In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't
>be
>> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>> >competitors.
>>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
>> health care, just national health insurance.
>>
>
>That's the point. A national HMO.

No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead than
any private insurance company, and which seniors love.


> You don't really think the government
>would be better at controlling costs that an HMO do you?

Actually, here the data (Medicare) shows it is.


> Oh, and I suppose
>you think the government would do a better job of devoloping drugs that
>pharmaceuticals?

Most are done that way now -- government-funded university research.


>IF those countries you mention actually do spend less (per
>capita) on health care than in the US, it's because those governments are
>"controlling" costs, i.e., limiting the supply.

And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and less
infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are healthier.

>
>> >
>> >> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>> >Food,
>> >> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left
>you
>> >go,
>> >> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>> >need
>> >> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't
>be
>> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>> >competitors.
>>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
>> health care, just national health insurance.
>>
>
>That's the point. A national HMO.

No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead than
any private insurance company, and which seniors love.


> You don't really think the government
>would be better at controlling costs that an HMO do you?

Actually, here the data (Medicare) shows it is.


> Oh, and I suppose
>you think the government would do a better job of devoloping drugs that
>pharmaceuticals?

Most are done that way now -- government-funded university research.


>IF those countries you mention actually do spend less (per
>capita) on health care than in the US, it's because those governments are
>"controlling" costs, i.e., limiting the supply.

And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and less
infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are healthier.

>
>> >
>> >> > This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare,
>> >Food,
>> >> > etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left
>you
>> >go,
>> >> > the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one
>> >need
>> >> > to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >z wrote:
>> >
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >
>> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
the
>> Clean Air Act
>> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
Air
>> Act. Secondly, the
>> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> (new sources) to have
>> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
be
>> initially exempted
>> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
palnts
>> would then be capped
>> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> production is shifted to
>> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> cheaper to operate due
>> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> advanced pollution controls
>> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> (when they WOULD be
>> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
or
>> they get too old to
>> >operate anyway.
>> >
>> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> maintenance on plants as
>> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>
>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>
>MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
such
>as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>
>> If during 10 years of routine
>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
and
>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
>No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
Try
>becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>

Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.

>>
>>
>> Treating it this way
>> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> requirements of new plants.
>>
>> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
that's
>> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
utility
>> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>
>Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.

Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.

>
>>
>>
>> ?This
>> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
defer
>> maintenance and not
>> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
in.
>> But the effect of
>> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
expensive
>> because of overzealous
>> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
polluting
>> plants are left in
>> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
extensively
>> on this, and
>>
>> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>
>What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
actual
>facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.

I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
credibility.


> Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
Daimler
>Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
as if
>Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
even
>exist!
>

You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.

>
>
>>
>>
>> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
TOO
>> CLEAN because they
>> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> memos.
>>
>> It was not.
>
> Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
ago. And
>those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
full
>day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
Clinton
>EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
Clinton
>Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
philosophy of
>the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
legislation
>or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
ABC
>News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
easier
>> for people to make
>> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> reason why they were
>> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
non-laws,
>> or what is going on
>> >in general.
>>
>> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>
>A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
NOT
>to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
become
>tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
the low
>arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
is
>forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
Thanks for
>all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
government
>records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
needed
>to erase it.
>
>I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
forgot to
>comment on it!
>
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
to
>replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
its
>biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
old,
>meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
energy--more
>power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
Review
>anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
meet
>new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
kilowatt
>of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a
>sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
least
>80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
guidelines, it
>didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
simply
>filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the
>two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
tripling of
>coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
-WSJ
>11/26/02
>
>
>

 

In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >z wrote:
>> >
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >
>> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
the
>> Clean Air Act
>> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
Air
>> Act. Secondly, the
>> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> (new sources) to have
>> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
be
>> initially exempted
>> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
palnts
>> would then be capped
>> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> production is shifted to
>> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> cheaper to operate due
>> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> advanced pollution controls
>> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> (when they WOULD be
>> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
or
>> they get too old to
>> >operate anyway.
>> >
>> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> maintenance on plants as
>> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>
>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>
>MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
such
>as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>
>> If during 10 years of routine
>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
and
>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
>No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
Try
>becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>

Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.

