In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> 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:

>> >> 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.

Right, that's why if you really cared about the environment you, and all
environmentalists would be demanding a world wide standard to protect the
environment. But what happens instead? Things like the kyoto treaty to
further increase the regulation imbalance and encourage more relocation.

> 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?

What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.

Regulation in the USA doesn't strive to make power generation more
efficent, the market does that for the most part. And what can a power
company do but continue the status quo anyway with new plants,
regardless of type, being opposed on environmental grounds?

>> 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.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> 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:

>> >> 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.

Right, that's why if you really cared about the environment you, and all
environmentalists would be demanding a world wide standard to protect the
environment. But what happens instead? Things like the kyoto treaty to
further increase the regulation imbalance and encourage more relocation.

> 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?

What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.

Regulation in the USA doesn't strive to make power generation more
efficent, the market does that for the most part. And what can a power
company do but continue the status quo anyway with new plants,
regardless of type, being opposed on environmental grounds?

>> 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.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> 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:

>> >> 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.

Right, that's why if you really cared about the environment you, and all
environmentalists would be demanding a world wide standard to protect the
environment. But what happens instead? Things like the kyoto treaty to
further increase the regulation imbalance and encourage more relocation.

> 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?

What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.

Regulation in the USA doesn't strive to make power generation more
efficent, the market does that for the most part. And what can a power
company do but continue the status quo anyway with new plants,
regardless of type, being opposed on environmental grounds?

>> 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.

 

"When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never."
The US citizens will DRIVE them, the Chinese will LIVE in them.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fsKyb.274656$ao4.943226@attbi_s51...
> 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.
>
>
>

 

"When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never."
The US citizens will DRIVE them, the Chinese will LIVE in them.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fsKyb.274656$ao4.943226@attbi_s51...
> 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.
>
>
>

 

"When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never."
The US citizens will DRIVE them, the Chinese will LIVE in them.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fsKyb.274656$ao4.943226@attbi_s51...
> 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.
>
>
>

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google.c om...
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
control
> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as
a
> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> > global warming wasn't
> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it
so
> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
> >
> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
ideals.
> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
choose.
> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously
30
> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
bastards
> > the better off we'll all be.
>
>
> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!

This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
corporations".

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google.c om...
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
control
> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as
a
> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> > global warming wasn't
> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it
so
> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
> >
> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
ideals.
> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
choose.
> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously
30
> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
bastards
> > the better off we'll all be.
>
>
> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!

This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
corporations".

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010806.78d80d53@posting.google.c om...
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bqbpqa021gd@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn
control
> > over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as
a
> > way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> > global warming wasn't
> > available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it
so
> > they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
> >
> > Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> > reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist
ideals.
> > They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they
choose.
> > They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously
30
> > years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> > concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant
bastards
> > the better off we'll all be.
>
>
> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!

This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
corporations".

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.c om...
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:<3FC7AD02.B67B6843@kinez.net>...
> > z wrote:
> > >
>
> > 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?

Step 1. Production/manufacturing is moved to China
Step 2. Plant needs electricity so power plant is built in China

Did I miss something? I thought the concept was pretty easy to understand.


> 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?
>

Textiles and steel are teetering on the edge as we speak. Levi Strauss has
or is shortly closing their last North American production facility. The
pressure on companies to move production comes in 3 flavors: 1) labor costs
2) taxes 3) regulation. If you think all those that would move have moved,
your're dreaming. Kyoto just turns up the volume on #3, regulation.

> 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! =-----