D
deleted7298491
Guest
I was waiting for you to get to Elon’s tax incentives, which are massive. It’s true that government money is almost always required to scale up any product. But all the government money and regulation is useless if you don’t have the Elon’s of the world creating the thing in the first place. What good is a government mandate that we have a certain quality of air if you don’t have the technology for clean cars and power plants etc.? You’d just wreck the economy. This was the point I tried to make earlier in distinguishing Finn’s activism (creating energy efficient buildings) from Jack’s (laying down in the middle of a street because he’s angry a bunch of oil executives are in town).I don't plan to go back-and-forth extensively on this, as that will further hijack this thread, but I will give some examples. The U.S. government's Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in the 1970s and beyond massively reduced pollution and carbon emissions. The auto industry begged Congress to issue emission standards (which they did), because improving emission releases was the right thing to do but more expensive, and they didn't want to be at a competitive disadvantage by doing it alone. Energy-efficient lightbulbs, refrigerators, and other appliances were created using government-created and/or government-subsidized research. (Look into the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy program, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, for more.) Also, your use of the term "creating products" is, intentionally or not, moving-the-goalposts since you previously said "solve climate issues," which can be addressed in many ways that aren't limited to "creating products." That said, Elon Musk's products were all created by taking advantage of government tax incentives.
As for disrupting this thread, I think Finn and Jack would like for us to debate climate policy instead of talking about their tight little butts that they’re never going to show us.