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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (36153)	12/5/2012 10:30:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

FUBHO, I would agree, if it were not for the economic consequences that will make it increasingly difficult to emerge out of this recession. The last thing an economy needs is higher costs to deal with "externalities", especially if based upon imcomplete, if not dubious, science. We need cheaper, more plentiful, energy, no matter what the source. We need to bring down the cost of production, including commodities, so that manufacturing profit can grow through productivity. We also need to restore our fisheries, which is why I'm so interested in Iron Fertilization.. It's also why I am becoming a strong believer in Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.. Since the AGW argument has such a dramatic impact on public policy, and the actual/potential mis-allocation of 100's of Billions (if not Trillions) of dollars because of Carbon Trading schemes, Cap and Trade.. etc, it's very important to discern it the scientific assertions are valid. And if they are, are there alternative means of mitigating any GW effects? So yea.. I know the ongoing debate about AGW seems out of place on this thread, but it's actually fundamental to how the "Politics of Energy" are being formulated. Hawk