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 (3382)	5/24/2004 1:29:51 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

The Hoover Institution is one of the most conservative think tanks in DC. I am unclear why this is true but conservatives seem to have a vested interest in convincing the world that global warming is a hoax. Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything in that article that says global warming is a hoax. It does say the projections have been consistently pessimistic, that isn't saying there hasn't been or won't be warming. It certainly isn't saying that the people who say there will be warming are committing a fraud or a hoax to push the idea on the general population when they know it isn't true. True....."consistently pessimistic" falls short of calling it a hoax. Nonetheless, they are trying to discredit the theory....or at least diminish its importance. Given this recent article, I find it hard to believe that the findings of global warming are "consistently pessimistic". The article is on solar dimming caused by air pollution. While dimming would offset the effects of global warming, I am not sure that's a great solution to the problem: seattletimes.nwsource.com ..we have had increasing restrictions on pollution for the past 30 years and our economy has done fine Its done fine, just like the economy has done fine shouldering any number of other costs throughout history. That doesn't mean the costs aren't a drag on the economy just that they aren't a big enough drag to derail the economy. Also the costs of proposed restrictions on CO2 emissions would be far greater then all previous environmental costs combined. Previously the idea was to reduce or contain dangerous impurities and byproducts of energy use and industrial or agricultural production. Now it is to greatly reduce one of the main results of burning just about any fuel. Perhaps the economy can shoulder this load as well without any economic disaster. In fact I think it probably can, depending on how severe the restrictions are and how fast they are phased in. But their will be pain from these restrictions unless they are two mild to have any significant effect. There is "pain" in any production in the form of costs: the purchase or renting of land, machines, and bldgs. and the hiring of labor......preventing pollution will just be one more cost to production. Restrictions on rich countries may increase unemployment a bit or lower or at least restrict growth of average wages. Restrictions on poor countries may prevent them from developing and condemn millions or more likely billions to continued poverty. Restrictions on rich countries but not on developing and undeveloped countries won't have much effect. There can be the selling of pollution rights and other ways to minimize the burden on poorer countries. For an example, they could sell the rights to the pollution that normally would result from one industry and use the money they get to create jobs in a non polluting industry. CA companies have had great success trading or selling pollution rights. ted