David J. Allen

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker 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.
> >
> >See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
> >When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
> >good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
> >a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
> >going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
> >where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> >
> >Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
> >of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
> >of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
> >solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
> >squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
> >that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
> >effect.
> >
> >
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.

Never, in the history of human history has energy production been so
efficient and less wasteful. More work is performed per unit of energy
generated than any place on earth present or past. Leave it to a liberal to
find a negative spin on that.

David J. Allen

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker 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.
> >
> >See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
> >When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
> >good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
> >a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
> >going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
> >where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> >
> >Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
> >of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
> >of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
> >solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
> >squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
> >that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
> >effect.
> >
> >
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.

Never, in the history of human history has energy production been so
efficient and less wasteful. More work is performed per unit of energy
generated than any place on earth present or past. Leave it to a liberal to
find a negative spin on that.

David J. Allen

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bq8e5t$rm0$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bq81fo$dhn$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker 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.
> >
> >See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
> >When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
> >good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
> >a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
> >going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
> >where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
> >
> >Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
> >of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
> >of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
> >solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
> >squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
> >that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
> >effect.
> >
> >
> OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
> energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
> comparison with any other country.

Never, in the history of human history has energy production been so
efficient and less wasteful. More work is performed per unit of energy
generated than any place on earth present or past. Leave it to a liberal to
find a negative spin on that.

Brandon Sommerville

On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:18:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

Which completely ignores the point of the question. Please try again,
this time without going off on a tangent:

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
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Brandon Sommerville

On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:18:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

Which completely ignores the point of the question. Please try again,
this time without going off on a tangent:

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
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Brandon Sommerville

On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:18:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

Which completely ignores the point of the question. Please try again,
this time without going off on a tangent:

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
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Brandon Sommerville

On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.

By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Brandon Sommerville

On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.

By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Brandon Sommerville

On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.

By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Bill Funk

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:23:33 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <3MSxb.46777$Gj.16411@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>
>>> China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>>> concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
>
>> The pollution in China is way worse than here. Smog is choking.
>
>Once upon a time a co-worker of mine went to china to support the plant
>there. He returned with pictures. I am looking at the photos and ask,
>'what's the haze over the photos?', thinking it was a photographic
>problem. The response, 'that's just the way it is there'.
>
China is one of the last bastions of steam locomotion and power
generating.
They use charcoal for heating & cooking.
The pollution is far wors ethan in the US.
No wonder Lloyd likes to move manufacturing there: China's communist,
and moving manufacuring there punishes the US. A liberal's dream.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"