Brent P wrote:
>
> 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?

I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
government.

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! =-----

 

Brent P wrote:
>
> 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?

I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
government.

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! =-----

 

Brent P wrote:
>
> 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?

I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
government.

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:
>
> 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?

If you dishonestly define efficiency, probably almost always. In
reality, definitely not always. You have to look at the cost to make
those efficiencies happen - you can't hide them in government incentives
and subsidies and not include that in the efficiency cost calculations.
20 years ago, solar panels looked attractive only because there were
huge tax subsidies and the people doing the calculations also ingored
the "cost of money" over the long payback period (learned that from my
dad).

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:
>
> 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?

If you dishonestly define efficiency, probably almost always. In
reality, definitely not always. You have to look at the cost to make
those efficiencies happen - you can't hide them in government incentives
and subsidies and not include that in the efficiency cost calculations.
20 years ago, solar panels looked attractive only because there were
huge tax subsidies and the people doing the calculations also ingored
the "cost of money" over the long payback period (learned that from my
dad).

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:
>
> 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?

If you dishonestly define efficiency, probably almost always. In
reality, definitely not always. You have to look at the cost to make
those efficiencies happen - you can't hide them in government incentives
and subsidies and not include that in the efficiency cost calculations.
20 years ago, solar panels looked attractive only because there were
huge tax subsidies and the people doing the calculations also ingored
the "cost of money" over the long payback period (learned that from my
dad).

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:3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net...
>
>
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>

Right on. China's communist government is smarter than the Soviets, but
still, much of what they're doing is hiring out their population to foreign
companies who find it cheaper to outsource work to Chinese "companies"
(government owned). I doubt there's much real wealth being created in
China. It's a hard currency project so the government can modernize....
mostly their military.









> 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:3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net...
>
>
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>

Right on. China's communist government is smarter than the Soviets, but
still, much of what they're doing is hiring out their population to foreign
companies who find it cheaper to outsource work to Chinese "companies"
(government owned). I doubt there's much real wealth being created in
China. It's a hard currency project so the government can modernize....
mostly their military.









> 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:3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net...
>
>
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>

Right on. China's communist government is smarter than the Soviets, but
still, much of what they're doing is hiring out their population to foreign
companies who find it cheaper to outsource work to Chinese "companies"
(government owned). I doubt there's much real wealth being created in
China. It's a hard currency project so the government can modernize....
mostly their military.









> 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! =-----

 

In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:

> I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> government.

You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.