How are these proposals to help solve global warming socialistic or harmful to middle class or business?

Question

More Incentives for Alternative Fueled Vehicles

Incentives for Deployment of Energy Efficiency
Devices for Home & Business

Require All Federal Office Buildings (8,000 total) to Become Green Buildings

Make Federal Government Auto Fleet (60,000 vehicle purchases per year) a Model of Energy Efficiency

These are some of the proposals Congress is looking at. The first two will give tax cuts to businesses and individuals, for investments that will save them money and cut their energy use in the long run. The second two, will in the long run save the Federal government money. All four proposals would stimulate a market for energy efficient devices, buildings and vehicles. Why would anyone object to this?

I'm not talking about adding costs. I'm talking about tax cuts for investments that will save money in the long run. I'm not talking about added regulations on anybody but the government itself, which the government should be doing anyway. It won't cost the government anything if during the course of it's fleet replacement it starts adding more efficient or alternative fuels. If local governments can do it, I'm sure the Federal government can. Creating this big of a market would lower costs for both vehicles and buildings for the general public. Big Oil may lose some subsidies and tax breaks, but everyone else will gain.

Answer 1

Congress is looking at this? Wow, maybe my letters were read. Don't see my bicycle highway idea on it but hey, baby steps.

Of all of these the biggest problem I would see federal buildings becoming green. That is a bit ambiguous because what I consider green might not be what you consider green. Some say recycle where others will say recycling requires more energy to do so is harmful. The ensuing arguments and changing to meet what is considered green can lead to wasteful spending of tax dollars.

I think the government should drop the green label and use energy efficient or non-polluting. These terms more people can get behind.

Answer 2

I think what people object are things like Kyoto. Which would have required America to change severly, while doing nothing about countries like China or India. The things you cite should NOT be mandated by the federal government. Anytime government gets involved it costs businesses and citizens more. PERIOD.

If these proposals truly will save businesses money, why have they not done so voluntarily? Most business owners I know, including myself would love to save a buck. Ask yourself that.

Answer 3

Because they are against anything that progresses humanity..

I think anti-environmental conservatives should be shot with the same guns they cry about "liberals" trying to take from them.. The reality is that "Liberals" constantly fight for upholding thier constitutional rights including the right to bear arms and the right to a clean, healthy environment..

Bush is uneducated in the environmental field because it can't make him a ton of cash like oil did.. That and the fact that all his cronnies in the Oil industry would disown him if he actually made moves to reduce US Oil consumption.. As a fair generalization, he is against all environmental initiatives..

After reading what these conservatives just wrote above me.. I should say taht a fair generalization is that most conservatives are against environmental initiatives.. They are all uneducated in the field and only support destroying the environment for economic reasons.. They do not understand social, cultural or environmental capitol and don't care to..

Ignorance at its best..

Answer 4

MAN-MADE global warming has not been proven and is highly disputed. What right does the government have to legislate something to the people that is based on theory?

The "incentives" you refer to actually mean higher taxes on gas powered cars and anything else not deemed "green." It will cost the middle class dearly to change their lifestyles (install solar panels, new cars, etc.) and be almost impossible for the poor. All because of "theory."

My company looked into installing solar panels at their manufacturing plant, but the cost was so high, it actually worked out cheaper to keep running the boiler.

Answer 5

Because they are brainwashed by people who get their money from fossil fuels.

I also wonder why, even if global warming was the hoax they say it is, fossil fuels are not rapidly being phased out. We know they cause deadly air pollution which costs our societies countless dollars in sickness and death - asthma, cancers, etc. We also know fossil fuels are RUNNING OUT!!!! So, we would we fight wars for this fuel and resist changing to a better system? Really, it's mindboggling.

Answer 6

Energy/oil companies make less money when we use less energy. Also, changing technology can cost a lot of money. Therefore, many lobbyists would oppose a lot of these proposals.

Answer 7

You paying for this?

Wanna buy me an alternative fueled vehicle?
Or buy some solar panels for my house?

Sure I will shift over to more Earth friendly technologies if the companies that CEO Al Gore is hand feeding our cash lowers the prices of their alternatives.

Answer 8

First of all you have to believe in global warming...I don't case closed!

Answer 9

There is no global warming.

Answer 10

It's all a lie.