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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (92991)	8/1/2001 10:58:01 PM
From: Sharp_End_Of_Drill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Frank & Art, I was wondering if you saw my rant about the environment, and what I see as misguided efforts to improve it. Message 16153161 I'd like to hear your views on what I think are the real problems. Sharp

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (92991)	8/2/2001 8:48:08 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Frank, at least I think my earlier work and academic training can add to a constructive discussion. In addition to doing research on energy alternatives during the first energy crisis about 20 years ago, I published a paper, entitled "The Dynamics of the Regulatory Process" (Univ. of Michigan, 1975), which was a case study of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and which concluded that intelligent regulation can be preferable to deregulation because it forces people to look at long term as well as short term alternatives. An energy policy which simply aims at increasing the supply at a time when the rate of growth in demand exceeds the rate of growth in supply is basically a short term solution. Why? Because the price will eventually rise to the point where it can curtail the growth rate in demand. Long term solutions include conservation measures, energy management (as in the control of heating, lighting, air conditioning in office buildings so that one system doesn't counteract another), and the use of renewable alternatives, such as solar photvoltaic, wind, tidal forces, etc. Any policy that is tied mainly to the increased use of existing fossil fuel resources is bound to fail in the long run. The main problem with the Kyoto proposal was that it didn't go after the easy stuff in a manner that would produce good results. For example, the clearing of land in Kalimantan, Indonesia (Borneo) has produced unbelievable amounts of CO2 and particulates in order to satisfy the greed of a few merchants bent on obtaining the maximum profit in the shortest possible time frame. Proper enforcement measures, paid for in part by industrialized nations, combined with a worldwide ban on trade in commodities produced in this manner would send the right message. The Kyoto proposal favors simplistic solutions at the margins, rather than attacking the fundamentals. In other words, if you have a coal fired generating plant that already has scrubbers and is reasonably clean, reducing emissions from that plant is far more expensive than reducing the equivalent amount of emissions from burning down a forest in Indonesia. When you want to make a dent in the problem, you don't chip away at the edges; you go after the big stuff inside. Art