Question: So would this plan work at reducing CO2 output and be bipartisan?

( Back )

Answer #1:

I would opt for the government disallowing wind turbines altogether. They are expensive machines, requiring tremendous upkeep, produce expensive energy even in the best of circumstances, and can act as capacitors that wreak havoc on the grid under low load conditions.

Answer #2:

Those all sound like good suggestions to me.

If they were suggested by a democrat, it would not be bipartisan. It would certainly be opposed by almost every republican in congress, just like they do everything democrats do to try to fix this mess that republicans put us in.

If it was suggested by a republican, it would probably get bipartisan support.

BTW, these suggestions in no way could replace cap and trade. But they would be good for working along with it.

Answer #3:

1) No incentive to battle deforestation.

2) Waaay too much government. When you mess with the free-market you create unintended consequences.

Cap-and-trade allows the free market to work to achieve the most efficient and profitable solutions. Simply make companies pay for all of their resources -- they now pay for land, water, physical resources, labor, etc, but they do not pay for to cleanup their pollution. Put a price on pollution and the non-polluting companies will profit handsomely.

When government dictates solutions, there is no incentive for innovation and technological advancement. Bringing "externalities" (i.e., costs that are not paid and therefore not part of a company's decision process) into the free-market process will stimulate new better solutions. The smartest people and companies will be rewarded and those companies that cannot produce product without excessive pollution will be replaced by ones that can.

Answer #4:

On one hand you insist that CO2 does not cause warming, and on the other hand you argue that nuclear power is important to reduce CO2.

It is not as if yoiu have thought any of this out--you just take whatever you think the "conservative" view is, not realizing that you take conflicting positions.

Answer #5:

1) This would get bipartisan support, though I don't think it would be very effective. The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to increasing construction costs. Plus reducing 'red tape' also potentially reduces safety - not the best idea for a nuclear power plant. So it would be bipartisan, but probably not very effective at reducing CO2 emissions in reality. But you never know - it might be effective if we find a way to build new nuclear plants relatively cheaply (which would probably involve significant government control of the process, as in France), and if there are no accidents which would lead to reinstatement of the 'red tape'.

2) Depends what you mean by 'government support'. If you mean providing funds, then how do you pay for those funds? Cap and trade does this by selling carbon permits, then using the money to fund R&D for technologies like geothermal energy. You can't just call for 'government support' then oppose a 'tax scheme'. You've got to pay for the 'support' somehow, and cap and trade or carbon taxes accomplish that.

So this would reduce CO2 output, but depending on the type of 'support', would not necessarily be bipartisan. Most conservatives just argue 'let the free market take care of it' and don't want any 'government support' (i.e. subsidies) for alternative energy.

3) I would hope this would be bipartisan. It would have a very minor impact in reducing CO2 output if any. There are too many companies working on electric vehicle technology at this point for buying patents to be an effective means of preventing their advancement.

4) Interesting idea. It would probably get bipartisan support, and would help to reduce CO2 emissions somewhat.

5) This is probably a good one which would be relatively bipartisan.

Overall no, these ideas would not reduce CO2 emissions dramatically for the reasons stated above.

Coldfuse's comments, as usual, are completely wrong. Wind is one of the cheapest sources of energy available. Do you really think Texas is installing wind turbines like gangbusters because the state is full of tree-hugging environmentalists?

Answer #6:

I agree with your first point especially. Nuclear energy is the most viable non-carbon emitting energy source out there.

Answer #7:

some ok
but we have a energy production problem not a climate problem
lib's want less power produced and control over that use.
i want increases of power production in non fossil fuel energy
remember people if fossil fuels are limited they will take care of them selves being used they will be gone!!!!!!!!!
even at the worst case that the earth did warm there will be no disasters we will adapt to a climate that food will grow in

Answer #8:

You can't have a 'Bipartisan' plan to reduce CO2 since most Republicans think AGW is a scam. But

1. Nuke plant production was shut down by Dems, so if they stop doing protesting the plants can be built again.

2. Nope. The GOP doesn't mind Geothremal plants being built. The problem is making them profitable. Rebublicans would not want to expend Tax dollars on a 'non competitive' technology.

3. Big Oil doesn't care if you fuel your car with oil, or charge your car by power plants run on oil. The whole 'patent suppression' thing is a myth (well with regards to E-cars at least). E cars are simply non competitive.

4. Republicans do not think CO2 is a problem so no money for silly 'plant crops' to bury them.

5. A 'you can't build that here' lawsuit is MOST likely to come from the Left.
Not sure EITHER party wants to stomp on the civilian right to protest.

Answer #9:

** Powered by Yahoo Answers