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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (22446)	7/24/2008 1:45:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Anyway, mining, cooking, and spreading the limestone seems a lot of work and not something I'd invest in with my money. Tree growing there might be interesting though, especially if Greenhouse Effect doomsters want to give me loads of money to do it. Aquaculture might be worthwhile too - huge sea farms soaking up mega billions of tons of CO2. People like eating fish, which would be the main profitable line. But there is only a certain number of fish a person can eat and it's not much compared with how much fuel they burn. But all that can be worried about in 50 years or so if there really is some kind of problem with CO2. Or maybe 2100 will be soon enough to reconsider the matter. There are enough actual problems today, without solving imaginary problems and unfortunately making worse problems [starvation for example] by burning crops instead of eating them. Perhaps millions of starving people would be worth it if that saved the world, but it seems that even a few Polynesians won't be affected any time soon. So the millions are going hungry for no purpose other than Al Gore and acolytes feeling good about themselves. I don't see how they feel good about starving people, but the means justifies the ends I suppose. Mqurice