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.
Technology Stocks : FCL - FuelCell Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: nic who wrote (72)11/28/1997 4:37:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul  Read Replies (2) of 407
 
I see several dangers arising from the climate control meeting

1. Nation vs Nation as they maneuver to maintain their competitive position.

2. It is unenforceable. One nation will say that they have reduced their CO2 by 90 percent even though they may not have reduced it at all. They will argue that they have removed CO2 so they are entitled to put it back. The next nation will argue that they have set aside land to grow something that they did not grow before and are hence removing CO2 and are entitled to replace the CO2 that they removed. One nation will indicate that the US eats too much meat and we have more cows than we normally would have if we ate the proper amount of meat (as determined by an international group of dietitians) and that subsidies should therefor be cut. Another nation will argue that subsidies for soybeans should be cut back as they may contribute to global warming but it is not certain yet as the methane production from this source has not yet been measured, but that it is better to be safe than sorry. ( are dairy cows included and do we exclude religious cows?)

3. The scientific community will lose credibility (has already) as they band together and mislead the general public. The 90 percent reduction in net CO2 emissions is interpreted by any lay person as a 90 percent reduction in emissions. This is in my opinion clearly lends itself to misinterpretation and should not be endorsed by the scientific community. What other lies are told in the name of the environment?

4. How does one account the nuclear reductions in CO2. If one nation chooses to minimize nuclear power as they see potential harm from this source of power to be a greater danger than a potential danger from CO2 emissions what is the allowed credit?

5. There is time to study the issue. The capabilities of the scientific community are expanding rapidly with better satellite and earth based computer technologies.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News