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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (27800)	4/17/2008 11:03:52 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share. Is there any there there? If it looks like double speak, it sounds like double speak, it must be double speak. The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring that our economy can continue to prosper and grow. The wrong way is to adopt policies that would sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families, and the cost of energy for American businesses. The right way is to adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the long term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term. The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our Nation's huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air. The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad – which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement. The wrong way is to threaten punitive tariffs and protectionist barriers, start a carbon-based global trade war, and stifle the diffusion of new technologies. The right way is to work to make advanced technology affordable and available in the developing world, by lowering trade barriers, creating a global free market for clean energy technologies, and enhancing international cooperation and technology investment. I have noticed that when our church hires a new rector the old one suddenly changes the presentation at the end of their term. Interestingly the new rector always seems to do things the same way. Maybe it is the old rector looking for a legacy?