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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (22230)	6/21/2017 10:20:57 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355700

"Money spent on fighting global warming is money not available to be spent on something else." Money spent fighting the effects of global warming is also money which can't be spent elsewhere. This Chart Shows Why Insurers Are Climate-Change Believers California's drought is over, but we're still toting up the costs Californians’ electricity costs jumped by a combined $2.45 billion from 2012 to 2016 because of severe shortages of cheap hydroelectricity, according to an estimate released Wednesday by the Pacific Institute, an Oakland water policy think tank. The impact on bills wasn’t enormous in the scheme of things: Last year alone Californians spent almost $39 billion on electricity, according to federal data. = Drought costs California agriculture $1.84B and 10,100 jobs in 2015 Economic Analysis of the 2016 California Drought for Agriculture

To: Lane3 who wrote (22230)	6/24/2017 7:17:11 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 355700

I am sorry. The idea that it would be so expensive to make the steps to combat climate change that the global economy would be irreparably harmed is fear-mongering. No one but climate change deniers are proposing spending anything like that kind of money. As to your points, those are valid considerations. However, we rarely make those sort of analyses on anything else. We have spent more money in the Middle East to secure oil supplies since the Arab Embargo in the 1970s than we would have spent subsidizing alternatives and becoming energy independent. Which would have resulted in a much smaller carbon footprint to boot. But we spent the money to prop up despots in the ME and then spent even more going to war against them. Where was the cost analysis there?