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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (247459)	8/25/2005 7:47:42 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583591

That is an excellent post. Couldn't agree more. Conservation in a very big way is a no lose proposition. Why doesn't everyone see that? It's the biggest no-brainer of this generation.

To: Road Walker who wrote (247459)	8/25/2005 8:55:56 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583591

"War on Terror" brings increased revenues to existing large US corporations. "War on Energy Consumption" might not do exactly that. Accordingly I would expect some powerful lobbies to keep up their "good" work for growth allocation to the "right" places. Am I a commie? No way, just another a cynic. Taro

To: Road Walker who wrote (247459)	8/25/2005 12:36:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583591

Still, the single most important thing our government could do (on many levels) is to encourage dramatically increased energy efficiency. Let's have a "War on Energy Consumption" rather than a "War on Terror". (The war on energy would certainly be more effective against terrorism than our current war on terror.) We wouldn't have to have a war on terrorism if we had a war on energy consumption/dependence and it were successful. Our interest in the ME would plummet overnite. ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (247459)	9/17/2005 2:54:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583591

The war on energy would certainly be more effective against terrorism than our current war on terror. Not certain, not even likely. Make the goal to reduce oil imports by 30% in five years; 60% in ten years. The benefits- 1. A strong reduction in our horrendous and dangerous trade imbalance. 2. More efficient use of energy pumps money back into the economy similar to a tax cut. 3. Lower consumption will lower energy prices, another "tax cut" for the economy. 4. We reduce our economic and subsequent political dependence on our "enemies". 5. New technology businesses with high paying jobs creating new solutions, with potential export opportunities. 6. Reduced pollution. 1 - Possibly true, although we wouldn't stop using that much oil unless it costs a lot more. Making oil cost more would hurt the competiveness of our products. 2 - More efficient use of energy means less money is spent on energy. However more is spent on the efficiency, and we aren't going to get a 60% reduction in imported oil just from increasing efficiency. 3 - If prices are lower we will increase consumption not decrease it. 4 - This is mostly true, but it can be exaggerated. Even if we do manage to cut oil imports by 60% the Middle East will still be a strategically important region to the US. 5 - Lots of things create new jobs. The problem is you would be destroying other jobs in the process. 6 - Probably true. If we are importing less oil we might burn more coal, but its not like you can shovel some coal in to your cars tank. You can derive fuel from coal, but the process is expensive. Tim