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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (66336)	7/18/2006 7:28:25 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Let's take as a given the thesis -- which I grant you appears to be widely accepted by the scientists that are in the public eye -- let's go further and accept that global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 specifically. If a 1 degree Celsius rise took 100 years to generate and we are on a curve of increasing slope. >>so we can do something about it if we decide.<< Why do you think the above is even possible?? I mean ... the kind of reductions possible won't even take us back to production levels of the 80's. People in the states aren't going without electrcity -- coal will be producing more than 50% of our electricity needs in 10 years. That's reality -- anything else is a bunch of baloney. There are no replacements. It's not a question of things being just a tad more expensive; the technology does not exist to replace the gen or sequester the CO2 -- there are limitations and they are serious. Even the most serious crazy people talk only about slowing the growth. Truly crazy people talk about going back to levels of production see in the 70's and 80's. If consensus is correct [I'm not conceding that it is] -- nothing can be done that will have an effect, until maybe another 100 years.