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 : Politics of Energy

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (70091)5/17/2016 3:12:32 PM
From: Gary Mohilner  Read Replies (2) of 86352
 
Even if I were to accept everything stated in this report, I believe their are a few questions that if honestly answered would lead us all in the same direction.

1. Are we better off breathing cleaner air?

2. Are we better off drinking purer water?

Even if changes that made the above happen didn't change global warming, or cooling at all, wouldn't we be better off working toward those goals.

I frankly don't care about the short term costs, I believe we'd be better off employing millions of people with both green initiatives and infrastructure repair and modernization than having tens or hundreds of thousands of people working in coal mines. Federal incentives for such work would almost certainly add debt short term, but both the infrastructure modernization and greater green initiatives should result in greater permanent employment that isn't ultimately Federally supported and the long term net would be positive. Most importantly, the technologies created here to improve things would be exported all over the world.

If the author of your report is correct, and we'll shortly be in a cooling trend, great. I'll go back to the first 2 questions, can anyone deny we'd be better off breathing cleaner air and drinking purer water.

Gary
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext