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: nic who wrote (72)	11/28/1997 1:01:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 407

>>No, and the reason it's not happening is that the developing nations have the audacity to want our financial help to make it happen. After all, the industrial nations have wrecked the global ecology in the process of getting where they are today, so now the developing nations are in effect asking "why should we be denied the same opportunity to get rich the quick & dirty way?"<< What's wrong with giving financial help in this regard? Why should our answer be to go ahead and get rich "the quick and dirty way"? It is much easier to nip a problem in the bud than to change an entire infrastructure. There is still conflicting evidence on the CO2 issue. I do not think that radical solutions are in order at this point in time.

To: nic who wrote (72)	11/28/1997 1:19:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 407

You seam to be proposing that an undeveloped nation create an infrastructure based on unsound environmental concepts with the reasoning that it is OK because someone else did it and destroyed the environment. At what point in time will you then step in and say OOPS, you guys are creating a problem with your COX emmisions and we want you to change the infrastructure that we just helped you create?

To: nic who wrote (72)	11/28/1997 4:37:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 407

I see several dangers arising from the climate control meeting 1. Nation vs Nation as they maneuver to maintain their competitive position. 2. It is unenforceable. One nation will say that they have reduced their CO2 by 90 percent even though they may not have reduced it at all. They will argue that they have removed CO2 so they are entitled to put it back. The next nation will argue that they have set aside land to grow something that they did not grow before and are hence removing CO2 and are entitled to replace the CO2 that they removed. One nation will indicate that the US eats too much meat and we have more cows than we normally would have if we ate the proper amount of meat (as determined by an international group of dietitians) and that subsidies should therefor be cut. Another nation will argue that subsidies for soybeans should be cut back as they may contribute to global warming but it is not certain yet as the methane production from this source has not yet been measured, but that it is better to be safe than sorry. ( are dairy cows included and do we exclude religious cows?) 3. The scientific community will lose credibility (has already) as they band together and mislead the general public. The 90 percent reduction in net CO2 emissions is interpreted by any lay person as a 90 percent reduction in emissions. This is in my opinion clearly lends itself to misinterpretation and should not be endorsed by the scientific community. What other lies are told in the name of the environment? 4. How does one account the nuclear reductions in CO2. If one nation chooses to minimize nuclear power as they see potential harm from this source of power to be a greater danger than a potential danger from CO2 emissions what is the allowed credit? 5. There is time to study the issue. The capabilities of the scientific community are expanding rapidly with better satellite and earth based computer technologies.