Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> > who screw up, not the technology).
>> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>>
>> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
>> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
>> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
>>
>> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
>> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
>> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
>> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
>> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.

> Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> safety.

What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?



 
In article <[email protected]>, Dan Gates wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
>>>fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>> Properly placed large scale wind farms can take some of that load or
>> in the very least make enough energy so that new fossil fuel plants
>> need not built.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but what happens when we have all of these wind farms and reduce
> the total "wind energy" out there. This is no joke! The total amount
> of energy in the world is finite. If we convert wind energy to
> electricity on a global scale, what are the global implications? I
> don't think we have to worry for a while, but we should consider it!

That's exactly the sort of arguement I would expect to see from
anti-energy environmentalists eventually. It's also along the same
lines of ones I have used when various energy generation methods
are considered totally without side effects to the environment.

There is some side effect to all forms, all forms can be opposed
on that ground. Some are cleaner than others, some problems are more
livable than others. And I find it amusing the way the objections
shift depending on the method proposed to generate electricity.

Can't build a coal plant because of the pollution and CO2, can't build
a nuke because of the waste and what might happen if 4 layers of
redundant systems go bad and homer simpson is at the controls, can't
build a wind farm because it's ugly and some birds will run into it,
can't build a dam because it floods a local ecosystem, etc and so on.

Adding up all these objections gets us the status quo. But then the
status quo is attacked in that people are using too much energy. I
ask myself what the goal is. And it's quite clear to me the goal
has *NOTHING* to do with conservation or the environment. The
environment is but the excuse to achieve other goals.

IMO, if someone completed Tesla's work next week and we all had free
electricity from the 'ether' there would still be environmental
objections to the process.



 

> >> Did mandating auto insurance drop the prices? No, it instead created a
> >> mandated market.
> >> Offering some sort of enducement (like a tax break) would be more
> >> likely to produce reduced prices.
> >
> >I'm not convinced that even tax breaks would decrease the price of
> >insurance. In fact, it would likely increase it's price. There exists a
> >certain demand for insurance and while tax breaks may bring in a few
> >otherwise non participators, what it will mostly do is make current
> >purchasers willing to pay higher prices to the tune of the amount of the
tax
> >break. Throwing money into the equation without much change in supply or
> >demand will just cause an inflationary effect.
>
> The tax break I was referring to was for solar power devices.
> Sorry I wasn't clearer on that.
> >

Ah... ok. Well, actually the argument holds no matter what the product is.
In fact, solar panels for electricity generation here in Calif. have big tax
credits. Even with those credits, they cost between $25k and $50k depending
on how many watts you require. You can count on paying $200/month to
finance solar panels over 20 years. Then they need major service after 20
years. Humph. The people who buy them do it more for energy independence
than they do for environmentalism or cost.

If these systems were more on the order of $5k to $10k or even $10, to $20k
you might see a significant increase in demand. But you're right about
mandates not working. It never works as planned and just because something
is mandated doesn't make it so.


 
On 25 Nov 2003 13:40:27 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:

>Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>> >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>> >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>> >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>> >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>> >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>> >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>> >
>> >Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>> >if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>> >large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>> >have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>> >technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>> >answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>> >space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>> >
>> >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>> >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>> >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>> >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>> >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>> >the fanciful enviros will whine....
>> >
>> Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> who screw up, not the technology).
>> Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
>Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
>errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
>if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
>somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
>chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
>more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.

That would work! :)


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish
it
> > >were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently
being
> > >used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time,
yet
> > >these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What
is
> > >constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with
no
> > >actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
> > >major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
> > >
> > >Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle
east,
> > >if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
> > >large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical
environmentalists
> > >have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
> > >technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
> > >answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor
is
> > >space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
> > >
> > >Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
> > >replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not
even in
> > >the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is
willing to
> > >accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using
bridge
> > >technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow.
Naturally
> > >the fanciful enviros will whine....
> > >
> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> > who screw up, not the technology).
> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>
> Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
> errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
> if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
> somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
> chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
> more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.

