If we would just leave our progress up to innovation and let market forces dictate when and how we toggle over to different energy sources, I think it would be great.alamos_kiter wrote: Well this is the point I just don't get: if you assume, for the sake of argument, that using wind and sun instead of petrol and coal to produce our energy is a wise step, then you assume you have to invest heavily in infrastructure (power grid...), but will have a free source of energy in the future. This opens up a gigantic business opportunity for everybody. The only companies who may lose (and thus are interested in regulatory measures to protect them) are big oil, but even they can participate in the new game as they have big $$ reserves. Car companies can get rich with electric cars instead of gas guzzlers, they have the technique developed already and the plans in the drawer.
So if you assume the industrialized countries take that step to change their energy production and consumption scheme, it is the biggest biz boost you can think of. Why on earth would that be considered as anti-capitalistic by anybody but big oil who want to protect their status quo?
Do you not see any loud voices shouting that we are in crisis mode, the sea could rise, droughts will increase, the sky will fall.....unless we act now. They want more control over our lives via a managed economy to save the earth.
Here is one example. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/24/ ... n-climate/
Look at who is advising the Pope on AGW. It is quite a cast of characters. Pay close attention to Naomi Klein, but they all merit attention.
UN Advisor Jeffrey Sachs
In 2009, Sachs addressed the annual conference of the Party of European Socialists. He described the “profound honor” of addressing the far-Left Party of European Socialists and said they were heirs and leaders of the most successful economic and political system in the world — Social Democracy. Social equity, environmental sustainability, and fiscal redistribution are the successful elements in managing a just society, Sachs maintained. This is, he argues, in marked contrast to the U.S., whose taxes are too low and where the poor are ignored.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
"Schellnhuber has also declared human society needs to be managed by an elite group of “wise men.” He referred to this idea as his “master plan” for the “great transformation” of global society.
Naomi Oreskes
Oreskes is perhaps best known for her calls for placing restrictions on the freedom of speech of global warming skeptics. Oreskes believes climate skeptics who dissent from the UN/Gore climate alarmist point of view should be prosecuted as mobsters for their tobacco lobbyist style tactics. See: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
Prof. Peter Wadhams
Another key advisor to Pope Francis is Cambridge University Professor Peter Wadhams. Wadhams is a scientist and activist whose views are so extreme that even many of his fellow global warming advocates distance themselves from him. In 2014, NASA’s lead global warming scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt ridiculed Wadhams for “using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics.”
Naomi Klein
Klein was brought into the Vatican climate process by one of the Pope’s key aides, Cardinal Peter Turkson, to lead a high-level conference. Klein, described by the Washington Post as a “secular” feminist, is a “ferocious critic” of 21st century capitalism. Klein believes: “To fight climate change we must fight capitalism.” Klein explained: “There is still time to avoid catastrophic warming but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed.”
