pros:
>millions of manufacturing jobs
>efficient use of resources
>clean air, water
>lower reliance on fossil fuels
cons
>???
why is it bluepilled to support green energy? why would anyone want big oil to stay in power?
>inb4 poor coal miners
i got about as much care for coal miners' jobs that I do elevator attendants. its quickly becoming obsolete
>tax subsidies
>profit margin
>flooded market
are you 12?
what do you mean by subsidies? to my knowledge we give oil companies billions of taxpayer bux each year to keep prices down. i fail to see how that is a plus
>cons
The people peddling it are in the pocket of globalists/'big green'. If they really cared about the earth, we'd have off-grid free energy 100 FUCKING YEARS AGO WHEN TESLA DISCOVERED IT. BUT NO. Instead they want to hook us up to the (((smart grid))) and track our every habit and extort us for cash.
you shills sure know the lingo.
If his name is Fahrouk why does he look like a fat white guy
tesla...what? that invention was insanely ambitious and horribly inefficient
cons
>hurts Russia's economy
Everything Trump does is for Putin, don't forget that.
>Fahrouk
farouk is the former 'host.' the entity is known as the shadow king
>want to track out ever habit and extort us for cash
big oil does that too famalam
Lol you fags just don't learn do you. Keep trying your best SJewW's, you ain't winning.
>why is it bluepilled to support green energy?
Because what you're actually supporting are corporate subsidies. If green energy was efficient and profitable then it wouldn't need your support or the government's support the economy would just naturally adopt it.
So what you're actually supporting are companies that can't hack it on their own, most likely ones with good lobbyists and friends in high places who spend your tax dollars to make themselves money and who are very likely to go bankrupt as in the case of several solar companies that Obama gifted billions of dollars to, who still couldn't make a profit.
but oil subsidies are fine because...?
A: You're deflecting, I don't support subsidies regardless of where they go. That's your position.
B: Care to give an example of an "oil subsidy"? Something within the last 50 years.
Because R&D can't duplicate the expectations people place on green energy.
It needs honestly another 15-20 years of additional tech development before it's ready for deployment.
The government actually makes money from petroleum subsidies by taxing petroleum products. Wind/solar subsidies are just a money sink.
actually, "green energy" probably does more for russia than coal. Coal is an alternative resource to gasoline and NATURAL GAS.
we will continue to produce natural gas domestically regardless of the coal output. but we will end up exporting much more of that natural gas if we use coal domestically than "green energy".
1) because coal offsets the need for domestic natural gas use
2) "green energy" plants are natural gas power plants whenever the sun isnt shining or the wind isnt blowing.
so if we use coal, we use less natural gas domestically, "green energy" means we use more. Russia doesnt produce oil or coal, they produce natural gas. The more natural gas we export to europe the worse it is for russia.
>we will end up exporting much more of that natural gas if we use coal domestically than "green energy"
I'm pretty sure coal is still much cheaper to export than LNG.
likely true. I dont have the numbers. but other than the US, russia and the far east most of the world doesnt have infrastructure for coal.
>efficient use of resources
Yep, raise cost of essential energies by 300% and sure enough people will use less. More efficient? Nope. Just sending yourself back on trees by cutting back economy which relies heavily on cheap energy.
>lower reliance on fossil fuels
If all money wasted on the ambiguous GW/GC and renewables got invested into research of things like nuclear fusion, we would have near infinite cheap, clean energy already and this wouldn't be a discussion in the first place.
>millions of manufacturing jobs
Yes, in china, making environmentally unfriendly solar cells with lifespan of only 20 years and negarive footprint even after 15. Completelly polluting the shit out of the place at slave wages and 14hr shifts...awesome progress, sounds more like rolling back to days of industrial revolution. And all of that so that a fag in LA can write a buzzfeed article about how polluted china is on his macbook powered by the said solar cell.
>efficient use of resources
nope
>clean air, water
nope
>lower reliance on fossil fuels
nope
its just Keynesian economics with crony capitalism
How much longer until the US realizes it's not going to meet it's CO2 targets without nuclear?
>far more expensive than high test fuels
>far less output and than high test fuels
>far more effort, time and resources needed to generate than high test fuels
>destroys the food market and drives hardcore globalisation and exploitation of serfs
How much longer will the US have 'CO2 targets'?
RREEE BUILD REACTOR
>millions of manufacturing jobs
for chinks