Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5521
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD395E.3D06D971@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.
No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Absolutely False! Hospitals in the US do this every single day. Why don't
you
>volunteer at your local hospital. You will certainly learn something.
No hospital is required to do anything but stablize an emergency patient.
Some may choose to do other things, or, as our local hospital does, get a
county subsidy to treat indigent patients.
>
#5522
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?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.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.
OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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 $650 million
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies.
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$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.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?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.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.
OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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 $650 million
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies.
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
#5523
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$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.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?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.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.
OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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 $650 million
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies.
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$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.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?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.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.
OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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 $650 million
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies.
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
#5524
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$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.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?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.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.
OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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 $650 million
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies.
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$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.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?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.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.
OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
#5525
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
Most people aren't in such a program.
> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
Most people aren't in such a program.
> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
#5526
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
Most people aren't in such a program.
> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
Most people aren't in such a program.
> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
#5527
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
Most people aren't in such a program.
> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.
Most people aren't in such a program.
> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
#5528
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>
But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?
>Ed
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>
But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?
>Ed
#5529
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>
But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?
>Ed
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>
But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?
>Ed
#5530
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>
But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?
>Ed
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>
But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?
>Ed