Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010840.49829651@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.
> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?
Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.
> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.
> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?
Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.
#5172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010840.49829651@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.
> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?
Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.
> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.
> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?
Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.
#5173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010840.49829651@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.
> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?
Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.
> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.
> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?
Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.
#5174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010832.1e355e32@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
>> 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.
> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.
When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.
Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.
And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
>> 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.
> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.
When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.
Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.
And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.
#5175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010832.1e355e32@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
>> 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.
> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.
When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.
Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.
And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
>> 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.
> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.
When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.
Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.
And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.
#5176
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010832.1e355e32@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
>> 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.
> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.
When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.
Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.
And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
>> 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.
> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.
When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.
Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.
And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.
#5177
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010834.1e30cffe@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.
But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.
So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.
But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.
So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?
#5178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010834.1e30cffe@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.
But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.
So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.
But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.
So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?
#5179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312010834.1e30cffe@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.
But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.
So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfam2sesmhl70@corp.supernews.com>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.
But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.
So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?
#5180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FC7AD02.B67B6843@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > 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.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China? And do
what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
going to pack up and leave that have not already? Are the car
companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
And isn't 'generating less CO2 per unit of energy produced' just a
definition of the phrase 'energy efficiency'? Isn't every energy
company annual corporate report full of glowing pages about how they
are keeping their costs down by increasing energy efficiency? Doesn't
that actually lower the cost of power, in the long run? Isn't this
just a push to modernize or mothball old inefficient plants, sooner
than would happen anyway due to fuel costs? If they have to do so, why
would they want to build new plants in the third world where there
isn't any excess demand for more power, rather that refurbish old
plants or build new ones here in the US, where the demand is?
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > 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.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China? And do
what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
going to pack up and leave that have not already? Are the car
companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
And isn't 'generating less CO2 per unit of energy produced' just a
definition of the phrase 'energy efficiency'? Isn't every energy
company annual corporate report full of glowing pages about how they
are keeping their costs down by increasing energy efficiency? Doesn't
that actually lower the cost of power, in the long run? Isn't this
just a push to modernize or mothball old inefficient plants, sooner
than would happen anyway due to fuel costs? If they have to do so, why
would they want to build new plants in the third world where there
isn't any excess demand for more power, rather that refurbish old
plants or build new ones here in the US, where the demand is?
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----