Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I'm inclined to agree. However, I do think that it is worthwhile dumping some actual time and resources in short order to try and answer these questions if this is as big of a "revolution" as they claim.
thenewgreen · 4553 days ago · link ·
I think the problem is that we need more time and resources so that they can be allocated towards other burgeoning avenues of energy efficiency and "independence" too.
–
We have plenty of time and resources..they're just completely misallocated.
I tried to find something more recent but for example this chart clearly shows where our money is spent federally as of 2006 and the total amount of subsidies by energy source. It shows total federal subsidies at 13.6 billion (with a large chunk going to oil).
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/im... Compare this to how much we spent on ONE cancelled fighter jet program which had "development costs" alone of 56.4 billion . http://www.economist.com/node/18958487 These number clearly indicate our priorities and it took me 10 minutes to find. I'm sure more digging would reveal even more of a slant. Spending an atrocious amount to protect our energy interests abroad instead of spending time on _any_ approach to develop adequate domestic energy sources seems pennywise and dollar foolish.
–
thenewgreen · 4552 days ago · link ·
I agree, the problem is not in the amount of resources, it is how they are allocated. I'm not a fan of bumper stickers but I've always liked the one that reads, "it will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber"
Our priorities are way out of whack.