By: Roman D.

Roman D. — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:38:31 +0000

Not true. There is a very clear difference between investing this much and accept deaths of 1 million people around the globe, and spending that much and cause deaths of 100 million people around the globe. In a way we reached a tipping point already. There is no doubt among scientists that the destructiveness of Katrina for example was amplified by the sea temperature two degrees above its normal levels – caused by the climate change, caused by the dirty energy production. We change our energy policies now, there will be 5 more Katrinas. We change them in 5 years, we’ll have 50 more Katrinas.
This is not an “either/or” issue. This is “the sooner the better” issue. We will eventually have to change our ways, no question about it. The difference is that if we fully get started on this thing right now, then we can take advantage of the opportunity. If we do not, somebody else will.

By: Carlos Rymer

Carlos Rymer — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:49:04 +0000

It’s been shown many times that the number should be annually if we are going to really avoid tipping points. Otherwise, it’ll be money wasted, in my opinion, because we’ll hit tipping points anyways. We’re not dealing with a curve in which the consequences are directly related to how much we spend. We are dealing with either below or above tipping points. We stay below and we’re probably safe. We go above and we get the same blow as if we did nothing or spent $100 or $1 billion dollars. Obviously the politicans don’t see it that way (which I think is reality).

Comments on: Obama’s Energy Advisor Speaks to Technology Investment

By: Roman D.

By: Carlos Rymer