Climate Change Deniers Are Costing Big Business In The U.S. Billions

.
The Republicans’ protection of the fossil fuel industry is costing other corporate giants hundreds-of-billions of dollars. Their denial of climate change is preventing U.S. businesses from accessing a global market of nations wanting to buy the tools and materials to reduce carbon emissions that are a major contributor to man-made global warming.

The production of other greenhouse gasses must also be curbed, and the development of clean energy sources and the machinery needed to make these sources possible will create many jobs and, what conservatism values most, corporate profits.

But these jobs will not come to be and neither will the big profits until the stubborn protection for Big Oil and coal by the climate change deniers is stopped.

The billionaires that are not major holders of oil stocks should get off their butts and out bid the Koch Brothers and other oil giants for ownership of the GOP. Once they wrest control of that party from the clutches of Big Oil, the profits from fighting climate change can start rolling in.

The Congressional Democrats will go along with this, they’ve stood by and let the Republicans and Big Business ride rough shod over average Americans for decades. They don’t care, they’re rich.

Maybe the profits from fighting climate change will finally make Reagan’s “Trickle Down” begin to---trickle down. After all these years, who knows, it might happen.

Either way, fighting climate change is where the money is, crude oil and coal are old news and are holding other segments of Big Business back. We're talking as much as $2 trillion to be made over the next fourteen years, and that's just the beginning.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/11/global-climate-action-windfall-us


.

 

In other words, Climate Change is a money making scheme, and people who are questioning the science are now getting in the way of the projected revenue.

Exactly as called all along.

Dont fall for this crap people.

 

Global warming loons put thousands of job in peril. They would halt coal mining, and it would follow that railroad jobs would suffer.

Until the GW loons can come up with a power source that is more plentiful and cheaper than coal, and would not cost jobs, they should keep their mouths shut period!!!!!

 

Suddenly the left care that big business loses money ?!?


Yeah... no agenda there.

 

Not at all. Simply put, the stubbornness of the climate change deniers is cheating the corporate fat cats they adore out of billions of dollars in profits. Right-wingers' limiting their protection to the fossil fuel industry is preventing other members of Big Business to expand into a very profitable market, and that is just wrong by right wing reckoning.

Preventing profits, whether they be for a legitimate reason or not, goes against every tenet of conservatism. So, even if climate change is a liberal hoax, it is the duty of conservatives and neoconservatives to give Big Business every opportunity to exploit the situation for profit. To do the opposite, is---liberal.

.

 

even glenny Beck is now selling solar panels


the solutions have been around for decades


where have you been?

- - - Updated - - -

why do you pretend the left doesnt want commerse?


why do you have to lie all the time?

 

People with backward looking attitudes like this always try and stand in the way.

 

fixed.

 

It is the general belief among right-wingers that people concerned with the human condition, the environment, income inequality, or other social issues are anti-commerce, anti-profit, and just plain traitors to America.

Trying to convince them there are hard-working Americans who are not super-rich or right wing is impossible. Just read some of their posts addressing poverty, their hatred of the poor is off the scale.

.

 

but they know it not true



they know it lies

 

What exactly are these tools and materials for fighting climate change.

The article makes no mention of what they are.

 

Changing my words does NOT change the fact that fossil fuels are dying industries. They are businesses of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that are being made obsolete by the burgeoning technologies and human evolution of the twenty-first century.

Understanding this, it is easy to see why conservatives and neoconservatives cling to the old ways. It is their tradition, and this tradition is making them obsolete as time and times pass them by.

.

 

Do they? They have suffered many years of brainwashing that has them voting against their own best interests to protect the super-rich and Big Business at the expense of their children and grandchildren.

.

 

I don't doubt it. The Climate Change obstructionists are costing billions of dollars in lossage.

 

It's not the Climate Change deniers as you put that are preventing this from happening. It's the businesses themselves. If there is no financial benefit to switch to an alternative energy resource they won't do it.

 

If they are dying industries why do replacement industries have such trouble competing? Shouldn't these other technologies be successful without government crutches?

Those burgeoning technologies are all reliant on those dying technologies you're talking about. You can't have a windmill farm or a solar farm without a fossil fuel plant to regulate the power it provides to the grid, for example. You can't build or charge or dispose of a green battery without a coal fired plant. Heck, your own post laments the fact that so called green companies are failing left and right, while these dying technologies remain... If you think that's just because of government funding you have no clue how business works...

