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: TimF who wrote (315494)	12/13/2006 8:52:09 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583396

"or even if its necessary to greatly reduce the human contribution to climate change." Think of it in terms of Pascal's Wager. To err on the side of caution has a cost. But to do nothing has a potential cost, one that can go arbitrarily high, i.e. extinction.

To: TimF who wrote (315494)	12/13/2006 9:44:46 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583396

re: Massively expensive: "It properly fits the expense of rapidly reducing CO2 production." When you are talking about renewable energy, you are talking about investment, not just expense. There is an amortized return on solar, wind and efficient vehicle investment. You have to look at the "free" energy after you make the initial investment, and the lowering of costs of the technology. Also the ROI from new industries; the jobs, the wealth creation. On the other hnd, oil is only getting more expensive to find, produce and refine. re: Massively expensive: It might fit the costs of global warming, but its hard to know what they are. If GW isn't a cycle, but a trend, it's not hard to figure that the "costs" to mankind will be huge. But like I said, the economic and political benefits are more than worth the effort, without the GW issue.