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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (454784)	2/7/2009 1:17:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573505

Al, > How can it be bad to reduce harmful emissions? How can it be bad to seek more advanced solutions to human need than to burn fossils? I'm looking for more specific proposals to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. You're just giving me the same platitudes SilentZ is giving me. One stupid idea is the notion that CO2 emissions are directly proportional to harmful emissions like smog, carbon monoxide, and ground-level ozone. Take a look at how bad the air is in China and India, even Mexico City, yet America is still cited as the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases. Hence when Kyoto demands that America reduce its CO2 emissions, yet gives China and India a pass, I have to call B.S. Or when someone proposes that we trade "carbon credits" or sell "indulgences" to rich Hollywood fat cats, I have to call B.S. If you want to talk about cool new technologies to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, I'm more than willing to oblige. You know, stuff like the GM Volt, or what CERN in Geneva is doing, etc. But equating that with the fight against "climate change" is a waste of time. Tenchusatsu