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.

Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (11208)	1/8/2009 4:09:01 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

I responded to Hawkmoon's message, but if you believe that coal power electric plants are the cause of global warming, then you have to weigh whether or not the risk of global warming is more of an immediate or long term threat than nuclear accidents and/or waste. I don't believe in irrevocable environmental damage. Mother earth is one hell of a tough bitch. I think there is a certain amount of arrogance in thinking that we humans are much more than mites on the skin of mother earth. What weathering doesn't take care of in the long term, subduction zones will. The only way to NOT have some sort of longer term environmental impact is to go back to a worldwide agrarian society. It is naive to think that wind and solar power doesn't have an environmental impact. To meet world wide power needs with solar and wind, we would need to cover pretty much every inch of land with wind turbines and solar plants. Every energy source has an environmental impact. There is no such thing as a "green" energy source. So we just need to evaluate the tradeoffs and make informed decisions about what energy sources we pursue. The "informed" part of the equation is what is seriously lacking.