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 (347937)	8/22/2007 10:58:03 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574262

A hard upper bound is about $20 billion. Nonsense. $20bil is a rounding error in the world economy. Anything that has world wide economic effects (and reducing CO2 emissions or even restricting future growth of such emissions would) could cause a lot more damage than that without us even being able to notice and measure the effect. A hard upper bound is about $20 billion. For that we could put a giant fresnel lens in orbit to attenuate sun light enough to counter-act any warming. And it is perfectly feasible. In practice I imagine that it would cost more than that. More importantly the fact that we could do that as a response to global warming doesn't mean we will, or that if we do it will be the only response. If it was a simple "spend $20bil on a giant lens and you can 'cure' global warming", that would be an argument against making a major effort to reduce CO2 emissions.