Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

J

Joe

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,721

"When will the average US citizen drive a lincoln navigator? Never."
The US citizens will DRIVE them, the Chinese will LIVE in them.

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fsKyb.274656$ao4.943226@attbi_s51...
> 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.
>
>
>

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,722

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

This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong side of
morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree with
the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to) then
you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the left,
like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.

The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
corporations".

 

S

Steve

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,723

Joe wrote:

> "What I don't support is government mandates that stress the economy by
> setting impossible goals for a given technology"
> Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only way to force the improvement in
> the technology... EX. if we forced all new constrution in "sunny cities"
> (cities with x% of sunny days) to have a certain amount of energy generated
> by solar, then the solar technology would advance and the price would drop
> in a few years.


A PERFECT illustration of my point. Direct solar power will never be
competitive, because if you average out the net collectable solar energy
flux per unit area and divide that by the market demand for power, you
find that VAST areas would have to be covered in solar collectors in
order get a substatial percentage. OTOH, wind power, hydroelectric
power, and tidal power (which actually are ways to harness solar energy
collected naturally by the atmosphere and ocean) is viable. So goverment
pressure to "develop" direct solar is misguided, misplaced, and a wasted
effort.

Physics, not politics, MUST drive progress. Period.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,724

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

Step 1. Production/manufacturing is moved to China
Step 2. Plant needs electricity so power plant is built in China

Did I miss something? I thought the concept was pretty easy to understand.


> 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?
>

Textiles and steel are teetering on the edge as we speak. Levi Strauss has
or is shortly closing their last North American production facility. The
pressure on companies to move production comes in 3 flavors: 1) labor costs
2) taxes 3) regulation. If you think all those that would move have moved,
your're dreaming. Kyoto just turns up the volume on #3, regulation.

> 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! =-----

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,725

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 03 16:19:43 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> > wrote:

> > >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.
>
>

This argument really is a dead-ender. No one is making the argument you're
arguing against! Power generation isn't the point. Manufacturing is (Guess
what? A production facility needs electricity)

This is *so* self evident as as to make one stop and wonder how you decided
even to bother making it.

> >
> > By per capita numbers, you wouldn't have a problem with leaded fuel
> > vehicles being used in India or China, would you?

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,726

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

>
> >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.

Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Ed

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,727

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:26:26 -0500, "C. E. White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>>
>> >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.
>
>Oh, I thought it was from all the gas used by Canadians driving to Florida.

Nope, then we're burning *American* energy!
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

B

Brian Trosko

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,728

In rec.autos.driving z <[email protected]> wrote:

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

You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.

 

P

[email protected]

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,729

what does this have to do with 4x4's and why does it dominste this
group?

 

L

Lon Stowell

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,730

Approximately 12/1/03 14:15, [email protected] uttered for posterity:

> what does this have to do with 4x4's and why does it dominste this
> group?

If you are old enough to remember when the riff-raff discovered
Citizen's Band radio, pretty much the same reason. A lot of
pathetic folks that couldn't get a statue to stand still long
enough to listen to their pathetic blatherings have no other
outlet.

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

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,731

[email protected] wrote:
>
> what does this have to do with 4x4's and why does it dominste this
> group?

Becasue certain groups will use global warming prevention as a reason
for restricting or eliminating 4x4s, SUV, Trucks, etc., etc.

Ed

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,732

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

Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!

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! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 1, 2003

• #1,733

Joe wrote:

> "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

IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago that
wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm animals
was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you like to
have had the Depends™ concession if that had gone thru, z?

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! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,734

Brent P wrote:
>
> 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?

I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
government.

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! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,735

z wrote:
>
> 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?

If you dishonestly define efficiency, probably almost always. In
reality, definitely not always. You have to look at the cost to make
those efficiencies happen - you can't hide them in government incentives
and subsidies and not include that in the efficiency cost calculations.
20 years ago, solar panels looked attractive only because there were
huge tax subsidies and the people doing the calculations also ingored
the "cost of money" over the long payback period (learned that from my
dad).

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! =-----

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,736

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > 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?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>

Right on. China's communist government is smarter than the Soviets, but
still, much of what they're doing is hiring out their population to foreign
companies who find it cheaper to outsource work to Chinese "companies"
(government owned). I doubt there's much real wealth being created in
China. It's a hard currency project so the government can modernize....
mostly their military.









> 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! =-----

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,737

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:

> I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> government.

You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.

 

D

Del Rawlins

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,738

On 01 Dec 2003 05:41 PM, David J. Allen posted the following:

> Right on. China's communist government is smarter than the Soviets,
> but still, much of what they're doing is hiring out their population
> to foreign companies who find it cheaper to outsource work to Chinese
> "companies" (government owned). I doubt there's much real wealth
> being created in China. It's a hard currency project so the
> government can modernize.... mostly their military.

We're going to pay for that eventually, and that is the main reason why
I try to avoid goods made in red China as much as possible. Since I am
a tool addict, this gets expensive. I will buy Taiwanese tools if I
just can't afford the US made equivalent (my JET drill press is a good
example of this, I couldn't even find a new American made drill press)
on the theory that at least Taiwan is an ally, and the fact that their
continued success can only **** off the communists. The quality tends
to be better than the stuff from the mainland as well.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,739

In article <[email protected]>, Del Rawlins wrote:

> We're going to pay for that eventually, and that is the main reason why
> I try to avoid goods made in red China as much as possible. Since I am
> a tool addict, this gets expensive. I will buy Taiwanese tools if I
> just can't afford the US made equivalent (my JET drill press is a good
> example of this, I couldn't even find a new American made drill press)
> on the theory that at least Taiwan is an ally, and the fact that their
> continued success can only **** off the communists. The quality tends
> to be better than the stuff from the mainland as well.

Taiwan made stuff isn't the greatest generally but better than
mainland china. Hong Kong is about the same as Taiwan.

One common practice is to make the production tolling in taiwan
or Hong Kong and then once there won't be any more tooling changes,
ship the tool to mainland china for production.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 2, 2003

• #1,740

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then, when
> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy goes
> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't afford
> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> > government.
>
> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>
>
Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
line at the clinic and hope for decent care.

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