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.
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>>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 this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget, how is it
improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
means that the per capita numbers are lower?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > 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.

???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?
 
On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:

>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:

>> 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.

Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
better to release the same noise in a different location?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
was.


 

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [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?

No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.

> 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.

Totally different analogy, you must be a student of Lloyds.


 


z wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...

> > 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.

Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
instead of the U.S.

Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"

Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
clear what their real goals are.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>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.

See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.

Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
effect.


 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [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.

There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.

Sure you can take the populations of india and china and make *LOOK* like
it's less CO2 by a misplaced use of per capita numbers, but the actual
amount of CO2 and pollution *PER WIDGET* made, the only real measure
that we should look at, the only one that is fair from one nation to
another, actually at best, stays the same but very likely increases.
(when production is moved out of the developed countries)

Someone who is truely concerned about the environment as I am sees
through this farce of the political left and their use of the environment
as a mere excuse for their political and social goals.



 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:

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

> ???
> But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> plodding around on the planet?

I think you need to see how the funding for research works. That aside,
the kyoto treaty policies encourage corporations to relocate to places
where they can still destroy the environment and spew whatever they
wish into the air and water.

If it were really about the environment, environmentalists would be
demanding high world-wide standards of protection. They would be demanding
that various manufacturing processes meet the same standards world wide.
Environmentalists would be doing all they can to keep production in
nations where hard won environmental protections are in place. But what
do we see? Policies that favor big corporations to move their facilities
overseas and spew at will. To repeat the same environmental disasters of
the 19th and 20th centuries in developing nations when there is no need
to do this damage because we (as people of this planet) know better now.

Maybe you should look closer at the policies you support, because it's
those corporations you hate that are winning regardless of wether it is
the left or right that wins an election.

 
In article <[email protected]>,
Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>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 this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,

How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.


>how is it
>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>means that the per capita numbers are lower?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
>
>>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>better to release the same noise in a different location?

China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.

 
In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>
>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>effect.
>
>
OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.
 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 13:43:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

The analogy is total bull****.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:18:47 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Nov 03 12:44:19 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>,
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>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 this case, per capita is irrelevant. If the problem is that we're
>>putting out X tons of CO2 annually to produce a widget,
>
>How about x tons to drive a 6000-lb SUV? Or to produce electricity for things
>like game playing and automatic can openers? Just look at the energy we
>waste, and since most of it comes from fossil fuels, there goes more CO2.

See? Still trying to change the subject.
That's because you know your ramblings make no sense.
>
>
>>how is it
>>improving anything on a global scale if we move production to China,
>>where looser pollution controls mean that creating a widget now puts
>>out anywhere from 1.5X to 2X tons of CO2 yet a greater population base
>>means that the per capita numbers are lower?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:20:57 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
>>When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
>>good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
>>a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
>>going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
>>where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.
>>
>>Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
>>of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
>>of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
>>solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
>>squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
>>that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
>>effect.
>>
>>
>OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
>energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
>comparison with any other country.

Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 28 Nov 2003 11:05:34 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
>news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Not quite the same. If noise released is the problem, how is it
>>better to release the same noise in a different location?
>
>China releases less "noise", by far. Which is why most people are
>concentrating on the largest releasers of "noise" first.

You're entirely ignoring the point.
Normal for you.
The point is this: moving the manufacturing to China, where the
pollution requirements are laxer, will result in *MORE* C02
production, not less.
If, as you insist, the intended result is to *reduce* C02 production,
Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it, because one of its results will
be to *increase* C02 production, as shown.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
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