SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (322822)1/24/2007 9:06:03 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) of 1582637
 
re: I don't really agree with the whole tipping point argument, at least the stronger versions of it. The strongest versions, the idea that man made global warming is certain and that we can be highly confident that it will be a major disaster if we don't respond strongly within 10 years, but that responding strongly withing 10 years gives a decent chance to avert the disaster, strike me as nonsense.

And your credentials as a scientist?

re: As for the side benefits, I generally think they would be smaller, often much smaller then you do.

I disagree but would smaller mitigate the investment? You obviously agree there are benefits.

re: Some of them might be large when looked at in isolation but would be in exchange for other large costs, others would probably be small or would fail to materialize at all, and most importantly almost none of them require a crash course to change right now. Change over time, esp. in response to market incentives like oil becoming scarcer, is much cheaper and more efficient

Take them point by point if you want. 1. Trade deficit 1/3 reduction; 2. Cheaper energy AND reduced usage feeding extra stimulus/discretionary dollars into the economy; 3. Less dollars going to ME governments that "support terrorism" (and subsequent decline in military spending and future "oil wars"); 4. Renewable infrastructure build offset by no need for traditional energy infrastructure growth cost; 5. new jobs and exportable technology; 6. Better world relations and leadership role; 7. Clean air/health cost reduction; 8. I can't remember what else I forgot.

All that and more outside of the GW debate. And the technology is here, right now, to get energy independent. Hell, the technology is a Toyota Corolla or a hybrid, not rocket science. We could do it in a flash and the gas savings would pay for most of it... without the other significant benefits.

And GW; I don't know if the majority of scientists are right. I don't trust our scientific knowledge on big stuff a lot. But if these guys are right... the survival of the human race as we know it is in danger. What's the risk/reward of inaction on that formula?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext