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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (11927)	4/19/2001 9:40:04 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Meanwhile, huge debates still rage in the scientific community over how serious a problem global warming might turn out to be. The discussion over global climate change is often hampered by a lack of focus. I just wanted to take this opportunity to highlight this one sentence from your clip. The legitimate debate, as opposed to some of the stuff we see posted on SI, is not about whether we can expect global climate change or whether human activity is accelerating it. The debate is about how serious a problem that will or won't be. The matter of Kyoto is the international subset of the political debate atop the climate change debate. Bundling all of that into a simplistic pro and anti environment food fight is unhelpful. Karen

To: Zoltan! who wrote (11927)	4/19/2001 10:35:08 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 82486

if we count everything that adds carbon dioxide to the air, we must also count things that subtract carbon dioxide That's why we measure the total level. The overall level of CO2 is increasing - after all subtractions. We've already taken the subtractions into account. The US produces 25% of the world's CO2, AFTER subtraction - it sequestrates only about 12% of the CO2 it produces. epa.gov The fairest way to apportion the reductions in this excess production is according to the capacity to reduce - i.e., the amount of production. Incidentally, the reduction from 1990 required for the US is 7%... the EU is required to make 8%. I don't know what the EU costs are: but ultimately, the highest penalty should be paid by the worst offender.