I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
they are more trustworthy. ;-)


 

> > >
> > > I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> > > it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> > > billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> > > conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> > > fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> > > dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> > > cities as the ocean rises.
> > >
> >
> > You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason
conservatives
> > tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and
what
> > their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
> > decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view.
Whatever
> > the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
> > agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
>
> And I suppose that if the 'environmentalists' advised against jumping
> off the roof, the good conservatives would all dutifully line up to do so?
> The trouble with this whole mess is the media/public's propensity to
> cast *everything* into a contest between two equivalently valid
> opponents, pick one on the basis of some emotional impulse.
> Environmentalism vs. corporatism, prolife vs prochoice, evolutionism
> vs creationism, proBush vs. proSaddam, all are treated the same as the
> choice of RedSox vs. Yankees. In fact, contrary to the news headlines
> the other week, the decision to drop enforcement of the Clean Air laws
> is not a 'blow to environmentalists'; it is, in fact, a blow to all
> air-breathing organisms in the US.
>

You're right in that these arguments turn into contests where the issue gets
lost and everyone is talking past each other. The fact is that, usually,
both sides have a legitimate argument. Abortion is a good example of right
to life and right to privacy. Both are legitimate rights! For me, I'd be
happy if both sides recognized both rights and then worked to find common
ground by working together instead of against each other.

That approach applies to environmentalism too. Corporations sometimes seem
happy to repeal all regulation all together, but then environmentalists take
the extreme view from the other side by working to stop development in it's
tracks. I have a relative who works as an environmental consultant for a
company that developers hire to guide them through the environmental
regulations on local/state/federal levels. She told me that EVERY SINGLE
development that a developer engages in anywhere in the state (CA) is
challenged and fought every step of the way by environmental groups.

I suppose this is good in one sense; checks and balances prevent extremist
outcomes. I think the end result has been reasonable enough. The US has
strict anti-pollution laws and still has strong a economy. Unfortunately,
the acrimony forces expensive legal fights and onerous and expensive
regulatory processes. The irony for the anti-corporate environmentalists is
that it is only the large corporations that can afford to fight these
battles. The little ones go bankrupt or never get started.


> > We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
> > goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
> > environmentalist schedule or terms.
>
> Yes, as the decisions made regarding fish harvesting limits were not
> made on the 'extremist environmentalist' (aka scientist) schedule or
> terms, instead splitting the difference between the numbers the
> scientists said were the max that would not seriously deplete the
> fishery stocks, and the numbers the fishing industry said were
> necessary economically. That's the American way, isn't it; compromist
> between the two sides. And the result is, of course, that the
> fisheries are now overfished, and the industry is in worse shape than
> it would have been if the scientists' recommendations had been
> followed in the first place.

Extreme environmentalism has no more claim to science than Jim Jones or
David Koresh did to God's priesthood.. It sees things from a narrow point
of view. So narrow as to be, itself, the source of it's own demise if left
unchecked.


 

"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<snip>
> > Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
> > errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
> > if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
> > somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
> > chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
> > more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
>
> I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
> they are more trustworthy. ;-)
>

Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.


 

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> <snip>
> > > Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
> > > errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
> > > if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
> > > somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
> > > chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
> > > more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
> >
> > I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
> > they are more trustworthy. ;-)
> >
>
> Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.
>
>

Peace. Livelong, and Prosper.


 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >>
> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> >>
> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >>
> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> > safety.
>
> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?

No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
estimates of most-likely scenarios.
 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
>> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>> >>
>> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
>> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
>> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
>> >>
>> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
>> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
>> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
>> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
>> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>>
>> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
>> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
>> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
>> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
>> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
>> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
>> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
>> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > safety.
>>
>> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
>> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
>
> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> estimates of most-likely scenarios.

You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?


 
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:46:31 GMT, "Joe" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
> <snip>
>> > Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
>> > errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
>> > if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
>> > somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
>> > chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
>> > more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.
>>
>> I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
>> they are more trustworthy. ;-)
>>
>
>Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.
>
Yeah?
Then how did we learn to vulcanize rubber?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 

> > > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> > > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> > > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> > > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> > > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> > > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> > > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> > > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> > > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> > > safety.
> >
> > What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> > nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
>
> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> estimates of most-likely scenarios.

