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: NOW who wrote (66437)	7/19/2006 10:17:37 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

oops -- one more post peak oil wasn't the question -- it was global warming -- anyway, even if we could cap CO2 levels at current values -- it might be a hundred years again before we saw improvement [that is leveling of temps, if the thesis is correct, and there is no unforseen natural feedback mechanisms which moderates the temps] but re market incentives and market failure and CO2 mitigation -- if someone comes forth with something that really works for power plants w/little to no reduction in capacity -- they will make money whether there is regulation or not, because there would be early adopters if the price weren't prohibitive given the "consensus" and where things are going worldwide. But it is a difficult problem in the same vein as peak oil -- no quick fix -- market incentives won't change that. And peak oil feeds into it -- since as oil and nat gas become more expensive, coal will be utilized more and not less, of economic necessity. I think a lot of the real important progress will be on the energy use side -- reducing energy consumption per capita. It's not as sexy and doesn't get the press that things like fuel cells do ...