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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (77552)	6/23/2006 6:42:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

If cutting the amount of emissions doesn't help reduce global warming, there might be additional health benefits and energy policy benefits to be derived from a policy which focuses on the reduction of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Nothing wrong with cleaner air in my book. Nothing wrong with energy independence either. Nothing wrong with cleaner air in my book either; and you are more likely to persuade me with geopolitical arguments about energy independence than with the current Chicken-Little-ism about global warming. However, I would point out that the chief greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, which are not pollutants at all but naturally occurring atmospheric elements. If what is wanted is to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, either filtering it out of the atmosphere or raising the biomass of plants that metabolize carbon dioxide seem more likely to work than reducing the use of fossil fuels, which will only help at the margins.