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: combjelly who wrote (317678)	12/27/2006 5:44:26 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576264

You have repeatedly said that the cost was too high. Since the high costs are only associated with massively decreasing CO2 emissions and not just slowing the rate of increase, you have de facto adopted that as your argument. I didn't say the costs are to high to do anything at all. So I haven't adopted "do nothing" as my argument. My argument is more like the likely costs of a massive effort to reduce CO2 emissions (reduce them at all in the short term meaning just a few years, or reduce them by a large amount in the next couple of decades) that we should mandate such a reduction absent a massive amount of evidence that we must do so in order to avoid a large disaster, and that such evidence doesn't exist at this time. But saying that we can't reduce CO2 emissions quickly, or reduce them by a massive amount in the next decade or two, doesn't mean we can't slow their growth, or control other factors related to climate change like methane emissions, or institute counter measures (including the ones you mentioned), and do more research, and try to find ways to deal with higher temperatures and possibly higher sea levels and other second order effects. That hardly amounts to doing nothing.