Politics for Pros- moderated 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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (330921)	10/27/2009 5:23:49 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 794008

If CO2 did turn out to be a problem, it isn't really much of a big deal to fix the problem. The total cost would be something like 25% extra energy, even with no technical improvements - which is not much more than the average tip in a USA restaurant. It is certainly not enough to "bomb us back to pre-industrial economics". Also, it ignores the huge efficiency gains which can be made for no cost. Imagine, for example, a world with no traffic lights and with little cars traveling much more safely 1 metre apart at 100 kph with no traffic jams. There is also the small matter of Peak People which will be in 2037 barring earlier catastrophe. Even if CO2 did turn out to be such a big deal problem that we had to hold levels at 400 ppm, it would be a doddle and not particularly expensive to achieve. But CO2 is a good thing up to 380ppm as proven by things going well and plants scoffing the CO2 happily, needing less water too. 450ppm seems unlikely to be an issue either and indeed even 1000 ppm is well within historical norms for CO2. The chance of getting to 1000 ppm is remote and it won't be for a very long time if ever. 450ppm seems a stretch. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next