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 (347999)	8/22/2007 2:41:29 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

re: 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. Why?

To: TimF who wrote (347999)	8/22/2007 2:47:53 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

" Because most of our economy is based directly or indirectly on activities that release CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases." Yes. "Changing that is going to be a massive disruption." No. Much of the activities you mention are electric generation. There are a lot of alternatives that either don't emit CO2 or are carbon neutral. And they can be done without massive disruptions. "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." No you aren't. You are making unwarranted assumptions. " Not in terms of it being a more efficient solution that something like slashing CO2 emissions in a decade." Again, your assumptions are flawed. A lens such as described, would give time to implement a smooth transition. So, even if a decade were the critical time, and that isn't a universally accepted figure by any means, it would give some breathing room. So to speak. "Some people have proposed slashing CO2 output within a generation or even within a decade. " Yes. Some. Not most. Not all. Interesting that you pick the shortest period, pick some worst cases as to costs, and then announce that the costs are too high. That is cherry picking. "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." The lens idea is one. Heck, it is worth doing even if we weren't facing global warming. Make it adjustable, and with a fresnel lens that is easy, and it would be handy to fine tune global climate, possibly relieving droughts and other things. Going carbon neutral with biofuels, nuclear power, investing in a Moon base for solar power satellites and He3 recovery for fusion, etc.

To: TimF who wrote (347999)	10/2/2007 4:45:07 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

Tim, 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. Approx half of the energy consumption is for electricity generation. Changing that (to nuclear or solar) will not cause any disruption to end users. Prices may be higher, but energy prices have been rising with rising cost of fosil fuels anyway, and are only going to continue to increase. OTOH, nuclear and solar, while having high upstart cost, the fuel is free or virtually free. Not subject to increases that are inevitable with fosil fuels. Transportation (another major component) is trickier. Messing with that excessively may cause massive disruption - if done prematurely, before alternative energy sources are perfected (cheap electricity + batteries, hydrogen storage, fuel cells etc). What exactly are your proposing? Some people have proposed slashing CO2 output within a generation or even within a decade. Doing it within a generation is feasible. France has done it. While the environmentalist and other anti-nuclear alarmists left us with current double CO2 production (vs. going virtually all nuclear as France has done), the difference is a generation, or 30 years. Enviros never stopped France, and now France is up to 78% nuclear. The US is stuck at less than 20%. I don't see it as disruptive to repeat what France has done, especially with benefit of extra 30 years of research, and with rising prices of fossil fuels. If 50% of all CO2 emissions are from power generation and it can increase from 20% to say 80%, that's more than 33% overall reduction of in CO2 emissions, just from shifting electricity generation to nuclear, not even touching other things such as transportation. Much shorter term goals, such as 10 years are more dangerous to the economy, because the economy is like a super-tanker. It can't turn on a dime, and if you try to make it so, it can result hasty radical measures, that will likely prove destabilizing. Joe