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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (130697)	1/24/2001 4:00:48 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573004

Scumbria, When you hear Bush or an oil company say "We can extract the oil with minimal environmental damage", do you question it? One side will say the damage will be minimal, the other side will say that it will cause a holocaust. Of course there will be some cost, and some probability of accidents. The same is true if the oil is extracted from Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia. What's the difference? Oil is dirty, destructive business. No way around it, and no point pretending otherwise. I am not pretending it is not. Oil is also needed to run the global economy, and without it the world economy would collapse. The challenge is the transition to other, cleaner sources, sources that won't run out as quickly as oil will. The opposition of "environmentalists" to nuclear energy has caused huge damage to the environment, and additional potential damage that drilling in Alaska will cause is their responsibility to a large extend. Joe

To: Scumbria who wrote (130697)	1/24/2001 4:06:03 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1573004

"Did the residents of Valdez think that they were at risk?" Prince William Sound, IIRC. Besides, the environmental impact of oil contaimination is over blown, at least in warmer climates. The methods of cleanup likely will do more damage, especially the use of surfactants (i.e. detergent). True, the washing ashore of the oil does impact the macro-fauna, but, unless they are under some other pressure, they will bounce back. The surfactants in the water column, or causing the oil to sink to the bottom by some other method, is likely to be more wide ranging. This is why I still boycott Exxon, they used cleanup methods that looked good on TV, but caused a lot more damage than just leaving it alone likely would have done. Jerks.