Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB2CB2A.9CA232EB@kinez.net>...
> st3ph3nm wrote:
> >
> > Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> > > st3ph3nm wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > I wasn't assigning cause and effect.
>
> Excuse me, but you clearly were - in your original statement ("If you
> want to maintain your strong economy, it [striving for clean air and
> clean water] makes sense, too. There is a strong correlation between
> fresh water supplies and strength of the economy, worldwide") you were
> clearly implying that keeping clean air and water leads to a good
> economy - read the first sentence of yours in that quote.

Good call, you're right.

> I'm not
> saying I disagree. I'm simply saying that one doesn't necessarily
> *cause* the other - there may be common factors - for example: Mexico's
> economy is bad and Mexico's water is bad. I doubt if Mexico has a poor
> economy because the water is bad. Both may be bad due to corruption and
> an economical bootstrapping problem (proverbial cycle of poverty sapping
> individual initiative, etc.), but if Mexico did nothing but clean up its
> water, I doubt that that would turn its economy around.

True. Very good points. Having said that, I don't think that a
country like Mexico will *ever* be able to support a US size economy,
because there isn't enough fresh water available there to do so. Look
at Australia - similar size geographically to the US, but with much
less fresh water reserves. Quality isn't the issue so much here -
sheer volume is. We'll never be able to support either the industry
or population to drive it that the US can. Our entire Nation's GDP is
comparable to California's...

So, if you've got it, you'll probably want to maintain it.
>
Cheers,
Steve

 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QVSsb.155268$ZH4.7213@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:bp0s5a0c65@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message ...
> > >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> > >> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> > >> protections for sale in the USA?
> > >
> > >It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
> > >third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
> > >global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
> > >sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
> > >exist.
> > >
> > >If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> > >and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations.
Spacely
> > >Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> > >amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> > >sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> > >thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> > >Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> > >companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> > >resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture
*or*
> > >sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
> > >
> > >This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the
grounds
> > >that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to
live
> > >up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> > >kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little
creativity
> > >and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
> > >independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries
> known
> > >for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
> > >requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China,
> enacted
> > >because of pervasive counterfeiting...)
> > >
> > >Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto
> as
> > >written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US'
> hands
> > >and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as
a
> > >defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which
Australia
> > >had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be
differences,
> > >of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to
protect
> > >Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be
a
> > >mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US
antipollution
> > >laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> > >consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> > >with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> > >eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
> > >
> > >Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as
a
> > >tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of
human
> > >activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth --
go
> > >to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> > >bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the
sort
> > >of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> > >emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't
reversed
> > >by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> > >enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> > >perspective.
> > >
> > >We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em
> or
> > >no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.
> > >
> > >DS
> > >
> >
> > ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
> > Don't blame pollution on America!
> > Wait until 3 years, you will see the ***** will overtake America as
the
> > world #1 polluting nation.
> > Basically there is no environmental movement in China . Imagine you hold
a
> > sign of no more pollution
> > in Beijing street, you will be arrest and jail right away. ***** commie
> can
> > kill you right away if you are protesting
> > against state policy. This is why America we still hold our freedom and
> > freedom to speak out. Remember that's I tell
> > people to never support Jap, ***** or any other foreigner product. They
> are
> > destorying our nation!
> >
> >
>
> Lloyd, is this really you in costume? This kind of post ought to make you
> jump for joy.
>

Racist Phil wants to feel like a real white American male!
Well I don't blame him. Let him have some white pride day.

