not in favor of forcing people to comply by banning fossil fuels. All I think we should do is more investment in research into alternative energy sources, and eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels so that, as the cost of fossil fuels naturally rises the cost and practicality of alternatives becomes more attractive. Eventually, we WILL transition to a carbon-neutral society, not by 2030 certainly, but inevitably and hopefully before the worst impacts of climate change are felt.
About the only thing GW was right on is Kyoto. The developing world will use the cheapest energy available so the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy that is naturally cheaper than fossil fuels.
Leo got it right.
When I retire in Cebu my 35 year old niece wants me to teach her to drive.
It's not about air quality, but rather about climate change.
I myself might be called a "climate change believer", but I don't think we need to spend trillions of dollars, and also I am not in favor of forcing people to comply by banning fossil fuels. All I think we should do is more investment in research into alternative energy sources, and eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels so that, as the cost of fossil fuels naturally rises the cost and practicality of alternatives becomes more attractive. Eventually, we WILL transition to a carbon-neutral society, not by 2030 certainly, but inevitably and hopefully before the worst impacts of climate change are felt.
People have been trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels for 100 years, but so far no one has found a way to run an industrialized society without them. And it may take another 100 years to find a way. Nuclear fusion power was supposed to be 30 years away 30 years ago. It's STILL 30 years away. We should be looking in ways to adapt to climate change because the climate has always changed even when there were no people on the planet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.