Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (46376)	7/22/1999 5:26:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

there are elite interests (political and economic) that see U.S. hegemony or any sort of nationalism as bothersome. Environmental regulation is part of their arsenal. Don't you find the idea of US hegemony bothersome? I don't much care for the idea of hegemony on anybody's part. I'm sure you realize that in many developing countries the kind of international environmental regulations we're talking about are viewed as a device for stunting growth in countries still dependent on resource exploitation, and for maintaining the hegemony of the US and the other developed nations. Which arsenal is environmental regulation part of? Depends on who you ask. The idea that every scientist who believes that greenhouse gases may pose a serious environmental threat is part of some vast conspiracy to reduce the power of the US seems a bit farfetched to me. There is little doubt that developed economies contribute a large share of greenhouse gas emissions, and that they have a greater ability to reduce those emissions. Whether or not those emissions are affecting global climate is still an open question. I am not convinced that they are, but neither am I willing to discount the possibility. Certainly the scale of the emissions, and the rate of increase, combined with the rate of decrease in the ability of the planet to process certain gases (the tropical rain forests have been called the lungs of the planet; if this is so than the planet has emphysema) are significant enough that an effect on climate is within the realm of possibility. Most agree that if there is a significant possibility that a substance is injurious to health, that substance should be kept out of food, water, and air intended for human consumption until its safety is demonstrated. Absolute proof that it is injurious is not generally regarded as necessary. By the same token. if science can demonstrate a reasonable possibility that greenhouse gas emissions are causing significant environmental damage, it is time to seriously begin working out means by which those emissions can be reduced. Again, I'm not sufficiently conversant with the science of it to issue an opinion one way or the other. I do think the discussion is being conducted on fairly juvenile and largely irrelevant terms.