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: Peter Dierks who wrote (27048)	12/18/2009 2:42:34 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

"I don't know anyone who objects to investing in renewable energy. Investing in higher cost sources always happens on its own as supplies of low cost resources become less available." Why wait for the costs to skyrocket before we make a change towards other sources? That assumes that oil, gas, and nuclear will be terribly more expensive in the future and their use will create pollution (and perhaps climate change)? "I would not support denuding the planet of resources, but the proposals for cap and tax don't achieve a switch over either. Actually as costs skyrocket due to a new tax regime the pressure to utilize lower cost (petrochemicals) alternatives is intensified." Cap and trade allows well-heeled industries to buy their way out. The net effect is zero, I agree. There was a proposal in either the WSJ or the NY Times the other day that addressed this question. I will try to re-locate it and post it. Here it is: Cap and Fade nytimes.com "Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate. If every polluter’s emissions fell below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would disappear." [snip] "Once government starts taxing it becomes an essential revenue source. Before long they would tax the renewables just as heavily" Amen to that. I wonder if the government really want flks to stop smoking cigarettes and cigars and drinking alcohol. "I certainly am on the side of conservation and fiscal conservatism." Same here. What I think of when I say conservation and fiscal conservatism is a progressive advance to get beyond the present energy profile...even if the impetus is based on false premises such as "climate change". "Do you mean to imply that I am not? Or was it a rhetorical question about Climate Alarm skeptics in general?" A comment on Climate Alarm skeptics in general. What did American's think of Seward's proposal to buy Alaska? Where would the internet and computer technology be without the funding of DARPA? I am thinking we can only know if we "did good" after the huge investment of time, money and intellectual assets. len