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: Elmer Flugum who wrote (27228)	12/18/2009 5:48:04 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Why wait for the costs to skyrocket before we make a change Good point. But then you probably drive a much nicer vehicle than mine and fly on private jets instead of economy like I do. I am frugal in my personal spending and prefer fiscal prudence over tilting at windmills. 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)? The sun has many times as much impact on the climate as all of mankind combined. Of course resources will increase in prices as they become more scarce. While I would like to live apart from pollution, I would not like to pay for the enviro-tax necessary to enforce it. I saw recently that peak human is projected for about 2037. After that the population is expected to decline for the foreseeable future. A decline in human activity would be expected to result in a decline in resource utilization. Cap and trade allows well-heeled industries to buy their way out. The net effect is zero Cap and Tax does not result in a net zero impact. It results in government capturing a larger tax revenue which will reduce economic growth and wealth. I wonder if the government really want folks to stop smoking cigarettes and cigars and drinking alcohol. It cannot afford for people to forego vices. 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. Huge investment like Alaska, Louisiana and the railroads require government action. The second Louisiana Purchase is twelve times as expensive as the first and all we get from the second is a government takeover of the health sector. Notice that the railroad expansion and wiring the country for telephone were merely government grants of rights to private enterprises. Cap and tax is taking from private enterprises rather than granting to expand infrastructure. I find the comparison apples and rudabegas.

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (27228)	12/18/2009 11:11:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Dandy, There's no need to wait. You are welcome right now to invest in what you believe in. Plenty of people are doing just that. <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)? > Don't wait, just do it, as they say. BP and others have been investing for decades in various alternatives, to a greater or lesser extent, normally without any profit. I object: <"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." > Mqurice