 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QVSsb.155268$ZH4.7213@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:bp0s5a0c65@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message ...
> > >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> > >> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> > >> protections for sale in the USA?
> > >
> > >It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
> > >third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
> > >global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
> > >sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
> > >exist.
> > >
> > >If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> > >and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations.
Spacely
> > >Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> > >amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> > >sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> > >thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> > >Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> > >companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> > >resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture
*or*
> > >sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
> > >
> > >This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the
grounds
> > >that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to
live
> > >up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> > >kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little
creativity
> > >and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
> > >independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries
> known
> > >for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
> > >requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China,
> enacted
> > >because of pervasive counterfeiting...)
> > >
> > >Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto
> as
> > >written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US'
> hands
> > >and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as
a
> > >defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which
Australia
> > >had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be
differences,
> > >of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to
protect
> > >Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be
a
> > >mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US
antipollution
> > >laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> > >consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> > >with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> > >eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
> > >
> > >Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as
a
> > >tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of
human
> > >activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth --
go
> > >to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> > >bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the
sort
> > >of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> > >emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't
reversed
> > >by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> > >enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> > >perspective.
> > >
> > >We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em
> or
> > >no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.
> > >
> > >DS
> > >
> >
> > ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
> > Don't blame pollution on America!
> > Wait until 3 years, you will see the ***** will overtake America as
the
> > world #1 polluting nation.
> > Basically there is no environmental movement in China . Imagine you hold
a
> > sign of no more pollution
> > in Beijing street, you will be arrest and jail right away. ***** commie
> can
> > kill you right away if you are protesting
> > against state policy. This is why America we still hold our freedom and
> > freedom to speak out. Remember that's I tell
> > people to never support Jap, ***** or any other foreigner product. They
> are
> > destorying our nation!
> >
> >
>
> Lloyd, is this really you in costume? This kind of post ought to make you
> jump for joy.
>

Racist Phil wants to feel like a real white American male!
Well I don't blame him. Let him have some white pride day.

 

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QVSsb.155268$ZH4.7213@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:bp0s5a0c65@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message ...
> > >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> > >> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> > >> protections for sale in the USA?
> > >
> > >It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
> > >third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
> > >global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
> > >sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
> > >exist.
> > >
> > >If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
> > >and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations.
Spacely
> > >Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
> > >amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
> > >sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
> > >thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
> > >Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
> > >companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
> > >resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture
*or*
> > >sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
> > >
> > >This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the
grounds
> > >that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to
live
> > >up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
> > >kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little
creativity
> > >and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
> > >independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries
> known
> > >for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
> > >requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China,
> enacted
> > >because of pervasive counterfeiting...)
> > >
> > >Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto
> as
> > >written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US'
> hands
> > >and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as
a
> > >defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which
Australia
> > >had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be
differences,
> > >of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to
protect
> > >Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be
a
> > >mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US
antipollution
> > >laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
> > >consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
> > >with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
> > >eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
> > >
> > >Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as
a
> > >tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of
human
> > >activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth --
go
> > >to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
> > >bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the
sort
> > >of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
> > >emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't
reversed
> > >by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
> > >enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
> > >perspective.
> > >
> > >We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em
> or
> > >no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.
> > >
> > >DS
> > >
> >
> > ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
> > Don't blame pollution on America!
> > Wait until 3 years, you will see the ***** will overtake America as
the
> > world #1 polluting nation.
> > Basically there is no environmental movement in China . Imagine you hold
a
> > sign of no more pollution
> > in Beijing street, you will be arrest and jail right away. ***** commie
> can
> > kill you right away if you are protesting
> > against state policy. This is why America we still hold our freedom and
> > freedom to speak out. Remember that's I tell
> > people to never support Jap, ***** or any other foreigner product. They
> are
> > destorying our nation!
> >
> >
>
> Lloyd, is this really you in costume? This kind of post ought to make you
> jump for joy.
>

Racist Phil wants to feel like a real white American male!
Well I don't blame him. Let him have some white pride day.

 

Phil Breau wrote:

> ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
> Don't blame pollution on America!

I find this personally offensive. Although I am upset by the movement of US
manufacturing (and jobs) to the far east, I do not blame the residents of these
areas. I have had the opportunity to work with many individuals from Japan and
Chinese and have always found them to be polite and hard working. Their culture
is different than ours, and some of their values are different, but that
doesn't make them wrong and us right. It is the governments that decide on
environmental policies and import / export rules, not the individuals. It is
the short sighted over paid MBAs that are running American companies that are
responsible for sending the jobs to the Far East - not the poorly paid workers
in the Far East.

Ed

 

Phil Breau wrote:

> ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
> Don't blame pollution on America!

I find this personally offensive. Although I am upset by the movement of US
manufacturing (and jobs) to the far east, I do not blame the residents of these
areas. I have had the opportunity to work with many individuals from Japan and
Chinese and have always found them to be polite and hard working. Their culture
is different than ours, and some of their values are different, but that
doesn't make them wrong and us right. It is the governments that decide on
environmental policies and import / export rules, not the individuals. It is
the short sighted over paid MBAs that are running American companies that are
responsible for sending the jobs to the Far East - not the poorly paid workers
in the Far East.

