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 (24860)	6/23/2009 7:38:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 36917

Wharfie, I was opposing bioethanol as a transport fuel in 1987 [though BP Oil was doing research flat out on it]. A friend [Pete Kerns] worked for DuPont [I think it was them but now I'm not sure] and he reckoned I had it all wrong and ethanol was going to be great. I claimed it would ONLY work economically if governments robbed taxpayers to pay him to produce it. It was a taxpayer swindle then and it still is. That was long before the ethical issue of increasing food prices causing starvation. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24860)	6/24/2009 11:44:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Wharfie, this will test your attention span. If you are too impatient, skip to the end where it discusses the cap and trade CO2 emissions scam which is being developed to "save the world". Environmentalists are going to be played for fools for $trillions. zerohedge.blogspot.com Back in 1985, I solved the problem of CO2 emissions if it did actually turn out to be a problem = a very simple carbon tax with countervailing cuts in income taxes and other taxes. Environmentalists love their cap and trade blather because they hope to get a piece of the action. Al Gore is positioned to make a vast fortune. He would think, "Well, after the decades of work, it might as well be me who makes the money, after all, somebody has to and it's in a world-saving cause." His "thinking" is not much different from that of any other priesthood boss who collects tithes from the gullible in exchange for being "saved" with the actual saving to be done after they are nice and dead and not able to demand a refund. That must be why he looks so much like a wild-eyed Bible-bashing ecoPriest. He knows how to sell the fear with him as the saviour. The gullible will not be saved, but they will pay, yet again, as they did in all those other scams described in that Rolling Stone article. There isn't a problem with CO2. If there is, paying Al Gore and Goldman Sachs a mountain of money will not save you. Mqurice