1. Have I argued otherwise? It's ALL for the better, not ALL for nothing. And, once again, can you prove it saves more lives vs. cheaper (current) alternatives and the effect the will have on the poor? You can't.
2. It does and I never said anything to the 2nd part of your sentence
3. Of course we can contribute (and we already do - Tesla, Solar, Foam insulation, Energy Star, EFL, HERS, etc...). As to the 2nd part of your question: what can we produce cheaper than China - particularly if they're using cheaper energy (Coal/Oil/Gas) then we're allowing ourselves to? Answer: practically nothing.
I stand by that - but this alluding to radically changing to become green vs. countries that are doing next to nothing. It will hurt our economy, our lower and middle class, our competitiveness on the world stage, production, manufacturing, etc... We're not in a bubble where we just take that big leap forward and let our competition do everything cheaper than we can. It's not feasible. This is not just a climate change issue it's also an economic hardship issue that will hurt the poorest in our country. You're over simplifying it to suit your narrative. It's NOT a simple issue.
We can't "get" China "on board" with anything. They're a communist country that's relying on slave labor and cheap fuel to make everything for everyone. It's not in their interests, and even stated domination interests, to "get on board". It's literally a roadblock to their stated goal and that's part of the big picture that we have to look at.
Again, oversimplifying an issue. Where was this bidding war two years ago? How can producing more result in higher prices? How can competing less against OPEC be beneficial to our country?
Again, arguing shit that I haven't said. Where have I "argued AGAINST investing in green transportation"? I merely said that the infrastructure that you're argument relies upon really isn't there in a majority of U.S. cities - ie... mass transportation that's really functional and productive doesn't exist - which is why the poor can't give up their shitty old gas guzzling cars and just get on the bus. The infrastructure your suggesting will take years and possibly decades - what are the poor supposed to do in the meantime? Hitch hike with the nearest Tesla? The whole point to the beginning of all this is that the poor cannot afford electric cars and "green" alternatives though it is getting more affordable over time.
If government produced infrastructure has showed us anything over time it's that it NEVER pays for itself and everything require maintenance and upkeep/upgrade/repair etc.. And, like I said, "green" housing costs are not friendly to affordable housing. I'm in construction in the energy industry, please take my word for this. I live in a 2500 square foot house and am a "zero energy" home because I know what that means to me and to the planet. I also know how much it cost and, honestly, it's more than double the income of what's considered the poverty line in Florida for a family of four - and I did quite a bit myself to save in this regard.
Keep improving the technology and get it to the point where it's a no brainer for the purchaser.
Ie... in temperate/warm states for a homeowner that's not planning on moving any time soon in a modestly sized home, solar is at the point where it's a no brainer to have it installed on almost any home on cleared land. We need more of that.
Bookmarks