>>
>>
>> Treating it this way
>> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> requirements of new plants.
>>
>> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
that's
>> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
utility
>> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>
>Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.

Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.

>
>>
>>
>> ?This
>> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
defer
>> maintenance and not
>> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
in.
>> But the effect of
>> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
expensive
>> because of overzealous
>> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
polluting
>> plants are left in
>> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
extensively
>> on this, and
>>
>> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>
>What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
actual
>facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.

I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
credibility.


> Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
Daimler
>Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
as if
>Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
even
>exist!
>

You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.

>
>
>>
>>
>> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
TOO
>> CLEAN because they
>> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> memos.
>>
>> It was not.
>
> Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
ago. And
>those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
full
>day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
Clinton
>EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
Clinton
>Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
philosophy of
>the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
legislation
>or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
ABC
>News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
easier
>> for people to make
>> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> reason why they were
>> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
non-laws,
>> or what is going on
>> >in general.
>>
>> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>
>A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
NOT
>to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
become
>tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
the low
>arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
is
>forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
Thanks for
>all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
government
>records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
needed
>to erase it.
>
>I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
forgot to
>comment on it!
>
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
to
>replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
its
>biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
old,
>meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
energy--more
>power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
Review
>anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
meet
>new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
kilowatt
>of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a
>sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
least
>80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
guidelines, it
>didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
simply
>filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the
>two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
tripling of
>coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
-WSJ
>11/26/02
>
>
>

 

In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >z wrote:
>> >
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >
>> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
the
>> Clean Air Act
>> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
Air
>> Act. Secondly, the
>> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> (new sources) to have
>> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
be
>> initially exempted
>> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
palnts
>> would then be capped
>> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> production is shifted to
>> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> cheaper to operate due
>> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> advanced pollution controls
>> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> (when they WOULD be
>> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
or
>> they get too old to
>> >operate anyway.
>> >
>> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> maintenance on plants as
>> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>
>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>
>MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
such
>as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>
>> If during 10 years of routine
>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
and
>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
>No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
Try
>becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>

Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.

>>
>>
>> Treating it this way
>> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> requirements of new plants.
>>
>> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
that's
>> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
utility
>> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>
>Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.

Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.

>
>>
>>
>> ?This
>> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
defer
>> maintenance and not
>> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
in.
>> But the effect of
>> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
expensive
>> because of overzealous
>> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
polluting
>> plants are left in
>> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
extensively
>> on this, and
>>
>> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>
>What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
actual
>facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.

I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
credibility.


> Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
Daimler
>Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
as if
>Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
even
>exist!
>

You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.

>
>
>>
>>
>> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
TOO
>> CLEAN because they
>> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> memos.
>>
>> It was not.
>
> Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
ago. And
>those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
full
>day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
Clinton
>EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
Clinton
>Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
philosophy of
>the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
legislation
>or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
ABC
>News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
easier
>> for people to make
>> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> reason why they were
>> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
non-laws,
>> or what is going on
>> >in general.
>>
>> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>
>A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
NOT
>to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
become
>tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
the low
>arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
is
>forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
Thanks for
>all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
government
>records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
needed
>to erase it.
>
>I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
forgot to
>comment on it!
>
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
to
>replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
its
>biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
old,
>meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
energy--more
>power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
Review
>anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
meet
>new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
kilowatt
>of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a
>sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
least
>80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
guidelines, it
>didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
simply
>filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the
>two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
tripling of
>coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
-WSJ
>11/26/02
>
>
>

 

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message news:<bqfvtf$21bs02$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
> produces no CO2."
> Go back to grade school:
> "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide

Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
(Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message news:<bqfvtf$21bs02$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
> produces no CO2."
> Go back to grade school:
> "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide

Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
(Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message news:<bqfvtf$21bs02$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
> produces no CO2."
> Go back to grade school:
> "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide

Alcoholic fermentation doesn't count. Because I say so, that's why.
(Sorry, best reply I could do).

 

In article <b5b4685f.0312020740.63081bc2@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Mr. Short-term Memory,

Well, you've been reduced to just one line of name calling.

 

In article <b5b4685f.0312020740.63081bc2@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> Mr. Short-term Memory,

Well, you've been reduced to just one line of name calling.