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: spiral3 who wrote (71148)	6/8/2008 8:26:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542563

I think that if you really felt that, you would stop posting to me. I am a naturally curious person. I like to try to make sense of of unfamiliar things. I am also very reluctant to write people off. funding research and development of low-carbon energy technologies comes in at 14. The article doesn't suggest why we might be doing the latter. Perhaps an editorial bias ? I think it's reasonable to assume that it has something to do with combating GW. No, I think it's because low-carbon energy technologies have value independent of GW. You have perhaps heard of peak oil, balance of payments, war, and asthma? If that helps with GW, more the better, but it has independent value. Perhaps the proper question question is “what are the costs of non-action”. Indeed. We need more work in that area. The problem is that the people who are interested enough in GW to put the effort into studying it can't imagine non-action as a possibility. And perhaps they don't see any advantage in knowing, particularly if the cost isn't that high. So they don't bother studying it and we don't have a clue what they are. And we can't approach the problem rationally until we know.