@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The really sad thing here is that far more reduction of greenhouse gasses has been achieved, just in the last five years through natural economic processes and the search for better, cheaper tecnologies (fracking & natural gas) than has been achieved through government-mandated and subsidized programs for "renewable power" for decades.
What's really sad is that you might actually believe this.
That the 'natural economic processes' that you attribute some unclaimed percentage of benefit to would have happened organically and on it's own, instead of being spurred on by and in direct result of regulations that both restricted certain emissions, mandated new standards (such as fuel economy), or simply subsidized the cost of cleaner tech (including the ones you mentioned).
Do you think the EPA, in it's whole existence, has been a net positive, negative, or break even? If you think it's been a negative, was it bad from the get go, or was there some breaking point where it went bad?