Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On The Way Out, Ron

[Something completely different]

If that is the will of the consumers, it should be met. I don't see an advantage in forcing companies to make a loss, or to subsidize that loss with tax payer money when it is not what people want. Being friendly to the environment should not be forced on people; people should be educated to care, and to demand these changes themselves.

So eaven if a socialy issue has a amount of urrgency to it - you wouldnt give a amount of incentive or ad a sence of urgency to it?

And about consumer needs: you would give an ok, to product which are made with CFC gasses which are very harmfull to the invirorment but cheap to produce, aswell as to Aspestos which is a healthrisk but would build cheap but stabil structures?
India actualy still imports and builds with massive amounts of Aspestos - simply because they think it`s what the customer wants.
There is a reason why certain products are regulated - a lab rat to which one gives cocain will take it until it dies. and although this is a bit of a weird comparison - i do believe alot of consumers will prefer products harmfull to them and sociaty in general - as long as they are comfortable.

I actualy have two studies in english which confirm what i am talking about:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.h...eid=854436
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProd...293998.pdf

And my other major point is, Why should a company change it`s product?
As far as I know, estimates are that 70% of the worldwide crude oil supply is still not raised. That`s a certain big amount of profit - so why throw away that profit? Many energy companies in the US go so far as to deny global warming actualy exists and fund unscientific counterstudies to manipulate public opinion.
This is not theory - it is fact.

Sure, but only because the demand is not high enough. Do you think drilling was cheap when we first started doing it? Of course not. Once a company makes the right investments in solar panels and windmills, costs go down, because they learn better techniques and are able to better mass-produce said items. Indeed, drilling for oil is becoming more expensive as it runs out, and the oil companies are forced to drill in much harsher locations. A tipping point will occur; if the consumers are put in charge, this will happen sooner.

As I mentioned before public opinion is not always in favor of what is good.
And demand - well demand is settled - we use oil and coal - the question is not "How to cover demand" or "How to make a product more market friendly?" but "How to change the means of production?"

No offence - but making a prophecy of a "tipping point" is the kind of wishfull thinking which causes delay and inefficiancy.

I prefer exact plans and blue prints on how to work on solving issues now
than having dreams

The point is, it won't be a more expensive product. The price of oil is going up; the price of renewable energy is going down. There are people researching methods for cutting down the costs of renewable energy all the time. Besides, if it is a consumer demanded product in a consumer controlled market, the price is likewise set by the consumer. Oil is not a less risky and comfortable way of production. BP just got fined billions of dollars for stupid mistakes that caused countless amounts of environmental damage and the deaths of workers on an oil rig. If the demand is there, it is not a risk at all. Besides, companies that already exist can slowly move their current consumers over to renewable energy if the consumer is up for it.

Oil pricess go up as inflation goes up - and considering the amount of crude oil still out there aswell as the advancing technology to find it - I wouldnt be suprised if oil will be kept as product until there is non left.
Oil is more comfortable - because it`s production and sale is a known field - unlike green energy where current participants are pioneers - therefor risky. it might be true that it will be less risky in the future - when better understood - but to get that far it has to be understood - and most companies refuse to invest due to reasons mentioned above.

It's not wishful thinking...it's the way the market works. Supply and demand. Those that can supply to meet the demand succeed. Those that cannot supply to meet the demand fail.

But it is wishfull thinking to believe that the same people who finance "anti-climate change studies" because they find comfort within their usual means of production with oil and coal - will suddently - through magic - realise that a unknown field of experties which is potentialy risky might be the right solution.
Oil and coal supplies will probably last for another 100 years - and if it`s production ends and green energy starts because there is no oil and coal left - then it is to late.

Irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that consumer action does work. It's worked pretty fast for newspapers (tablets have only existed for a few years). If government was to stop propping up oil companies, I'd posit that the same thing would happen for them.

It is not irrelevant - there is a urgency to the subject of climate change - meaning that it is importent to be solved - and to take the gamble that the general public will suddently start to fight it individualy due to prophesised rising gas prices is a bit of a gamble.
And can you give me an example where a goverment which fights climate change - "props up a company" which produces oil? Rick Perry?????