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: TigerPaw who wrote (295687)	7/19/2006 12:26:46 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572208

"We could burn less fossil fuel." Much of the world's power is generated by coal. That isn't going to change. Coal is too abundant. Burning of hydrocarbons in general isn't going to change because it is a convenient way to handle energy. If they can economically regenerate sodium borohydride with hydrogen, that might change. But until then, it won't. Sure, we could burn less. But the reality is that people are not going to radically change their lifestyles. With proper incentives, more fuel efficient automobiles might be doable. But that isn't going to greatly impact the accumulation of CO2. In the case of the developing world, they aren't going to cripple their growth prospects by cutting back on their coal use. "but it doesn't really help the underlying problem if carbon is just recycled faster back into the air. " Sure it does. Currently, it isn't being recycled, since most of it comes from fossil sources. So more is being added to the system. Natural sinks like carbonate formation in the oceans and carbon sequestering in bogs just can't keep up. If we could be carbon neutral, then those mechanisms would result in a slow decrease in atmospheric CO2. Granted, going carbon neutral won't happen quickly, but it is a start.