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: cosmicforce who wrote (85846)	8/20/2000 12:57:16 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Since we are the leading consumers, we have the majority responsibility to help find an alternative. Morally. There, finally I actually said "moral". That is our responsibility, IMO. Maybe you think the poor bastard in India cooking his meal on dung-fires should find the alternative. I just don't think that's very fair and he's going to like the alternative of using kerosene... I agree with all of your points on this but imo its a little more 2-sided than an industrial vs. nonindustrial consumption issue since some the rainforest countries are chopping down their forests for a one-time financial gain currently. Its hard to say but my guess is this is the most damaging of all greenhouse contributors... of course the Brazilians will tell you that cutting down trees in a checkerboard pattern "assures" reforestation... according to Shell anyway

To: cosmicforce who wrote (85846)	8/20/2000 1:54:26 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You do the math! You can't compare fuel consumption in America to fuel consumption in India. For the most part they don't need to heat their houses. Do you think your living standard is higher because you can go to a drive through McDonald's in your energy efficient car? When you posed the question, "Why should oil companies subsidize these "uncompetitive" energy sources and alternatives"? you then answered your question i.e. became the judge and jury "Because they aren't correctly being assessed for the economic liability associated with the spills and potential large scale climactic factors being generated by short term market inefficiencies." Please tell me how you assess somebody for potential problems that may or may not exist or happen when the culprit may or may not be guilty? Would this be done by a Royal Commission of the WWF? What you are saying is nothing new. People have been saying much the same things for the past 100 years. Every government foray (which I assume is what you are proposing) into the oil business has been a dismal failure.