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.

Technology Stocks : FCL - FuelCell Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (60)	11/25/1997 2:12:00 AM
From: A.J. Mullen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 407

I am glad you agree the production of pollutants should be part of the decision as to whether a given source of fuel succeeds or fails. Until very recently that was not the case: pollution was a cost shared by all, regardless whether they had a share in the benefits created with the pollution. Let the market decide, but not by neglecting to allocate costs of pollution. CO2 has risen at an unprecedented rate since the industrial revolution, and in last fifty years there has been a dramatic increase in global temperature. Temporal connection doesn't equal causation, that's why many scientists will not state unequivocally that CO2 has caused the increase. Most scientists will not state anything unequivocally. (Note, I say most!) To explain my previous analogy: temperatures are increasing - the truck is going downhill we cannot directly cool the earth - the truck has no brakes we know increased CO2 warms - the gas pedal accelerates Substitute a car for a truck if you like. Would you not consider taking your foot of the gas pedal? It might not be the sole cause of your problem, but it doesn't help it. Just what costs we should ascribe to CO2 is a very difficult problem. Whatever we do, or don't do, is a gamble. Few scientists will say that projected levels of CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Such an event would be almost unbelievably costly. It is worth incurring some costs to reduce the likelihood of that - even if the probability is already remote. Costs associated with a non-runaway increase in temperature could be huge: increased hurricanes, rise in sea-level, malaria in the US and Europe. And, yes, they might be quite manageable. As I said, it's difficult. The suggestion that global warming is a political issue is quite new. Mrs Thatcher, a trained chemist, was very concerned about the issue, but, to the Heritage Foundation, she's probably a bit of a pinko. But I digress. Let me reiterate that I think that moving from large centralised coal and oil-fired power stations to ERC's fuel cells might reduce the increase in CO2 that those power stations might otherwise have caused.