No, it's the conservative's ability to recognize when a system works in reality, instead of simply imagining how a system should work in the fantasy of idealism. It's all in your head blu. That's how idealism works.

 

The only solution to slow down the damage we are doing to this planet is to reduce the global population. Nobody will address that fact.

 

You think the car industry would have made it very far without roads and infrastructure built by the state? Or coal and oil?

Not sure about the US but in Europe most of the grids were created by the state and as they have been privatizing the companies it has quickly dawned that private industry is not renewing (*)(*)(*)(*). Same goes for rail.

Big business has and will always attempt to hold on to their status even when it means to set up as many barriers and difficulties as possible for new industry. Part of the reason why it might be easier in Europe is that the state owns part or all of those businesses while in the US they own the state.

 

is that the right wing plan?

 

Aside from making electricity from clean processes, there are more efficient products that use electrical power. These products will be made in place of the units now popular, and coupled with conservation techniques and less expensive power generation, will save consumers on their monthly power bills.

Also are the different methods to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The process has been used for decades to produce carbon dioxide gas for industry, but now is going high tech and high volume to produce fuels, oxygen, and carbon fiber. While these processes and products are being developed, other methods are being tested.

Until outsourcing and downsizing became the U.S. business model to keep increasing short-term quarterly profits, corporate big wigs thought in long term growth. Reversing man-made climate change over the long term is not only going to be profitable, but absolutely necessary of mankind wants to survive.

This bit of truth is why right-wingers keep their heads buried in the sand when it come to global warming. Like all issues, when tax cuts for the super-rich fail and spending cuts exacerbate the problem, the next step for the right wing is to deny and ignore the problem.

But there are some rich folks that want coming generations to live on, because some of those are their children and grandchildren. Their descendants will need a civilized world to maintain their current lifestyles, and a global apocalypse due to climate change puts a major crimp in such plans.

This means the GOP's climate change deniers are going to be losing financial support if they keep serving only the interests of greenhouse gas producers. A few Congressional Republicans have already come to this realization.

If the Republicans' 2016 Clown Car crashes and burns, most Republican members of Congress will be supporting the development of clean energy and methods to reverse their newly discovered problem of climate change in 2017. They will be asking why didn't someone bring this problem to their attention sooner? Conservatives and neoconservatives will then be blaming global warming on the liberals and the poor for keeping it a secret.

Having seen right wing reaction to any new idea, if results are not immediate they refuse to continue. But again, reversing climate change is long-term thinking which means long-term efforts, something conservatives and neoconservatives will be forced to accept since it is the way to profit.

Here are some links to solutions. Of course, most are from Canada and other countries who long ago realized global warming was real. But U.S. businesses are quick to exploit any chance for profit, so they will get up to speed in no time.

http://innodigest.com/remove-co2-from-the-atmosphere/

http://www.technologyreview.com/new...-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

http://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...tem-that-could-turn-atmospheric-co2-into-fuel

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140513014/this-machine-can-suck-carbon-out-of-the-air



.

 

Whatever you wish to label it so you can avoid the truth is your problem.

 

where are your FACTS to back your claims?

 

The conservatives and neoconservatives always want to leave innovation to the private sector. But until the government pays for R&D, the private sector is stagnant. If left to the private sector the U.S. would never have had a space program, and the many technologies that people now take for granted, would not exist.

The private sector plays it safe, most of the time. But when Boeing took a chance on a jet powered aerial tanker to replace the prop driven planes used by the Air Force, any failure would have bankrupted the company. Their plan was a success. Their Dash 80 prototype became the Air Force's KC-135 jet tanker and the 707 passenger jet liner. But without the government's purchase of the KC-135, the sales of the 707 as a passenger liner would have been too slow to save the company.

So, the belief that private industry will innovate without the help of the government, is naive, especially in the 21st century. Playing it safe, outsourcing, downsizing, and planning only for this quarter's profits to please shareholders are all U.S. executives can handle without federal contracts paying for new ideas.

.

 

Climate change isn't profitable so therefore, it's best to just pretend it isn't real and that there's nothing we can do about it. At least until there are some patents to make some money on anyway. Then it's real.

Things are only real if private industry can make money on it.

 

For those who think there is no money in green tech.

Read it and weep.
http://www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/file.../Green production in Denmark - web 111212.pdf