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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (168303)	2/9/2021 6:28:03 AM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By jazzlover2 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219713

"too few think about next generation the ecological state of the globe and the disappearance of so many species due to human self serving activities and quick profits all within the laws written by humans that are so deficient and not enforced properly if at all"... I agree with the element of "too few think"... But I would include in "too few" those who think they solve problems by imposing ill considered controls on ...the next generation, the ecological state of the globe, the disappearance of so many species due to human self serving activities... Reality is... modern environmentalists are not smarter... or better for the environment... than were the miners from a hundred years ago... who just didn't know any better. Mining is such a great example: In the American west, when mining started, there wasn't much awareness of the problems it might cause long into the future... which was true elsewhere too. So, in their modern zeal to punish miners... for being miners... environmentalists in the U.S. have imposed onerous requirements on mining... the primary impact of which is to prevent the problems of the past being resolved today... while they'd rather think miners today are no different in understanding than they were a hundred years ago... just so they can hate on them. Reality is... environmentalists today are the problem... that prevent fixing the problem. Take one example... at Mountain Pass, in California... where we used to mine all of the world's REE. They shut that mine down... and pretended it was a "win" for the environment. In result... there are now many more REE mines all over the world... many operating in places where there is still no interest at all in protecting the environment ? So, all they did was transfer a problem that was easily controllable... removing it to places where MORE of the planet is being despoiled... with far LESS control, and a lot less interest in caring about it ? Nimbyism isn't a solution... but only amplifies the problem. Those who think the solution is found in imposing "control" over others... almost always make things worse... "solving the problem"... by making things worse. Today, in many places, its almost impossible to get an approval to resume mining in old pre-existing mine sites... so a lot of super fund sites sit there continuing to be a real problem... with no one doing anything about them over the last 50 years... because the only really viable source of revenue to fix the problem... would come from operating the mine, again... and doing it better now than was done in the past ? But those who might be willing to do that... can't... because they'd be made liable for the past issues... that had nothing to do with them ? That's not admirable because "mean well" in wanting to do good... while thinking imposing control does that... when its just blindly stupid. Same thing in terms of nuclear power... Environmentalist zealots interfere with the installation of new plants by imposing onerous requirements... intended to prevent the building of new plants... but succeed only in preventing the upgrading of older technologies to newer/safer designs... thus imposing greater costs and much larger risks on everyone... by preserving the riskiest old plants... long past the point where anyone thinks having them around is a good idea... but preventing new ones means forcing the acceptance of the continued use of antique designs ? Just stupid. I'm not ever an advocate for "no regulation"... but I am advocating that regulation should be smart, useful and help to solve problems... enabling success... and not stupidly create new or preserve old problems...