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: Joe NYC who wrote (538029)	12/22/2009 1:16:27 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576364

Explain to me what you mean by wealth transfer. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised the United States will help raise $100 billion annually by 2020 to assist poor countries in coping with climate change We will have spent $1 trillion in Iraq by the time we have finished. Why did you never complain about this much larger wealth transfer? If conservatives are going to complain and judge all the time, you all need to be consistent. If what you call wealth transfer is unsatisfactory under Obama, then you needed to have complained about it under Bush. Otherwise, your complaints do not sound credible. That's all I want......people who can afford gas guzzling SUVs can afford to pay more taxes. Use those taxes to develop rail and encourage the development of eco friendly industries. That's the part I am hesitant about - a judgemental government inserting itself into things it should stay out of, micromanaging. Nothing micro managing about it at all. It allows people free will. If they want a gas guzzler, they will have to pay for it. And by charging them more for their gas guzzler, the gov't is benefiting the nation as a whole.......less pollution, less importation of oil, new technology, etc. Uh.....what are you talking about Joe? Are you getting Obama confused with Bush? No, Obama appointed complete idiots into EPA who declared CO2 to b a pollutant. So Obama put people there who are below 5th grade level of science education. Joe, if we can't agree on this basic concept, then there is no point for further discussion. I believe the bulk of the scientists when they say CO2 is a greenhouse gas. From the WSJ: "According to the bulk of scientific research, such as that assembled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, the more heat is trapped. That leads to rising temperatures. The EPA endorsed the IPCC research and specifically said that "natural variations" in climate, such as solar activity, couldn't explain rising temperatures. The EPA lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases -- methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single class for regulatory purposes. That's because they share similar properties: All are long-lived and well-mixed in the atmosphere; all trap heat that otherwise would leave the earth and go into outer space; and all are "directly emitted as greenhouse gases" rather than forming later in the atmosphere. Alternatively, tropospheric ozone wasn't included in the class, even though it creates smog and contributes to global warming. But that gas isn't emitted directly; rather, it is created in the atmosphere when sunlight reacts with greenhouse gases emitted by human activity such as engine combustion and industrial processes. Similarly, the EPA declined to consider regulating water vapor or soot, also known as "black carbon," both of which are big contributors to the greenhouse effect but which don't share common properties with the six greenhouse gases. The EPA did acknowledge some positive impacts from higher CO2 concentrations. One is faster-growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation. Another is marshes that can more quickly grow above rising sea levels, providing an insurance policy of sorts for some low-lying areas against the potential ravages of rising sea levels resulting from warmer global temperatures. The EPA also acknowledged some positive aspects of rising temperatures, but concluded that on balance, the negative impacts of climate change outweigh the positive." online.wsj.com