So what if it's not CO2 - cut it off anyway!

Today I'll take the other side of my last blog and assume that excessive release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is not the root cause of global warming. Indeed many would argue that this is a fair assumption.

I still believe that it is a good idea to be vigilant of our consumption of fossil fuels and control the amount of CO2 emission. Doing so helps us in at least two ways: reducing foreign dependence on oil and reducing health risks.

I don't live in the Middle-East and do not support being dependent on them. We've all heard the argument and know the implications - depending on others for a resource as vital as crude oil is simply a ticking time-bomb. Rather, if policies encourage the research and the use of alternatives to crude oil, not only does it decrease aggregate demand (and possibly price assuming the cartel does not also cut supply drastically), but it also reduces the emission of CO2 amongst other gases that pose a longer-term health hazard. Have you been to Los Angeles or perhaps seen the air above a major city during the day, for instance during take-off or landing on an airplane? The revolting sight of brown smog will be enough to change your mind on our love affair with burning fossil fuels.

Global Warning

Over the past several months, I've come across several articles addressing global warming. Several articles in the recent issues of The Economist and Fast Company - two of my favorites - have discussed the issue at great length. Both magazines have had articles that accept global warming as a reality and encourage policies and practices on a national as well as personal level that may help reduce carbon dioxide emission - the chief cause of global warming.

In particular, I urge you to read "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World? One. And You're Looking At It." that may be accessed here (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html).

I came across a short article by Jeremy Siegel (found here) - an economist at the University of Pennsylvania - that sheds more light at the issue and, more importantly, the consequences if global warming continues at currently projected paths. The impacts are devastating to say the least:

The seas could be 10 feet higher in a mere 60 years. Of the five largest cities in the United States (New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia), only Chicago and... Philadelphia would not be seriously impacted.... And goodbye to New Orleans and trillions of dollars of real estate that lines our coasts. The economic consequences of rising waters would be catastrophic.

(Note: Kansas will not be affected!)

Solving global warming, on the other hand, is no easy feat. But, we've got to start somewhere and the relatively small cost to avoid complete destruction is worth it - call it cost/benefit or risk/reward analysis or whatever else.

Naturally, then, I've come to believe that this is a serious issue and a solution lies in our everyday actions.

Where am I?

Most of you know this by now: I'm engaged! Hence, I'm occupied for now, but will return here later!

By the way, if you own ANN - I feel your pain!

Oops, I goofed!

Well, I was off on my ANN analysis. The stock tanked after my posting. Actually, what happened was that it failed to breakthrough and as I had cautioned the RSI was getting into overbought territory. The kicker was the weak retail sales that came in from several chains. That, my friends, is the market for you - a roller coaster ride!