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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (26068)	12/1/2009 10:23:08 AM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Arctic ice melt could raise sea levels faster than predicted Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 \| 3:10 am Canwest News Service Sea levels could rise more than twice as fast as previously predicted due to melting ice caps around the South Pole, according to the most comprehensive study into how climate change is affecting the Antarctic. Earlier research underestimated the impact, partly because a cooling in the region due to a hole in the ozone layer had so far offset global warming. However, that effect will soon end, according to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, which found ice was already melting in the West Antarctic. By the end of the century water flowing into the oceans from Antarctica, Greenland and land glaciers such as the Himalayas will cause a sea-level rise of more than 1.4 metres. This is well above the most widely accepted estimate of 59 centimetres. If temperatures continue to increase in the next 200 to 500 years, sea levels could rise by as much as six metres as more of Antarctica melts, the study indicated. In Britain, the low-lying east coast, from Lincolnshire to the Thames estuary, will be affected and "storm surges," which cause flooding around the coast and large rivers, will have a much greater impact. Dr. Colin Summerhayes, from the committee, said cities such as London, San Francisco and New York could be affected, although they should be able to build defences. He said developing countries, where millions of people live in low-lying areas, were more likely to suffer. "Anybody living in coastal cities needs to be slightly worried by projections of one metre or more," he said. The previous study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not include Antarctica because scientists believed it was impossible to measure melting ice in the region. However, data from satellites and ice-core studies allowed scientists to model the effects of warming on the Antarctic. A key part of the study was the impact of the hole in the ozone layer. Prof. John Turner, of the British Antarctic Survey, said the hole, which caused a change in wind patterns, had only temporarily protected Antarctica from warming. Rules outlawing the chemicals that damaged the ozone meant the hole should "heal" and temperatures were likely to rise, he said. – - -

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (26068)	12/1/2009 11:11:17 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Other than in fraudulent and criminal activities, I'm unaware of companies needing to be adjusted back to responsibility. <It's a fine line and balancing act in America between creating an atmosphere in which corporations flourish and also one in which they behave responsibly. Sometimes the balance gets out of kilter and we have to readjust it. > It is currently fashionable to say that financial institutions were irresponsible and need more regulations and government departments to supervise them, but Alan Greenspan KBE was right that shareholders are the people to ensure that their company is not losing their money by taking on a lot of risk without compensating reward. He made a tongue in cheek admission that he was wrong to think that shareholders would look after their own interests. People don't read or think so they are under the mistaken impression that he said he got it all wrong and thereby caused the current financial catastrophe. A greater mistake is the one people make in thinking democracy results in people acting in a sensible way. Alan Greenspan was far more correct than are democracy promoters. Democracy is a process of voting to take money from other people for one's own gain and to boss other people around. Alan Greenspan's idea was that shareholders would vote to look after their own money which is a far more reasonable proposition. Will we see a revolution away from democracy now that the mistake of assuming self-interest will make things better has been exposed as false? Of course not. People like to say how ridiculous Greenspan was but then they themselves believe a far more ridiculous idea and vote accordingly. His idea was reasonable and generally correct. Those irresponsible shareholders who ruin their companies have themselves to blame. It's odd that the electorate votes to transfer money from taxpayers to the money-losing bank shareholders and to creditors of the bankrupt banks. When looking around for irresponsibility, I see it by the mega$billion and now the $trillion and even $quadrillion in governments. Governments are where you'll find wall to wall irresponsibility. Businesses have no choice but to be responsible, or they'll go broke. Do you have a few examples of what you mean? Of course environmental laws are required to protect the commons and allocate scarce resources to avoid tragedy of the commons situations, but that's a given. I suppose you mean in CO2 emissions since this is the environmental department. Without adjustment to an acceptable level of CO2 output, companies will of course produce all the CO2 into the atmosphere that they like. Same for CFCs and sulphur oxides. They required regulation. CO2 might do but so far the amount is a good thing, not a bad thing. Perhaps in 50 years, CO2 levels will be getting too high, but 500 ppm seems reasonable given historical levels. Mqurice