And yet, there are so many counter examples to pull from. Like, the basis of most regulations start with companies, who had been left to their own devices, completely screwing their customers, workers, and the environment.
But sure. It would work this time if we take off the guardrails.
Clearly the problem is too much regulation! If we stop regulating companies completely, they'll ✨magically✨ just start doing the right thing.
Shhhh don't talk about historical precedent for that not working, libertarian brains can't handle that sort of stuff. Just repeat after me: TAXATION IS THEFT, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, WAR IS PEACE
if businesses are left to their own devices, they will “develop the technologies that will power us into the future, not using carbon-based fuels,”
glances at Communist Chinese EVs
So... Um...
One additional note, wrt his wiki page. I gotta say, quitting the Dem Party because Barack Obama didn't get us out of Iraq as promised is a more respectable position than I'd expect out of an LP candidate. After growing up with the likes of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson dominating the party, this feels like a ray of sunshine peaking out behind a very dark cloud.
Setting aside his naive take on climate change and education, I don't see much in immigration or criminal justice reform or foreign policy to explicitly hate. But I also know he's showing up as the more liberal wing of a party that's got a rather nasty John Bircher streak. Feels like he's showing up in the negative relative to a Trump campaign that's sucking up all the libertarian racists and cop lovers.
I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it's more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It's not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
Did you mean to reply to me? I don't see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don't care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn't work if you're the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn't to say the free market always makes the "correct" decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
I mean, I think that's what the majority of people are advocating for in green circles too, no? "No New Coal" and all that?
I don't hear much advocacy for tearing down working power plants.
Power plants don't exactly have an infinite shelf life. They get run down and need to be replaced. Eventually only building green leads to only having green.
Combine that with the ever increasing cost of actually running a coal fire plant. Shipping in hundreds of tons of coal is eventually gonna get way more expensive than operating a solar or wind farm. At that point the business owners will likely tear the plant down of their own volition to replace it with the cheaper option. (Though that will be admittedly a little slower, as you have to amortize in the construction and downtime costs.)