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :)

This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
fantasy and wishful thinking.


 
Approximately 11/27/03 16:30, [email protected] uttered for posterity:

> i like this group, but what is all this global warming crap doing
> here???

Cross-posting trolls, and a shining example of why the american
college educational system is in such pathetic shape. For
amusement, read the thread and try to figure out who the
college professor is without looking at the posting domain.

--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.

 
In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>>> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
>>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk
wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
>>> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
>>> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
>>> >>
>>> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
>>> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
>>> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
>>> >>
>>> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
>>> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
>>> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
>>> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
>>> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>>>
>>> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
>>> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
>>> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
>>> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
>>> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>>> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
>>> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
>>> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
>>> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>>> > safety.
>>>
>>> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
>>> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
>>
>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>
>
Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
>> > > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
>> > > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
>> > > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
>> > > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
>> > > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
>> > > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
>> > > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
>> > > safety.
>> >
>> > What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
>> > nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
>>
>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
>There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
>environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
>intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
>people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
>George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
>and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity) :)
>
>This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
>fantasy and wishful thinking.
>
>
Well, what have corporations done to dispell that view? They get
environmental laws repealed, they get exempted from environmental regulations,
they don't mind clear-cutting forests (even if they're endangered species
there) because it's less costly for them, they want to dump mining waste in
rivers, they kick at snowmobile restrictions in Yellowstone, etc. They send
jobs overseas and lay off workers while paying their execs millions and
dodging US taxes.

If more were like DuPont -- which had bought thousands of acres near the
Okeefenokee swamp for mining, but after environmental protests donated the
land instead for a nature preserve -- perhaps people would have a better view
of corporations.
 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>
>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>
>>
>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in
>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.

As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>> No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
>>>> circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
>>>> infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
>>>> machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
>>>> all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
>>>> unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
>>>> estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>>>
>>>You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
>>>China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
>>>
>>>
>>Like asking why is oil consumed in the US more wasteful than oil consumed in

>>China? Ans -- because we consume more, and more per capita.
>
>As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.
>
No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> >> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> >> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> >> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >>
> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> >> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> >> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> >> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> >> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> >> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> >> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> >> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety.
> >>
> >> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> >> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> >
> > No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> > circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> > infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> > machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> > all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> > unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> > estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?

Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<PjQwb.107728$Dw6.513759@attbi_s02>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> >> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<2x8wb.285619$Tr4.884523@attbi_s03>...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
> >> >> > who screw up, not the technology).
> >> >> > Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that's what I find puzzling. If CO2 is such an important problem,
> >> >> the what-we-can-do-today answer is state of the art nuclear power. (not
> >> >> stone age state run without protection like the old soviet plants)
> >> >>
> >> >> We are told consistantly that CO2 is a problem, but somehow the
> >> >> solutions always boil down to telling people how they have to live,
> >> >> bring wealth to the 3rd world, and other political and social issues
> >> >> rather than *SOLVING* the stated problem of too much CO2 being released
> >> >> and meeting energy demands / increasing energy efficency.
>
> >> > Yes, having seen that allowing large corporations remarkably free rein
> >> > to seek, extract, and sell unreplenishable fossil fuel energy sources
> >> > through a centralized structure in order to maximize corporate
> >> > profitability, which also creates a monetary penalty for the
> >> > corporations to concentrate on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety; clearly the way to go is to transition to another
> >> > unreplenishable source to be sought, extracted, and sold through a
> >> > centralized structure run by large corporations with a monetary
> >> > penalty for concentration on fuel efficiency, environmentalism, or
> >> > safety.
> >>
> >> What's your point? That the concept of global warming via CO2 is
> >> nothing more than a method/excuse to punish corporations?
> >
> > No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
> > circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
> > infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
> > machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
> > all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
> > unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
> > estimates of most-likely scenarios.
>
> You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?

Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top