Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
11-28-2003, 07:47 AM
#5011
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <i94xb.28645$Gj.28428@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
>> > > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
>> > > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
>> > > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
>> > > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
>> > > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
>> > > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
>> > > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > > safety.
>> >
>> > What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
>> > nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
>>
>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
>There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
>environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
>intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
>people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
>George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
>and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)
>
>This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
>fantasy and wishful thinking.
>
>
Well, what have corporations done to dispell that view? They get
environmental laws repealed, they get exempted from environmental regulations,
they don't mind clear-cutting forests (even if they're endangered species
there) because it's less costly for them, they want to dump mining waste in
rivers, they kick at snowmobile restrictions in Yellowstone, etc. They send
jobs overseas and lay off workers while paying their execs millions and
dodging US taxes.
If more were like DuPont -- which had bought thousands of acres near the
Okeefenokee swamp for mining, but after environmental protests donated the
land instead for a nature preserve -- perhaps people would have a better view
of corporations.
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
>> > > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
>> > > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
>> > > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
>> > > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
>> > > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
>> > > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
>> > > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > > safety.
>> >
>> > What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
>> > nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
>>
>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
>There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
>environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
>intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
>people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
>George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
>and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :-)
>
>This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
>fantasy and wishful thinking.
>
>
Well, what have corporations done to dispell that view? They get
environmental laws repealed, they get exempted from environmental regulations,
they don't mind clear-cutting forests (even if they're endangered species
there) because it's less costly for them, they want to dump mining waste in
rivers, they kick at snowmobile restrictions in Yellowstone, etc. They send
jobs overseas and lay off workers while paying their execs millions and
dodging US taxes.
If more were like DuPont -- which had bought thousands of acres near the
Okeefenokee swamp for mining, but after environmental protests donated the
land instead for a nature preserve -- perhaps people would have a better view
of corporations.
11-28-2003, 08:43 AM
#5012
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
11-28-2003, 08:43 AM
#5013
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
11-28-2003, 08:43 AM
#5014
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <km3fsvk65g5s686gcd84idhe89dqfo1ag1@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
11-28-2003, 11:18 AM
#5015
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
11-28-2003, 11:18 AM
#5016
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
11-28-2003, 11:18 AM
#5017
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <236890bd57fbaf274625ffe0a1aaa4a1@news.teranews.co m>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>In this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.
>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
11-28-2003, 11:19 AM
#5018
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>
>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>Cause there's less of it?
>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>noise.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?
China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>
>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>Cause there's less of it?
>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>noise.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?
China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
11-28-2003, 11:19 AM
#5019
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>
>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>Cause there's less of it?
>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>noise.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?
China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>
>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>Cause there's less of it?
>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>noise.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?
China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
11-28-2003, 11:19 AM
#5020
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <6d93cbd689da1a9b29073109fae98889@news.teranews.co m>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>
>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>Cause there's less of it?
>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>noise.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?
China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>
>>> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>Cause there's less of it?
>>It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
>>complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
>>doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
>>noise.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?
China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.