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 (347992)	8/22/2007 2:23:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574798

Right. But why the decrease? Because most of our economy is based directly or indirectly on activities that release CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases. Changing that is going to be a massive disruption. I was being generous assuming that a quick change around would only cost us 10% of the additional wealth generated by current economic growth per year. Push really hard and fast and it would likely lead to negative growth. Ok. Say it has has a 500% over run. Does that really affect the bottom line? Not in terms of it being a more efficient solution that something like slashing CO2 emissions in a decade. If its sufficient, and it or action with a similar or greater effect is necessary, than it might be a good idea. "Restructuring our economies within a decade or so in order to reduce CO2 emissions isn't" And nobody but those opposed to doing anything have proposed that. What exactly are your proposing? Some people have proposed slashing CO2 output within a generation or even within a decade. That does amount to restructuring, or just shrinking, our economy. If your proposing something else I'd like to here it. Well you did mention the lens idea, but I'm not sure how much you are behind it, or if you have any other ideas that you think that maybe we should do.