The "greens" should be allowed to make money

1. 65

   road2hellposted 13 years ago

   Why all the criticism about making money from the "green revolution"?  If this is supposed to be a capitalistic society, shouldn't the alternative energy sector be able to make money as well.  I thought (according to the right) that everyone should have an opportunity to "get rich".  If it means making this a better world by decreasing pollution to our air, water and soil and reduce our dependence on a nonrenewable resource.
   
   Should the "green industry" be allow to make money (without the unnecessary criticism by the right)?

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Anything that is a threat to the established mega-corps will be driven into the ground- especially in the energy field.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ahorsebackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Would that include the 'Solyndra' solar people? The only problem with  making a fair profit is that  tax payers  paid dearly for that one.   And the Solyndra "Greens" go o china to manufacture  and we pay for the whole shabang! Meanwhile unemployment rises , we lose more manufacturing jobs . But  Yup ,the geens made a profit there !

      replyreport
   3. 60

      ACKEDY MADORposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      it is important that the "green industry" make money as it will help in coming up with ways of empowering communities that do not use green technologies. Am very sure that most of the green industry are there to fight the current trend of destroying nature so as  have a sustainable society.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Of course they should make money if they can!
      
      The problem is that they CAN'T -- they need handouts from the government to be profitable. Any scientist will tell you that fossil fuels are the cheapest, most efficient energy sources available.
      
      Why is my money going to businesses that waste wealth?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Evan, any comment on the $17 billion in hidden subsides to US coal between 2002 and 2008?
         
         Or subsides to nuclear power which rather than cash involve transfer of construction costs and risk to tax payers.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Um, seriously. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again - there is NO modern energy form except coal that spread into wide use without substantial government subsidies, and even coal has now benefited enormously from subsidization. If oil production wasn't subsidized, we'd be spending about $15 a gallon. Nuclear and large-scale hydro power would probably not even exist without the government-funded R&D and building projects that created them.
            
            It's silly to argue that green energy is not economically viable because it "needs handouts" when it receives only a tiny fraction of the subsidies given to fossil fuels.

            replyreport
   5. 65

      magodisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes they should be allowed to earn from good deeds.

      replyreport
2. 65

   road2hellposted 13 years ago

   True!  The mega-corps ruled this planet and any reigning government.  Of course, (if the mega-corps were smart), they could get on the green bandwagon and make this world better for everyone -- especially for the future generations!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And why do you think they haven't?
      
      Answer: Because, it's not profitable enough for their interests. They will remain with what has been able to masterfully created huge amounts of wealth, without having to better the planet.
      
      By the time they are finished eliminating the resources of the planet, then they will have no choice but to do so.
      
      The last thing they want is more people making money, because if more people were making money then there would be less for them to make, especially if those people were making money by creating products, goods or services, that which would take away from their primary business(revenue generating sources).
      
      I've already outline a couple of things which continue to happen and why they continue to happen. You can find it in my hub about "why is world peace not happening?".

      replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   One answer to this  question ~ Wind Towers , ! Why should each ; local ,state and federal Tax revenues be allowed to build white elephants on the ridgelines all across America by giving tax breaks from property , income , cost of manufacturing , cost of installation and operation . And THEN by ordering power companies to purchase the power from unrelyable sources at premium plus costs ? If the power company figures thier cost of producing power at ,lets say Hydro dams  at 9 cents per kilowatt hour , and then have to pay ,by law, 28 cents  per KWH to wind farms ..... explain how that is evironmentaly feasable in the sense of reducing costs and making energy more affordable. Environmentaly feasable or not. Subsidizing political correctness is not the answer. Another for instance ....It would be great to see the greens make money- but not by paying higer prices for an electric hybrid car that gets 10 percent more gas mileage and then increases the usage of coal for electricity by five or ten percent.......wheres the green there ?   'Solyndra' the solar  company that recieved $$$$$$ from this administration and then went belly Up!
   Will effect the cost of attaining green jobs  for years ! .....I know ,I know but they made alot of[greens ] profit there ,didn't they?

   replyreport
4. 60

   LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

   It is a fact the companies like Exxon have bought patents on things like batteries explicitly to have them never see the light of day.
   
   I would love to see regulation on energy companies that could prevent this.

   replyreport