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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (59583)	4/16/2008 2:18:29 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542786

Lane3; You're comparing an apple with a train load of apples Huh? One is part of the solution to the other. Before any solution to a problem gets under way, the problem needs to be identified. That has been accomplished by all except a few fanatics who are still pretending that the glaciers are not melting. So now that we have identified a problem, lets find the best solution. The best solution has input from all sides including big business. No one is interested in just throwing money at it, but why not work towards a solution? steve

To: Lane3 who wrote (59583)	4/16/2008 2:51:59 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542786

>>Al Gore: "Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making." No one has added up the cost or even assessed the feasibility. But it's intuitively obvious that you may not be able to cure in ten years such a catastrophic problem at let alone without catastrophic crippling of the economy and much else.<< Karen - I think you may be parsing Gore's statement incorrectly. He is not saying that the catastrophe will occur in ten years if we don't act. He's saying that if we don't act within that time, the catastrophe will become inevitable. Obviously, there's a big difference. And I don't think anybody should take the "ten years" as anything other than a very rough estimate. Your questions about what it is feasible to do within that time frame are still valid, of course. But even if we can't fix the whole problem in ten years, perhaps we could make a start and buy ourselves a little time. For example, why would we not want to increase our electrical generating capacity using solar thermal, which uses existing technology that is inexpensive and reliable? Since it takes less time to build solar thermal plants than nuclear or even coal plants, doesn't it make sense to invest in them? It seems as if we could do that without harming businesses or eliminating jobs. - Allen