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.

"MacIntosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!

Yeah, and don't forget all the methane they produce farting all day long!
(However, hmmm....what about all of these green bastards and their hot air?)


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

China consumes more coal than the US? Should we limit Chinese coal consumption?

Ed

 
"Jerry McG" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control
> over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global warming scenario as a
> way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If
> global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so
> they can have an excuse for forcing the implementation of their ideas.>
>
> Bravo, Ed! These people are attempting to impose their own social
> reengineering upon everyone based upon their own crypto-communist ideals.
> They hate capitalism and the abilities of free peoples to do as they choose.
> They latched onto this madness when people actually took them seriously 30
> years ago that a "new ice age" was upon us, when that fell apart they
> concocted this latest scam. The more people pillory these arrogant bastards
> the better off we'll all be.


Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
consumption than the US.

Ed

 
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> z wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
> much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
> Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
> result of many factors which are not well understood?

Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
proposal. And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
the corporations' messages; they just don't have the funding that the
NSF does, especially after the latest rounds of conservative cuts in
federal research spending and corporate regulation. Ask yourself, how
come the folks who carry out the vast volumes of research that go into
something like the huge IPCC report toil in anonymity and obscurity,
but every time some guy's estimate of global warming comes out to be
..9 degrees per decade instead of 1 degree per decade, every newspaper
runs a headline story 'New Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming'
mentioning him by name.
>
> I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
> warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
> available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
> implementation of their ideas.
>
> Ed
 
"MacIntosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!


1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.

2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
therefore produces no CO2.

Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?

>
>
>
>
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> past.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No we don't!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> concentration
> > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> not prove
> > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> anything. The
> > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> at one
> > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> research
> don't even
> > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> years.
> > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> trying
> to
> infere
> > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
> The
> errors
> > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> are
> > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
> then
> groomed the
> > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> treated as a
> > > >> > loon.
> > > >>
> > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> "decided
> > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> some
> > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
> the
> > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > >> operation?
> > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> establishment
> > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > >
> > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > >
> > > And your data is where?
> >
> >
> > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> > just what your left wing wackos say.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > >far more likely cause.
> > >
> > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > warming.
> >
> > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
 
Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.
>
> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.

So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
and wire manufacturing industry before then.


>
> By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> vehicles being used in India or China, would you?
 
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
> was.

The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.
 
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > 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.

Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?

Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
into manufacture?
>
> > 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:

> Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?

The average person in china is limited by his income, which is what
you are getting at. After all, it's the politics first, the environment
second. And that's the problem, the environment is being used as an
excuse for a political and social agenda. If it were about the environment
there would be a call for global standards, and until then keeping as
much production in the USA, europe, and japan as possible because that
is where the environmental protections exist. But it's not about the
environment.

> Why are manufacturers not waiting for Kyoto to move their production
> to the third world? Is it because they aren't as concerned about the
> costs of CO2 reduction as they are about every other cost that goes
> into manufacture?

Because of all the regulation that doesn't exist in the 'third world'
that exists in the developed world now. The kyoto treaty would only
accelerate the move and encourage more businesses to relocate as it
only heaps on more regulation and limitation in the developed world.
Making the regulation disparity greater with things like the kyoto
treaty can have but one effect, to further encourage the relocation
of the means of production.




 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> How much they release in total is irrelevant. There is no global
>> improvement if you move X tons from the US to China, or even worse, X
>> from the US and 2X in China, but lower per capita.

> So, how long do you think it will be before the average Chinese is
> driving a Lincoln Navigator? How long before the US power companies
> figure out how to move their power plants from the US to China to
> avoid emissions limits on their furning of oil and coal, and export
> the electricity to the US? I'd like to buy stock in the copper mining
> and wire manufacturing industry before then.

When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never.

Do you care about the environment more than your politics, z?
Obviously not given the arguements you are making. If you cared about
the environment first and foremost then what is occuring in China and
other places should offend you greatly. It's corporations going around
the hard fought for environmental protections in the west by relocating
their production to nations like China. But it doesn't offend you.
Instead, what offends you is that people in the USA use too much energy
per person.

And that's the root of it, the environment being used as an excuse for
a political and social agenda. If you feel people should have to live
never using more than X power per year, then argue for that in the open.
Argue for a world wide global limit. You'd have a crediable stance then.
But by arguing that some nations should be unfettered and others fettered
shows it's not about the environment at all, but about politics.



 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> No, that would be like asking why is it better to burn that oil in China
>> instead of the USA. As usual Lloyd you don't even know what the question
>> was.
>
> The question is, why the hell would they be burning oil in China to
> power American air conditioners? Or do you think they will be
> confiscating our air conditioners and moving them to China as well?
> Because I will definitely state that I would be against such a move.

If you take the model that the 'evil corporation' will pollute in mass
whenever they aren't forced to be clean then if it were economically
feasiable to relocate electric generation, they would.

