- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Doing nothing but redristributing the wealth and having no plan to bridge the gap between a fossil fuel based energy sector to one that runs off of some alternatives that haven't been invented yet will definitely yield a cleaner environment. Hopefully though, people who are too poor to now buy heating oil or natural gas to heat their home won't go out and cut down the forests and further pollute the air by burning wood in fires. Of course many people will die from trying to heat their homes with charcoal grills and kerosene heaters causing carbon monoxide poisoning. But like any war, some innocents have to die. The redristubuted wealth won't help the farmers who won't be able to afford deisel to harvest their crops or truck it to market. Most of the airlines will go out of business and there will be only service between the largest cities, but that is a good thing because in today's global economy, people don't really need to travel anyway, especially considering how all the passenger jets are helping to cause global warming.
It is easy when someone who can absorb an extra $300 to $1000 a month in extra costs for everything (since energy costs affect every aspect of the economy) can preach to the people who live paycheck to paycheck about how it will be good for them to sacrifice their way of life to save the planet.
And since oil is so bad. Why don't we just ban oil now. Oh, then we would not be able to redistribute the oil company's money. Let's ban coal fired power plants now. What good is it going to do to save the planet by just letting companies pay to pollute -- such as cap and trade allows.
I am so waiting for the non-Republican plan to save the planet while provide the energy necessary for at least people to eat and heat their homes...let alone have an economy that still functions.
