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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (22987)	7/5/2006 7:59:38 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541346

I have read -- have no idea whether it's true -- that none of the countries that ratified the Kyoto treaty have actually complied with it. If so, the Kyoto treaty appears to be just another feel-good mechanism. Maybe I should go around saying what a wonderful person Al Gore is and how right he is about global warming. That should fix things, no? Or at least make people feel good, which appears to be what really matters.

To: thames_sider who wrote (22987)	7/5/2006 8:03:04 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541346

Excellent response, Thames. You took my sarcasm and outlandish questions and turned them right back on me. You gain mega points from me for debate tactics. But, that aside, I don't buy your argument that we'll be out of fossil fuels in 94 years. I'd bet on at least twice that much time, unless China and India are able to continue at their current growth rates with no other energy sources. I also remain unconvinced that people produced CO2 is more than a spit in the ocean compared to naturally produced CO2. Well, ok, I'll refine that with a less colorful comparison. Maybe a Lake Erie amount compared to the oceans.

To: thames_sider who wrote (22987)	7/7/2006 5:27:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541346

The Kyoto protocols had a goal. 1990 levels. That's probably not enough, but it will serve as a first goal. It'd certainly give us more time. It might not be enough, and at the same time it may be too costly to implement at this time. (I'm talking about real 1990 levels including developing countries) If you have to go down to much lower levels than it becomes close to impossible to do it, at least for the next several decades. All of which suggest that while reducing burning of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions might be part of a solution it almost definitely can't be all of it, and probably can't be the majority of it. Adapting to change, sequestering CO2 underground and/or in compounds, attempts to increase the albedo of our planet slightly, attempts to increase biological absorption of CO2 (dumping iron in to certain areas of the ocean to encourage plankton growth, increased planting of trees, while fighting deforestation etc.), reducing methane emissions, and many other things could all play a role at some point. But going down to 1990 world wide levels of CO2 emissions or stopping all fossil-fueled electrical production by 2040 just isn't in the cards. 2100? Maybe a lot can happen in a century. Once petrol reaches ~$40/gallon, I figure it'll slow of its own accord. You really think that is going to happen in say the next twenty years or even by 2040 (assuming you mean 2006 dollars, not inflated dollars)?