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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3227)	11/30/2008 12:33:27 PM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86352

Well said!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3227)	11/30/2008 1:17:21 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86352

"Bob, but you use the same scare tactics? You have made statements in the past that a move to non-fossil fuels will cripple our economy. That is a statement of opinion intended to scare people into immobility. " I absolutely defy you to show me that. I defy you! What I have said repeatedly is to build all of the solar and wind systems you want - but don't stop traditional sources until it is seen what can or cannot be done. What is happening now is that coal plants are being cancelled out of fear of coming legislation. What I have said is that wasting billions on a maybe is ludicrous in the face of clearly defined needs for health care and education etc. And is it a scare tactic to say this is nuts? Yes - this would wreck the economy. Is that a scare tactic? "Obama leads on Climate Emergency: 1990 levels by 2020, then 80% MORE off by 2050 gpolya.newsvine.com "will start with a federal cap-and-trade system ...We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050."

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3227)	12/2/2008 3:41:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

Old industries die, it is true, but the new replacement industries are typically more efficient, effective, and larger than the old industries and create more prosperity. If the new industry is in response to, and grows in response to real market demand yes. If its an attempt at new industry for mostly political reasons, then not so much. Not that it never happens, but their is a long record of past failures at attempts to replace oil for political reasons. It can, for most purposes be done, but in most cases not cost effectively. Which isn't to say that it can never be cost effective, but subsidies and other political interventions distort the signals we would rely on to determine if there was real cost effectiveness. History shows us that if we really try an all out effect, using government force or distorted incentives, to remake major industries, including the energy industry, for political reasons, the likely outcome is lower overall prosperity.