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: d[-_-]b who wrote (373128)	3/8/2008 1:25:17 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575246

That's the problem - you take fuels off the table before another is ready economically and worse you remove the option to explore in our own backyard. Drilling ANWAR, off shore, coal etc are something we have right now in abundance - any dollar spent on this is money diverted from the middle east and into our own pockets. Yet you use GW as the primary argument against using our resources - all while we continue to buy the same carbon from someone else - crazy. You think too small... Al

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (373128)	3/8/2008 1:53:02 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575246

Eric, > That's the problem - you take fuels off the table before another is ready economically and worse you remove the option to explore in our own backyard. Great point, but guys like Alghieri will never get it. He places himself in a position that can both solve global warming and achieve renewable energy and energy independence. The idealistic "win-win" scenario, which we can achieve if we simply try, both with government money and venture capital. You and I are both arguing that the whole GW issue is a hinderance, a waste of time, money, and effort. That's a concept Al couldn't get a handle on, even when he tried: Message 24380950 Unfortunately, this sort of mentality is all too common across the globe. I guess the only way to deal with it is to focus on the common ground, i.e. the "win-win" scenario mentioned earlier. Not to mention advocating conservation, since we as Americans can stand to conserve more. It's crazy to see almost every car at the local elementary school be either an SUV or a minivan. Is that really necessary for a strong economy? Tenchusatsu

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (373128)	3/8/2008 6:06:13 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575246

The legislation calls for miles-traveled reductions of 18 percent by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050. The bill doesn't say specifically how that would be achieved, but calls for state agencies and local governments to bring strategies back to lawmakers. This is bad....why?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (373128)	3/8/2008 8:30:06 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575246

That's the problem - you take fuels off the table before another is ready economically and worse you remove the option to explore in our own backyard. Drilling ANWAR, off shore, coal... What is being taken off the table? ANWAR would not produce any oil for 10 years at best. We could make up today for what ANWAR would produce through simpler methods of conservation that would not affect your lifestyle on little bit. 55% of all electricity is produced by coal in the US...off shore drilling is opposed selectively by states, who don't want drilling in sensitive waters or near shore. Think Jeb Bush (a non liberal) threatening to sue W's government over drilling rights in his state.... My issue - this should be a US policy to promote alternatives - it is - The fed government tax credits for a full house photovoltaic system is lame...near nothing compared to the cost of a 5KW system. As a result, mass adoption is slow, capacity hindered, and the benefits of mass production on adoption costs not realized. Where I live (a red state) the laws are equally inept at incenting its citizens. GW or not, this is a matter of national security. Al