So since Communists and Jihadists get money regardless, we shouldn't make priorities to not help fund them? Do you know how much sense this doesn't make?
Unless you want to end the free market process and turn the world into a communist state where the government controls who gives out the cash, then by all means. I don't think that's the philosophy one should take.
You're reaching for arguments here. Face it, conservation and renewable energy makes sense- despite wacko lefties making it more than it is and stubborn rights thinking conservation is bad because the lefties are for it.
I don't disagree with the premise of conservation, everyone should do it if they can, but it's just one aspect of a larger energy plan, one we don't have. We're not spending money on research and investment on renewable sources because oil, for the most part has been cheap. There hasn't been an economic need to make it a priority. Only when the price shot up more than the country was ready for, does it now become an issue. You are tying it to communists and jihadists, but conserving energy isn't going to stop the process of terrorism. The two are totally unrelated.
Again, read Newt's book and realize sustainability is (read: SHOULD be) at the core of conservative's beliefs. Again, I'm not defending either party's actions or stupid behavior. I'm saying there are benefits to this movement, whether you like them or not- or whether you have any actual beliefs or are here for the arguments.
Also, in Newts book, sustainable energy is also producing our own. I'm all for that. Never have I not been a proponent of being able to produce our own energy free from dependence on other politically unstable regions.
Also, the green trend helps. You simply saying otherwise does not make it true. CF lightbulbs are common place. Recycled/recyclable building materials are in use more now than ever before. LEED accreditation is skyrocketing. Hybrids became a trend before rising costs. The gas prices help, but the fact that people now are rebuilding an entire city to be close to zero energy is not because of rising gas prices.
You're talking about two different things. Green in the terms of environmental preservation is very different than conservation of energy sources. Producing energy that is clean and cheap should be a necessary provision within a comprehensive energy plan, one that doesn't currently exist. Both the Republicans and Democrats have failed miserably in that regard. In terms of environmental protections, neither party is particularly adept to understanding how to let the free market dictate the acceleration of technology to help combat these issues. We don't need any more government regulation, we need government programs that facilitate a pro-business mentality to helping the environment, and it's been proven to work. In case you were wondering, Al Gore is trying to do the same thing with Global Warming by doing Carbon Credits. His "angle" however is to make money on bad science, which is a problem.
In essence, your premise for conserving to stop the flow of money to jihadists and communists is rather puritanical if not naive. You want to achieve that kind of results, the first thing is to get the US producing more energy at home, developing the technologies to extract cheap energy while simultaneously looking at developing the technologies to produce energy in other ways that will replace the oil, coal, and other forms to transform our economy away from that. Going "green" is just a side benefit.
