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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5108)	3/4/2003 7:05:24 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

"Switching to more expensive and/or less flexible energy sources had a real cost" That wasn't what I was responding to. Obviously...costs get passed on to the consumer. War in Iraq has costs. Pharmacare assistance has costs--yada, yada, yada. You said originally that reducing the amount of CO2 translates necessarily into reducing the production and the transportation of goods. Surely you can appreciate that such a relationship is specious? You do not HAVE to reduce the amount of production to reduce CO2...you have to reduce CO2...PERIOD. If I stop wearing beaver hats it does not mean I must stop wearing clothes. Lets talk a bit rationally here and not toss out outlandish statements. You DO NOT have to reduce production if you switch to alternate energy sources. NONSENSE. "If you are going to greatly reduce the amount of CO2 you have to reduce the amount of production and transportation""