The Castle Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (3405)	5/27/2004 1:30:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 7936

it weren't for global dimming, things could be much worse. Things aren't much worse. If global dimming is going to be a factor it is going to work against global warming which would reduce (although perhaps by an insignificant amount) the urgency of taking massively expensive steps to combat global warming. Again, it doesn't have to be done in one year. Besides, I have faith in our ability to pull it off without derailing the world economy. Yes it doesn't have to be done in a year, but it also isn't a one time cost. You can't add "CO2 scrubbers" and clear out the emissions forever. Previous emissions reductions where eliminating or reducing minor components of the exhaust from burning fossil fuels. Now the idea is to reduce a major component, which probably can only be done by burning less fossil fuel. To some extent this would be done by using less convenient or more expensive energy sources, to some extent it could be done by greater efficiency, but also to some extent it would have to be done by producing less (at least less then we would have produced). Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next