<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Phil et. al.<BR>
<BR>
As the world economy now gorges on the economic benefits of cheap fossil fuel sourced energy, explain how the economic markets on our planet are now figuring in all the costs of transitioning to other technologies and energy sources out to fifty years ahead, or whenever a "critical" state of fossil fuels depleted is reached, along with the environmental costs if continuing increasing rates of fossil fuel use result in global warming with flooding of all the major harbors and coastlines on the planet, which is just one cost that will be incurred if global warming continues as some climate models predict and current evidence supports, then you can insist that I don't understand "freemarket conservatism."<BR>
<BR>
Without cheap fossil fuels, the US and global economy will be in dire straits, unless there are technologies and forms of energy in abundance that can cheaply replace fossil fuels. Right now this is a pipe dream, and I do not see any rational reason to assume automatically that science and technology will save us, though there are promising developments, such as fusion:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4044895.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4044895.stm</A><BR>
<BR>
Place your bets in Vegas! I'm not sure what the odds are, though.<BR>
<BR>
If ocean levels rise sufficiently, what is the total cost of rebuilding every major harbor on Earth? And is this future potential cost being figured into the economics of out of control fossil fuel use now?<BR>
<BR>
Ask Dick Cheney. Maybe he's hoping Halliburton will get the contract.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>