Yes, because fossil fuels are easy to use, safe, convenient, and reliable. Something solar is definitely not. And people are willing to pay for it since they're also quite affordable. Thus they make a profit, like any rational person would approve of. Solar panels can't compete. Hence the lack of general interest. The only ludicrous claim here is that you are somehow qualified to say what the best choice for the rest of humanity, like me, is.
I didn't make a claim on what is "best". I pointed out that the fossil fuel industry is thoroughly capitalistic and is NOT in business for the betterment of society - they are in business to maximize PROFIT. Your idea that clean energy is dead is just plain ridiculous. Clean energy is growing faster than the total national increase in electric energy. Natural gas is growing, too, basically covering the increasing reduction in coal as an energy source. Today, at least 2/3 of US oil uses is in transportation. EVs are a direct assault on that consumption, reducing our need for oil. That's NOT just a good thing for climate change. It is a serious improvement over burning oil on our city and neighborhood streets, and thus incurring serious healthcare costs. Plus as it turns out, people like electric vehicles.
Are these rabbis invested in this 'kosher electricity' company? Religious woo-woo, The Washington Post Israel readies ‘kosher electricity’ for ultra-Orthodox households Story by Steve Hendrix • Yesterday 10:23 AM snip: JERUSALEM — Religious Israelis may soon have access to electric power that rabbis have approved for use during the weekly Sabbath, a techno-spiritual innovation that reflects advancements in battery science and, even more, the power of ultra-Orthodox parties in Israel’s new government." cont: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ity-for-ultra-orthodox-households/ar-AA1aR7Yd
No, the point is per capita greenhouse gas production. We produce more greenhouse gas per capita. China is worse ONLY because they have more people. This is the same kind of analysis that we do when comparing GDP and other such issues. There is the gross GDP. But, there is also the GDP per capita.
??They should move to green energy so they can be kosher on more than just Shabbat hours. Being extra non-kosher during the week so they can be kosher during a short period seems seriously weird. Even weirder is the idea of hiring a goy to burn fossil fuel rather than accept grid fossil fuel. It sounds like a total slap in the face to the whole idea of being kosher. "We depended on our own fossil fuel"? I know - religion has it's own logic.
"In a tweet, Avigdor Liberman, who broke with Netanyahu five years ago over the rising influence of the ultra-Orthodox parties, decried the move as “more lunacy on the road to a Jewish theocracy,” according to the daily Haaretz. “For 75 years, ‘the righteous’ managed without ‘kosher electricity.’” Cabinet okays $33 million ‘kosher electricity’ storage facility Controversial plan addresses the concerns of strictly devout Jews about consuming power produced by co-religionists on the Sabbath https://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-okays-33-million-kosher-electricity-storage-facility/
Yes, but ... Their solution is to build giant batteries to power homes during Sabbat. Those batteries are filled using the grid - fossil fuel power, the same power they would get if they connected directly. Another solution they bless is having nonbelievers run generators on their property! And, that is also power from burning fossil fuel I know this is religion, so normal logic does not apply. But, as a nation they COULD start using solar and wind, couldn't they? Both are entirely passive. Plus, no environmental harm!
My fingers are crossed that I will be able to plant palm trees in my hayfield before I die. I sincerely doubt it, though.
*In your argument, you present several claims about Democrat politicians and their relationship with science. While it is essential to express opinions and engage in political discussions, it is crucial to maintain accuracy and avoid generalizations. Here are some points in critique in your argument: Misrepresenting Science: Your argument begins by stating certain biological facts about reproduction, which is indeed based on scientific understanding. However, it later conflates scientific concepts with political issues such as global warming, abortions, and the green new deal. While these topics can involve scientific research, they are also complex and multi-faceted issues influenced by political, social, and ethical factors. Presenting them solely as "Democrat Politicians' science" oversimplifies the discourse. Equating Science with Political Positions: Science is a method of inquiry and discovery, not a specific political ideology. It is essential to separate scientific findings and evidence-based conclusions from political stances taken by individuals or parties. Science can inform policy decisions, but it should not be reduced to supporting one political group over another. Generalizing about Democrat Politicians: The argument makes sweeping generalizations about Democrat politicians and their attitudes towards science. It is essential to remember that politicians' views on science and other matters can vary significantly within a party. It's not accurate to imply that all Democrat politicians uniformly "enjoy" certain scientific issues or "deny" others. Questioning Mental Health Issues and LGBTQ+ Identities: Your argument raises concerns about equating being gay with a chemical imbalance and mental health issues. Such comparisons are not supported by mainstream medical and psychological organizations, and they can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. It is essential to approach discussions about LGBTQ+ identities with sensitivity and respect for the experiences and perspectives of individuals. Cherry-picking Examples: Your argument brings up specific instances, like forest cutting and pandemic responses, as examples of Democrat politicians' actions. While it is legitimate to critique politicians based on their actions and decisions, focusing solely on examples that support a particular narrative may lead to a biased view of their overall approach to science. Using Loaded Language: The use of phrases like "anti-God," "enjoy for their science," and "push their Science ways" suggests a biased perspective and can create a divisive tone in the argument. To foster productive discussions, it is essential to avoid loaded language and maintain a respectful and objective tone. In summary, while your argument raises certain points about science and politics, it could benefit from a more nuanced and balanced approach, acknowledging that science is a neutral process that informs decision-making across the political spectrum. Avoiding generalizations, using accurate terminology, and acknowledging the complexity of political issues will help to foster a more constructive and well-informed discussion. *An AI generated response. I wouldn't post it if I didn't agree with it.
What we know for absolute certain is that burning oil on our city streets is impacting the healthcare of Americans, adding stupendous sums to our healthcare costs as well as impacting the lives of those most affected. We have every right to demand that externality to be ended. It could be ended by not burning oil. It could be ended by oil companies paying for the healthy damage their product does. This externality is no different than the externalities of corporations dumping their garbage in public rivers. There is a cost of the product that is not being paid for by those who purchase the product - the definition of an externality. Beyond that, our nearly total dependence on oil for transportation leaves America's economy vulnerable. As we saw with the recent inflation, oil price and COVID were the primary causes of that disaster. Being energy independent of oil price, a commodity where the price is set internationally, not by America, is a clear serious interest for protecting our economy. Beyond that, America is better off economically when we have a successful auto manufacturing industry here in America. American auto manufacturing corporations point to the EV marketplace as being essential to their survival. Each of these is a significant issue for America. And, you'll notice that I didn't even mention the scientific fact that human carbon emissions are changing our climate in ways that are now and will be even more seriously expensive with time.
All of which isn't even close to true or even provable. It's the only single note song you've got and it doesn't make any more sense the more you repeat it.