But let's deal with what is feasiable to relocate now. Manufacturing
of goods. Those plants consume electricity to make those goods. Where
would you prefer this electricity to be generated? In the USA with
lots of environmental protection or China with next to none? If the
manufacturing plant stays in the USA, it's electricity will be generated
in the USA. If it goes to china, it's electricity will be generated in
China. It's a ripple effect of pollution.

So, what's more important? The environment or the politics?


 
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China? And do
what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?

Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
going to pack up and leave that have not already? Are the car
companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?

And isn't 'generating less CO2 per unit of energy produced' just a
definition of the phrase 'energy efficiency'? Isn't every energy
company annual corporate report full of glowing pages about how they
are keeping their costs down by increasing energy efficiency? Doesn't
that actually lower the cost of power, in the long run? Isn't this
just a push to modernize or mothball old inefficient plants, sooner
than would happen anyway due to fuel costs? If they have to do so, why
would they want to build new plants in the third world where there
isn't any excess demand for more power, rather that refurbish old
plants or build new ones here in the US, where the demand is?

>
> 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! =-----
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
> 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.

Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
Kyoto gets implemented? Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.
Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
Walmart lately? Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
we can run our home appliances on them?

>
> 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.
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> 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.

But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
cost of energy?

>
> 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:

> 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.


> And do
> what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
> more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
> been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
> as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
> regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
> CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?

Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.

If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
of regulation.


> Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
> from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
> going to pack up and leave that have not already?

What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
further tipping the market scales in favor of china?

> Are the car
> companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
> more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
> change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?

Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
well expect that production to move there too.


 
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:21 -0500, "C. E. White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well you don't even have this right. Canada has a much higher per capita energy
>consumption than the US.

Costs money to heat all those homes in our winters.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<lnOxb.142358$Dw6.591979@attbi_s02>...
>> 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.

> Where do you think widgets are made? What exactly is currently made in
> the US that is going to all of a sudden be made overseas, but only if
> Kyoto gets implemented?

There are lots of products still made in the USA. Try reading the
packages at your favorite mega retailer. As the imbalance of regulation
increases less and less production will remain in the USA.

> Cars and trucks? Too late there, buddy.

What 3rd world cars are being sold in the USA? None that I know of.
The closest you might get to that may be the now defunct yugo. Maybe
back in the 80s the first hyundai's a kia's from south korea, might have
barely qualified, but south korea hardly counts as third world now.

> Houses, buildings, highways, etc.? Seems unlikely. Clothes and
> fabrics? Long long gone. Toys? Checked the labels on the stock at
> Walmart lately?

I check the labels of everything I buy. And there is alot still made
in the USA. The items I bought for my mother's birthday present were
all made in the USA.

> Or are they just going to shut down the powerplants in
> the US, move them to China, and store the electricity in batteries so
> we can run our home appliances on them?

I've already delt with this invalid diversionary arguement from you
in other posts. If it becomes economically feasiable even electric power
generation will be relocated. So long as infastructure costs stand in the
way it won't. And of course that's why you chose it, it's the special
case you can try to hide behind.

>> 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.

 
"Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and therefore
produces no CO2."
Go back to grade school:
"Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
"waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "MacIntosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> > sources of CO2 emissions....
> >
> > gotta ban the bloody cows!
>
>
> 1) Cow or human, burps contain no CO2.
>
> 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore produces no CO2.
>
> Got any more 'facts' you'd like to share?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > > >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
> > past.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No we don't!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
belief
> > does
> > not prove
> > > > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't
prove
> > anything. The
> > > > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of
inputs.
> > Looking
> > at one
> > > > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
BS.
> > As a
> > > > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
> > research
> > don't even
> > > > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
last
> > few
> > years.
> > > > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
> > trying
> > to
> > infere
> > > > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the
temperature.
> > The
> > errors
> > > > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
changes
> > they
> > are
> > > > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion
and
> > then
> > groomed the
> > > > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the
establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > >> > loon.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
and
> > > > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
and
> > > > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
> > "decided
> > > > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
> > some
> > > > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should
screw
> > the
> > > > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
al
> > > > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on
their
> > > > >> operation?
> > > > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
> > establishment
> > > > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > > > >
> > > > >I believe they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > And your data is where?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you,
because
> > > you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you
wouldn't
> > > ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data,
not
> > > just what your left wing wackos say.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > > > >far more likely cause.
> > > >
> > > > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> > > warming.
> > >
> > > Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> > > bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > > > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar
heating
> > (think
> > > > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> > behind
> > > > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >


 
In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
>> 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:

>> >> 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.

> But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
> the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
> already.

Right, that's why if you really cared about the environment you, and all
environmentalists would be demanding a world wide standard to protect the
environment. But what happens instead? Things like the kyoto treaty to
further increase the regulation imbalance and encourage more relocation.

> Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> cost of energy?

What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.

Regulation in the USA doesn't strive to make power generation more
efficent, the market does that for the most part. And what can a power
company do but continue the status quo anyway with new plants,
regardless of type, being opposed on environmental grounds?

>> 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.
 
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