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 (347959)	8/22/2007 12:06:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574707

So? Your point? I said it right after that, and you quoted it in your post. Lets say the world economy is $60tril (that's in the ballpark even if it isn't exactly right). Lets say it has 5% real growth per year (I just pulled that one out of thin air, the exact amount isn't needed for the argument). If that growth is reduced to 4.5% that's $300bil in just the first year and it compounds. " In practice I imagine that it would cost more than that. " Well, Benford has a lot of experience with NASA at the planning end. I suspect he knows a whole lot more about the costs than you do. A ton of people know a whole lot more about the costs of NASA or other government programs than I do, it doesn't prevent cost overruns and increases over their best estimates from being quite common. "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." That is true. With people like you who take as a thesis it is too expensive to even think about addressing it, without any supporting evidence, we are unlikely to do it $20bil, or even $100bil for such a response, if it proves necessary and sufficient, is fine. Restructuring our economies within a decade or so in order to reduce CO2 emissions isn't (esp. when places like China and India probably will continue to increase CO2 emissions, so your not even getting the end result you want after accepting all the pain) At the least - 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 because of concerns about global warming.