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! =-----

 

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! =-----

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
> In article <bq81fo$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.

Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
Kyoto gets implemented? Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
Walmart lately? Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
we can run our home appliances on them?

>
> 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.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
> In article <bq81fo$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.

Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
Kyoto gets implemented? Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
Walmart lately? Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
we can run our home appliances on them?

>
> 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.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
> In article <bq81fo$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.

Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
Kyoto gets implemented? Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
Walmart lately? Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
we can run our home appliances on them?

>
> 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.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311281105.179cc20a@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> >> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> >> >> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> >> >> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.

But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
cost of energy?

>
> Sure you can take the populations of india and china and make *LOOK* like
> it's less CO2 by a misplaced use of per capita numbers, but the actual
> amount of CO2 and pollution *PER WIDGET* made, the only real measure
> that we should look at, the only one that is fair from one nation to
> another, actually at best, stays the same but very likely increases.
> (when production is moved out of the developed countries)
>
> Someone who is truely concerned about the environment as I am sees
> through this farce of the political left and their use of the environment
> as a mere excuse for their political and social goals.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311281105.179cc20a@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> >> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> >> >> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> >> >> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.

But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
cost of energy?

>
> Sure you can take the populations of india and china and make *LOOK* like
> it's less CO2 by a misplaced use of per capita numbers, but the actual
> amount of CO2 and pollution *PER WIDGET* made, the only real measure
> that we should look at, the only one that is fair from one nation to
> another, actually at best, stays the same but very likely increases.
> (when production is moved out of the developed countries)
>
> Someone who is truely concerned about the environment as I am sees
> through this farce of the political left and their use of the environment
> as a mere excuse for their political and social goals.

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0311281105.179cc20a@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311260646.46221fd1@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> >> In article <b5b4685f.0311251346.2762bc95@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >> >> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> >> In article <3np1sv414jbra53mffq0f4m0r9pjho31g9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> >> >> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> >> >> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.

But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
cost of energy?

>
> Sure you can take the populations of india and china and make *LOOK* like
> it's less CO2 by a misplaced use of per capita numbers, but the actual
> amount of CO2 and pollution *PER WIDGET* made, the only real measure
> that we should look at, the only one that is fair from one nation to
> another, actually at best, stays the same but very likely increases.
> (when production is moved out of the developed countries)
>
> Someone who is truely concerned about the environment as I am sees
> through this farce of the political left and their use of the environment
> as a mere excuse for their political and social goals.

 

In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:

> They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?

What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
factory? Which is better for the environment?

And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
possible.


> 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?

Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.

If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
of regulation.


> 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?

What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
further tipping the market scales in favor of china?

> 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?

Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
well expect that production to move there too.

 

In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:

> They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?

What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
factory? Which is better for the environment?

And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
possible.


> 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?

Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.

If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
of regulation.


> 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?

What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
further tipping the market scales in favor of china?

> 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?

Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
well expect that production to move there too.