[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All great innovations that improved our lives were created by the profit motive
[/ QUOTE ]
computers weren't.
but even if solar were price competitive in 5 years, it would still take a ton of money to switch over.
I mean, the premise is that the entire earth is being destroyed by CO2. having said that it seems logical that if you accept that premise that you should do everything you can to get off fossil fuels and onto non CO2 emitting energy. that's all I'm saying. the fact that the global climate *answer* has nothing at all to do with non CO2 energy you have to admit is mighty suspicious and supports the theory that global warming is a hoax.
I mean look at france. most of electricity there is generated by nuclear power. so if the threat were real and a real solution were wanted, countries would at least discuss building more nuke plants to get off of oil/coal, at least for electricity generation.
I mean, even if you accept the premise that nuclear plants are unsafe, radioactive waste a problem, etc., what's that compared to the fact that THE ENTIRE PLANET IS BEING DESTROYED RIGHT NOW BY MANMADE CO2. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE OURSELVES except build nuclear plants cause they make us nervous and they got bad press and jane fonda made a movie ... ok, that makes sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't fathom anyone would think anything other than the profit motive led us to the great developments of the computer. IBM, Intel, Microsoft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
I just don't see how you could think that the great computer developments of this country are due to the efforts of the US Government.
In terms of solar, if it is not price competitive it is not going to take the place of oil. The enormous profit potential from making solar price competitive will drive innovation without the need for government intervention.
Man produces less than 1% of CO2, I agree it is not an urgent pressing problem, for as you point out, if it were, nuclear plants would be being built like crazy.