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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (7194)	8/15/2001 3:22:48 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The truth about the environment Aug 2nd 2001 From The Economist print edition Copyright The Economist Panos Environmentalists tend to believe that, ecologically speaking, things are getting worse and worse. Bjorn Lomborg, once deep green himself, argues that they are wrong in almost every particular ECOLOGY and economics should push in the same direction. After all, the “eco” part of each word derives from the Greek word for “home”, and the protagonists of both claim to have humanity's welfare as their goal. Yet environmentalists and economists are often at loggerheads. For economists, the world seems to be getting better. For many environmentalists, it seems to be getting worse. These environmentalists, led by such veterans as Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, have developed a sort of “litany” of four big environmental fears: • Natural resources are running out. • The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. • Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers: forests are disappearing and fish stocks are collapsing. • The planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted. Continued here: economist.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (7194)	8/15/2001 11:39:43 PM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74559

Global warming is a free-rider type problem. Any action you do individually will cost you a lot compared to the benefits that you are your descendents will receive from your action alone. So no country wants to take action on their own. Let's say that your cost of taking action cost $1000 and the reduction in global warming could somehow be valued - say in terms of reduced impacts from sea level rise and better crop production and less hurricane damage or whatever. Let's say your action avoided $10000 worth of damage. Then divide that by 6 billion for the damage you yourself will avoid..... You'll need a 6 billion to 1 rate of return to make any personal action worthwhile on financial grounds alone. Of course, for countries the ratio is lower. Especially for the US with roughly a quarter of global emissions and GDP... David

To: Ilaine who wrote (7194)	8/16/2001 3:16:36 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Cobalt .. Global warming question .. Why is it that our governments are constantly building such wonderful solar collectors for our automobiles to ride on? Wouldn't it be much better if we drove on white-top instead of black-top? (If you think these roads don't function as solar collectors, try walking on one, barefoot, on a nice warm summer day <VBG>) This is a real question! COULD GLOBAL WARMING BE REVERSED SIMPLY BY CHANGING THE COLOR OF OUR ROADS?