Ed

 

Phil Breau wrote:

> ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
> Don't blame pollution on America!

I find this personally offensive. Although I am upset by the movement of US
manufacturing (and jobs) to the far east, I do not blame the residents of these
areas. I have had the opportunity to work with many individuals from Japan and
Chinese and have always found them to be polite and hard working. Their culture
is different than ours, and some of their values are different, but that
doesn't make them wrong and us right. It is the governments that decide on
environmental policies and import / export rules, not the individuals. It is
the short sighted over paid MBAs that are running American companies that are
responsible for sending the jobs to the Far East - not the poorly paid workers
in the Far East.

Ed

 

In article <3FB4DED3.75A85CE5@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Phil Breau wrote:
>
>> ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
>> Don't blame pollution on America!
>
> I find this personally offensive. Although I am upset by the movement of US
> manufacturing (and jobs) to the far east, I do not blame the residents of these
> areas. I have had the opportunity to work with many individuals from Japan and
> Chinese and have always found them to be polite and hard working. Their culture
> is different than ours, and some of their values are different, but that
> doesn't make them wrong and us right. It is the governments that decide on
> environmental policies and import / export rules, not the individuals. It is
> the short sighted over paid MBAs that are running American companies that are
> responsible for sending the jobs to the Far East - not the poorly paid workers
> in the Far East.

Yep. I blame short-term thinkers in corporations and their paid off
cronies in elected office that only care about the perception of making a
larger profit in the short term rather than the bigger picture. Not
to mention the government officals of those countries doing similar
things and worse to their own people.

The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.

 

In article <3FB4DED3.75A85CE5@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Phil Breau wrote:
>
>> ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
>> Don't blame pollution on America!
>
> I find this personally offensive. Although I am upset by the movement of US
> manufacturing (and jobs) to the far east, I do not blame the residents of these
> areas. I have had the opportunity to work with many individuals from Japan and
> Chinese and have always found them to be polite and hard working. Their culture
> is different than ours, and some of their values are different, but that
> doesn't make them wrong and us right. It is the governments that decide on
> environmental policies and import / export rules, not the individuals. It is
> the short sighted over paid MBAs that are running American companies that are
> responsible for sending the jobs to the Far East - not the poorly paid workers
> in the Far East.

Yep. I blame short-term thinkers in corporations and their paid off
cronies in elected office that only care about the perception of making a
larger profit in the short term rather than the bigger picture. Not
to mention the government officals of those countries doing similar
things and worse to their own people.

The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.

 

In article <3FB4DED3.75A85CE5@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Phil Breau wrote:
>
>> ***** never follow the international agreement. ***** do their own way.
>> Don't blame pollution on America!
>
> I find this personally offensive. Although I am upset by the movement of US
> manufacturing (and jobs) to the far east, I do not blame the residents of these
> areas. I have had the opportunity to work with many individuals from Japan and
> Chinese and have always found them to be polite and hard working. Their culture
> is different than ours, and some of their values are different, but that
> doesn't make them wrong and us right. It is the governments that decide on
> environmental policies and import / export rules, not the individuals. It is
> the short sighted over paid MBAs that are running American companies that are
> responsible for sending the jobs to the Far East - not the poorly paid workers
> in the Far East.

Yep. I blame short-term thinkers in corporations and their paid off
cronies in elected office that only care about the perception of making a
larger profit in the short term rather than the bigger picture. Not
to mention the government officals of those countries doing similar
things and worse to their own people.

The people of those countries are just trying to make some money and
get some food on the table. IMO, if the environmentalists and labor
unions really put their fundamental beliefs before politics there would
be a huge outcry about the pollution and the total lack of worker
protections in these countries. Instead there's a whimper now and then
about jobs going overseas, protecting US jobs and which famous person
has their signature line made in a sweat shop somewhere in the 3rd world.
If there really was a desire to protect US jobs and the environment they
would be pushing for laws that prevented the sale of products unless the
production met set a standards. This way the workers would have a safe
work environment, a clean environment, etc and so on.