"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! =-----

 

"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! =-----

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010832.1e355e32@posting.google.c om...
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > wrote:

> > >China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
> > >concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> >
> > How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> > improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> > from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
>
> 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.
>
>

This argument really is a dead-ender. No one is making the argument you're
arguing against! Power generation isn't the point. Manufacturing is (Guess
what? A production facility needs electricity)

This is *so* self evident as as to make one stop and wonder how you decided
even to bother making it.

> >
> > By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> > vehicles being used in India or China, would you?

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010832.1e355e32@posting.google.c om...
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > wrote:

> > >China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
> > >concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> >
> > How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> > improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> > from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
>
> 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.
>
>

This argument really is a dead-ender. No one is making the argument you're
arguing against! Power generation isn't the point. Manufacturing is (Guess
what? A production facility needs electricity)

This is *so* self evident as as to make one stop and wonder how you decided
even to bother making it.

> >
> > By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> > vehicles being used in India or China, would you?

 

"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0312010832.1e355e32@posting.google.c om...
> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:<fed36858b0081e5586790938465c9d64@news.terane ws.com>...
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > wrote:

> > >China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
> > >concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.
> >
> > How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> > improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> > from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.
>
> 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.
>
>

This argument really is a dead-ender. No one is making the argument you're
arguing against! Power generation isn't the point. Manufacturing is (Guess
what? A production facility needs electricity)

This is *so* self evident as as to make one stop and wonder how you decided
even to bother making it.

> >
> > By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> > vehicles being used in India or China, would you?

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
> >consumption than the US.
>
> Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.

Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Ed

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
> >consumption than the US.
>
> Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.

Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Ed

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
> >consumption than the US.
>
> Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.

Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Ed

 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:26:26 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>> >consumption than the US.
>>
>> Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
>
>Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Nope, then we're burning *American* energy!
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:26:26 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>> >consumption than the US.
>>
>> Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
>
>Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Nope, then we're burning *American* energy!
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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