So you see environmental concerns as obstructionist, but have no problem with corporate welfare, price gouging construction bidding, shoddy construction and operations practices, accounting malfeasance and incompetent management as acceptable? really?
So this step, as you describe it seems a waste of money more than a solution of anything other than how to transfer more tax dollars into the private coffers of fewer and fewer hands. .....
Oh, but environmental "concerns" have stalled or derailed numerous nuclear plants. This is a history that's been written up. And a steady, long term program to build nuclear plants simply has got to deal with crank lawsuits.
In fact, my plan to make energy independence or at least the nuclear part of it, a national security matter, not only makes common sense, but is the only way to enable the building of large numbers of nuclear plants on a schedule.
....If you are still burning previously sequestered carbon, you aren't reducing the emissions by simply converting the methane to methanol first. Again no addressment to issues of too much CO2 in the active carbon cycle.
.....
Really? Since a lot of methane is burned off at well heads, to the extent that was recovered and used as liquid fuel...
....As public policy must address issues at home before establishing any ability to guide or establish global policies, I am referring to the US. ....
Right. You can't get the people of the US to agree with your wacko carbon control schemes, so therefore you shouldn't expect to fool the rest of the world, either.
.....I'm speaking of whoever is issuing the bonds and trading value accrument, the diminishment of other bond sales. Federal bonds are debt that ultimately come back out of tax revenues.
I certainly wouldn't be automatically opposed to using Federally backed bond measures to establish a means to involve private and public investment in the future of our nation. I would rather see it run parallel, or in complement to a progressive, incremental, revenue-neutral, national carbon tax. Perhaps we could make zero-interest 20-year carbon bonds that are 2 for 1 deductable from carbon tax payables. On the books, larger companies might prefer to pay the 2 for 1 rate because the bonds would be a long-term asset rather than an annual liability. A large chunk of this money is going to have to be put toward making the system progressive and sustainable, another must look at investing the money into projects and programs that lead to a net carbon negative economy.
Well, that's crazy talk. Diminishment of other bond sales? Bonds are auctioned, and those I refer to, would be bonds on profitable, energy producers. They have a product that people want to buy, they can produce it cheap, hence they can make a profit and pay interest on the bonds. Hence, people would buy the bonds. It's of no concern to me if these bonds compete with others for investment capitol. They SHOULD.
- creates millions of jobs
- reduces car fuel costs
- reduces electricity costs
- moves the US balance of payments to hundreds of billion positive per year from hundreds of billions negative
- brings the US out of the depression using the energy industry as a fulcrum
- eliminates our dependence on foreign, hostile oil sources
- accomplishes all of the above with private funding
- accomplishes all of the above with private industry
....Then we can look at how the rest of the world is doing with a more critical eye.
Yes, we certainly need to look at our own affairs with a critical eye.
Gee, that's what I've done. But come to think of it, we could certainly look at Germany's solar farms with a critical eye, and Spain's economic collapse, largely engendered by their Greenies and their silly wind farms. We could look at Australia's backing out of the carbon scam, too. And the Euro collapsing. Not to mention the US debt and forecasts of the future ballistic trajectory of the US dollar.
A critical eye.
Indeed...
