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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2965)	3/4/2004 6:51:57 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Kyoto is dead. So we can leave that out of the equation. There are two different issues that it seems to me that you and Ted are mixing up, and which it would be helpful to clearly separate out. One: reducing pollutants, which means using less energy, or finding less polluting energy sources, or converting some pollutants to non-pollutants, or some combination of the three. Two: finding new energy sources to replace oil and gas and coal when they run out, which they will do eventually, though not for awhile. No matter how much our oil and gas and coal reserves are, and no matter how much we improve the technology of withdrawing them from the earth and using them more efficiently, the earth isn't producing as much new oil and gas as we draw ouf of it, so eventually, if we keep using oil we will run out at some point. Fusion would answer both questions. It may not be the short term answer to either, but if we can control it it's the long term answer to both.