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 (93)	12/11/1997 6:34:00 PM
From: nic	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 407

Some huricanes and malaria doesn't seem that grave to me compared to other world issues such as biological weapons. If you compare how many people are dying from hurricanes and malaria vs. biological weapons, you may reach a different conclusion. Insurance companies (prime advocates of fast action on global warming) obviously do. Besides, you've left out such nice prospects as desertification of a large percentage of the world's arable land, a new ice age in Europe (due to collapse of the gulf stream), and the permanent flooding of coastal areas (which harbor much of the world's population). True, those are more remote, but to the best of our knowledge our grandchildren have a good chance of seeing them happen. Would you consider moving to a warmer climate such as San Diego to help minimize this catostrophic situation that you describe? Any time! (I've in fact lived in San Diego for 7 years.) I'm afraid San Diego is too close to sea level though. OK, so I may be unusually mobile - but consider how many people would be forced to move by the catastrophic situation I described above? (And I haven't even mentioned the possibility of a 1000-foot global tsunami caused by the antarctic ice shelf sliding into the sea - oops.) OK, enough alarmist propaganda. ;-) I do not think of my proposals as "radical" at all - again, if you compare environmental stats of different countries, you realize how much is possible without much sacrifice in comfort and standard of living. I believe that the U.S. could cut CO2 emissions by as much as 20-30% without undue negative effect on its economy. It won't happen because the U.S. government is held captive by powerful lobbies - steel, coal, oil, cars, utilities, ... - nic