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

To: Joe NYC who wrote (130700)1/24/2001 4:16:49 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1573023
 
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,

Is conservation verboten in you vocabulary?

ted



To: Joe NYC who wrote (130700)1/24/2001 4:21:19 PM
From: Scumbria  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573023
 
Joe,

The same is true if the oil is extracted from Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia. What's the difference?

I think we are getting down to the root of the problem here. Was that a serious question?

Scumbria



To: Joe NYC who wrote (130700)1/24/2001 4:39:46 PM
From: f.simons  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573023
 
Joe-

Those are all foreign countries where we have no right to set standards. We can actually at least *try* to do things on our own soil that we can't there. Big difference.

I have heard that the Alaska field in question would keep the US energy self sufficient for 6 months. Have you heard differently?

Frank


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