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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (600249)	2/8/2011 6:38:56 PM
From: TopCat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570724

"And you won't be spending money you'll only save less." LOL...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (600249)	2/8/2011 7:14:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570724

You can't see any benefit to reducing CO2, Do you actually read the posts you reply to? I said the benefits of the US slashing CO2 emissions where dubious, not that I can't see that their could be benefits. Also I said they where dubious largely because other countries would increase, perhaps increase more directly because of the US decrease (as heavy industry moves to places with fewer restrictions or government imposed costs). To think the benefits would be high, you have to go beyond thinking the human emitted CO2 is a serious problem. You have to also believe that the US cutting would not cause an increase elsewhere, but would result in a net cut (at least compared to the level that otherwise would have occurred, perhaps not compared to today's level). And you have to believe that net reduction would significantly lessen the problems caused by CO2 emissions. And that's just for the gross impact. For the net impact you also have to consider the cost of reducing the impact. You can start out from the same perspective of Al Gore in terms of the risks and costs of CO2 emissions, and still reasonably think that the US shouldn't try to slash emissions. How high? Somewhere in the range of massive to totally catastrophic. It's only money In a narrow technical sense its not only money. It impacts all sorts of resources and measures of well being, not just dollar balances in accounts. In a broader sense it is "only money", but "only money" in that sense is silly. Massively decreasing wealth and increasing poverty levels is a very serious issue, not something to casually toss off with "only". but the atmosphere is essential... And the atmosphere will remain, minimally changed. The atmosphere isn't much of an issue. If you want to paint catastrophic projections from anthropogenic global warming you should spin a tale of sea level rises. Not that such rises are certain, or likely to be rapid, but moderately rapid increase isn't impossible and with the right pessimistic assumptions could possible be a very serious issue. You don't think any effects of CO2 are known? The direct physical atmospheric effects, how it operates as a greenhouse gas etc. are very well known. They are also pretty modest for the level of CO2 emissions in question. CO2 by itself will not generate enough global warming (even in the absence of some other force that might create a cooling effect) to be a very serious issue. Those who consider CO2 emissions to be a very serious problem do so because of secondary effects and perceived strongly positive feedback loops. The issue of the feedback from very slight warming caused by CO2 isn't known. The world climate is an enormously complex issue, beyond our ability to reliably predict at this time.