Green energy is not a bad thing in and of itself.
We are just nowhere near ready to make that kind of wholesale switch, and trying to force it before alternate sources of energy are in place to replace fossil fuels is a recipe for disaster
But that won’t stop the liberals.
“Green energy is not a bad thing in and of itself.”
What the world needs to see is a city run completely on green energy, without the presence of fossil fuels in any product. If something contains petroleum, it will not be allowed in the city.
Build a model, invite people from around the world to populate it and let it run for five years.
That’s the point of actions taken by the left. Their aim is to make reliable energy so expensive, that so-called “green energy” is nearly equal (or even cheaper) in cost.
A natural, capitalistic switch to renewable energy would be fine with me. Inasmuch as I don’t think we’ll ever be rid of fossil fuels.
However, the draconian enforcement of a switch to renewable energy before the market is ready will cause higher prices, less reliability, and less availability.
Look at the leaps and bounds the internal combustion engine, the power grid, and nuclear energy has made with capitalism. Now, imagine if government stayed out of the way except to ensure safety and pollution regulation (real pollution, not climate change mumbo jumbo).
I agree that green energy is not bad--I heat my house most of the winter with firewood, and it's wonderful, if tiring to produce. But nothing "green" is ever going to be an alternative to "fossil fuels," because we define energy sources as "green" only insofar as they are less concentrated than gas, oil or coal. Which is to say, less efficient.
As you're probably aware, the latest info I've read indicates that oil and gas are not "fossils"--i.e., produced once a long time ago by a process so slow, they are in effect irreplaceable--but are being produced continually by natural geological processes beneath the earth's surface.
I don’t know, it kinda sounds like a stupid plan to me.