The fossil fuel industries (oil, gas, coal) are making record-breaking profits, and yet our government subsidizes these established and very profitable industries to the tune of many billions of dollars. Yet the solar energy industry gets very little in government subsidies -- even though it is an inexhaustible resource that could provide much energy for the future if properly developed. Does this make sense? Shouldn't we be investing in developing new technology -- not propping up already successful industries? Found at the blog
Thurman's Notebook.
Outstanding graphics which also illustrate the horrible effect short-sighted fossil fuel lobbyists and their greedy corporate masters are having on our country.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't we be investing in developing new technology -- not propping up already successful industries?
ReplyDeleteDid the government have to "invest" in developing new technologies like the iPhone or the iPad? As someone once said, "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."
I agree that much too much is spent on fossil fuel subsidies (often to advantage of friends of those in power). But when government subsidizes any technology, the temptation to reward your cronies on the tax payers' dime is just too great.
Can you say Solyndra? Or LightSquared?
Can you say NASA?
ReplyDeleteCan YOU say "NASA landed men on the moon and Solyndra landed men on the unemployment line?
DeleteThank you for making my point, Ted.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama Administration gives preferential treatment to Solyndra and LightSquared to benefit Democratic donors George Kaiser and Philip Falcone respectively. The result being that taxpayers get stuck holding the bag on half a billion for the former, and military GPS is jeopardized for the latter.
And NASA? Since they can't offer anything to the Democrats' coffers, our astronauts have to hitch a ride from the Russians to and from the Space Station.
What if the government wasn't in the subsidizing game? Let the buyer see the true prices of competing energy products and let them choose accordingly.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of NASA...As 'remarkable' as landing on Mars was, it still does not take away from the fact of the HUGE amount of rocket pollution left behind as it went into space, and the risk of 10 lbs. of plutonium disbursement in a launch accident.
ReplyDeleteI see this landing on Mars as no triumph, but more like a casino roulette game that just so happen to be won.
So now, what will be the outcome? More of the same, with more rocket launches and funding for more nuclear-powered spacecraft. As long as humanity supports this kind of activity, a devistating radioactive fallout accident waiting to happen is no longer 'if', it is 'when'.
As amazing as this technology seems to be, it still is only a type of insanity to pursue such a course. Because NASA has its own agenda, which does not include taking care of the environment, that we all rely upon for our daily sustenance.
So I maintain my position that going to Mars to laser-beam some rocks is an extremely unconscious and self-serving act, on the part of certain people who have a complete disregard for preserving and caring for the fragile balance of life on THIS planet.
Just imagine what $2.5 billion (which is 2,500 MILLION dollars) would do to start cleaning up the environment!
What would you do if given one million dollars to make the world a better place to live in?
Now, multiply that by 2,500 people, who could be given one million dollars each to feed and clothe the hungry, house the homeless, clean up the pollution, and work toward restoring the Earth to its former beauty. (continued at:) http://darinselby.1hwy.com/4spaceprogramerrors.html
#1, HUGE AMOUNTS OF ROCKET POLLUTION- You mean all that WATER (lIQUID hYDROGEN BURNED WITH lIQUID oXYGEN = water)??
Delete#2, " risk of 10 lbs. of plutonium disbursement in a launch accident"- WHAT????!!!
#3, "a devistating radioactive fallout accident waiting to happen is no longer 'if', it is 'when'."- Sorry, NASA doesn't do that sort of thing, Corporations and Governments reserve that right for themselves (3 mile island, Japans Fukushima, Nagasaki and Hiroshima-thanks to US).
#4, "Because NASA has its own agenda, which does not include taking care of the environment, that we all rely upon for our daily sustenance.So I maintain my position that going to Mars to laser-beam some rocks is an extremely unconscious and self-serving act, on the part of certain people who have a complete disregard for preserving and caring for the fragile balance of life on THIS planet." WRONG AGAIN!! The ONLY possibility of actually repairing our ecosystem on Earth is to cease polluting our planet and sucking energy out of it's systems. This can ONLY be accomplished by introducing new pollution-free energy to Earths systems from outer space, and removing all hugely polluting activities (power generation, mining, processing and manufacturing) from the face of the planet where they poison us and the planet to outer space where they can't pollute and can more easily be processed utilizing free energy.
#5, "Just imagine what $2.5 billion (which is 2,500 MILLION dollars) would do to start cleaning up the environment!" ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITHOUT STEP 4 ABOVE
#6, "What would you do if given one million dollars to make the world a better place to live in?" Donate it toward accomplishing step 4 above
RE: #1 & #2: Granted that SOLID FUEL BOOSTERS are polluting, but SFB's are a make shift solution, which most rocket scientists will tell you. Most 'NewSpace' commercial space companies DO NOT utilize SFB's and have no plans to do so. With regard to the plutonium, it's packaged in such a way that even if we had a Challenger style explosion, the nuclear fuel pellet would be returned to Earth safely, not vaporized and spread throughout the atmosphere. re:#5: $2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket. Many times that amount is spent on projects (unproductive projects) supposedly designed to do just that every year to little or no effect.
DeleteAs to your rant/blog @ http://darinselby.1hwy.com/4spaceprogramerrors.html, It seems to me to be primarily fear driven rhetoric with quite a lot of less than fully truthfull/factual statements. Your primary premise seems to be a volatile hatred of Werner Von Braun and most of the early Rocket Men, Including Walt Disney. Your statement that because rockets were first use for warfare it follows that that's all they can ever be used for is that agenda is purely laughable, and shows a rather deep seated fear and hatred centered around Nazi Germany. Your statement "NAZI TURNED INTO NASA" seems like the sort of thing that might be espoused by someone with Jewish roots in Nazi Germany who were badly persecuted. Is this your background, or is there some other basis for such a virulent hatred of spacefaring?