Invest $2 trillion over the next ten years in green research, manufacturing, and exporting
$200 billion a year. Or the annual reduction in revenue due to the Trump tax cuts.
Invest $2 trillion over the next ten years in green research, manufacturing, and exporting
$200 billion a year. Or the annual reduction in revenue due to the Trump tax cuts.
No. Itâs a plan that letâs the market decide. How do you think markets operate?
Horse hockey
She has a plan to put restrictions on one industry, and help anouther along. That is anti market-based completely. Now is she put the same exact restrictions on both industries, and gave both industries the exact same help . . . THEN consumers could chose the one they want.
Why? A firm is free to claim no risk. Investors are free to judge. I think the frightening thing is this is s market test of climate change and all you state capitalists are scared to take that bet.
I accept climate change, but am willing to have the market prove me wrong. Want the other side of the bet?
I donât believe for a second that a firm can claim no risk, at least not without providing information to the government that backs that up. Otherwise, whatâs the point? Wouldnât all of these places then claim no risk, rendering Warrenâs plan useless?
Pretty much every major company does this they just donât publish their results its only shared with share holders.
You think all the government money and regulations she proposes is capitalism???
Well, yeah, injecting capital into private r&d is capitalism.
If a business chooses to do it all on itâs own. YES it is market based.
The poposal in the op is a REQUIMENT to do something.
Huge difference.
Businesses have an opt out. They can declare zero risk. They can declare reduced risk from ignoring climate change. Then Investors decide. Why is that not a market solution?
This plan doesnât put restriction on any industry it simply would make already produced information public, every single company on the NYSE does a climate impact study.
Cause you can control the sun, earthquakes, volcanoes, meteorites and the like, right?
Based on the projected path of your party, your grandkids would be gobsmacked to find a copy of a banned book depicting a life free of government regulation in their daily lives.
This coming from the party who current leader think publishing critical news is Treason.
Cause you can control the sun, earthquakes, volcanoes, meteorites and the like, right?
Based on the projected path of your party, your grandkids would be gobsmacked to find a copy of a banned book depicting a life free of government regulation in their daily lives.
well, that was a total dodge from what i posted.
You made a prediction. So did I.
America invest 650 billion a year into military, but canât invest 200 billion into energy.
I think the frightening thing is this is s market test of climate change and all you state capitalists are scared to take that bet.
Oh, sorry, I missed this part and wanted to respond directly.
Sorry, but climate change is already being market tested, no? If thereâs one thing I know about greed is that it knows no bounds nor does it pick favorites. If thereâs money to be made in clean energy, worry not, clean energy we will have.
Which is constitutional, which isnât?
How is requiring companies to publish data unconstitutional.
there is nothing unconstitutional with what is addressed in the OP.
America invest 650 billion a year into military, but canât invest 200 billion into energy.
Which is constitutional, which is not?
Pretty much every single energy company in the world is massively investing in green tech.
Itâs a pushâŚyou dont think they get tax breaks already because they are pushing towards greener energyâŚ
Or you dont think government and private should go hand and hand?
In the article where you clipped out what she said she points this out.
Next time use the whole quote snow.
Are you suggesting Government seniece research is unconstitutional?