Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

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

Ane yet, even here in the frigid northlands of CT, many people find it
economically feasible to heat some or even most of their hot water by
rooftop solar collectors, and in some cases even use solar collection
to supplement their boilers for hot water home heating, even with the
government subsidies for such systems long gone.

In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> 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.

> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.

30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.

What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.

Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?


> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.

Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.

> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.

Still cleaner than plants in china.


> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.

Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?

>> > 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.

> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?

Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.

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

> And since it isn't, it won't.

So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.

>> > 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?

> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.

How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.

>> > 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.

> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.

Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.

With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.

It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.

Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.

z wrote:

> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.

That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. Secondly, the
act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS (new sources) to have
much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be initially exempted
because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts would then be capped
and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and production is shifted to
the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are cheaper to operate due
to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most advanced pollution controls
available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded (when they WOULD be
subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or they get too old to
operate anyway.

The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants. This
had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.

The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
in general.

------
"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.

Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.

Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.

Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02

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

A total, flat-out lie.


>And certainly, no researcher can ever hope to get any money
>from large energy corporations by delivering research that promotes
>the corporations' messages;

Which is why research sponsored by industry is suspect.


>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.

Uh, most of those agencies and articles do reference the IPCC report.

In article <[email protected]>,
"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.
>
>Ed
>
Not as of 1997 at least. The only nations higher than the US are Qatar,
Bahrain, UAE, Netherlands, Kuwait, and Luxembourg.

(from http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/text/ENG/variables/351.htm)

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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.

Spoken like a good little creationist.

>
>The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
>Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
>corporations".
>
>
And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis. Want
to call names? OK.

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously expensive.
>Most
>> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency room
>spend
>> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors live
>in
>> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating just
>out of
>> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still "free."
>If you
>> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great. However
>if you
>> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will try to
>screw
>> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>administrators,
>> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for the
>poor).
>> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part is,
>we have
>> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I see
>only two
>> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions on
>"private"
>> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>suggests
>> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own bills. If
>you
>> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would be
>generously
>> granted based on need).
>>
>
>There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the US.
>But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system. I
>remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by the
>company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The problem
>with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the cost
>was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more and more
>with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those who
>pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the poor
>and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes on
>demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>
>With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of medical care
>and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need. As
>consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying for and
>what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's complex and
>not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>insurer. But it is possible.
>
>I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
>abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
>and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't be
>enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant struggle
>to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it will
>just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
>competitors.

Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.

But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
health care, just national health insurance.

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>license.

That's a lie. That was never, ever part of any proposal. The plan was
similar to Canada's -- a single payer, with anyone being able to purchase
additional private insurance. What was banned was selling insurance that
covered the SAME thing the government plan would already cover.

>A true utopia.
>>
>>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.
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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.

As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
either go bankrupt or do without any 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.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.

How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.

"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "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".
>
> Yes, that makes great sense from the rightwingnut position that
> science is that which fights Socialism, Communism, and gay marriage,
> all as defined by the rightwingnuts. It all started with that
> sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.

Now you're going over the edge. Extreme environmentalists have written a
check against science that has insufficient funds to cash. A true scientist
would not entangle himself with left wing politics and recognize the
limitations of the current state of science. There's a nexus between
extreme environmentalism and anti-capitalist/anti-corporate politics. You
can see it in the anti-corporate, anti-global trade demonstrations. You can
see it in the Kyoto protocol. You can see it in the Green party platform.

Lefties have been waving around the terms "moral" and "science" in a whole
new way, redefined to fit their points of view and replace traditional
definitions. The argument on global warming and what to do about it would
be more productive if it only were just a scientific discussion.

In article <[email protected]>, John S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>z wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
>That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the
Clean Air Act
>amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air
Act. Secondly, the
>act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
(new sources) to have
>much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be
initially exempted
>because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts
would then be capped
>and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
production is shifted to
>the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
cheaper to operate due
>to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
advanced pollution controls
>available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
(when they WOULD be
>subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or
they get too old to
>operate anyway.
>
>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
maintenance on plants as
>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.

Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

Treating it this way
>subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
requirements of new plants.

But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.


?This
>had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer
maintenance and not
>keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in.
But the effect of
>this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive
because of overzealous
>regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting
plants are left in
>operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively
on this, and

The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
corporate profit it didn't want increased.

>specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO
CLEAN because they
>needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
memos.

It was not.

>
>The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier
for people to make
>silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
reason why they were
>written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws,
or what is going on
>in general.


Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!

>
>------
>"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to
replace older, less
>efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest
coal-fired plant. The new
>blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15%
more power using the
>same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA
threatened to invoke New
>Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
>Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
expenses. At the very same
>plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide
standards--an expense
>that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
>Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
as a sign of corporate
>greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the
nation's utilities were
>violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether
something might be
>wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding
huge fines.
>
>Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
dioxide, the two main
>industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal
usage. Future Clean
>Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
>

> >> 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.
>
> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>

Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts redefinition
of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
religion) into anti-capitalism.

> >
> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
> >corporations".
> >
> >
> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis.
Want
> to call names? OK.

Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all over
the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for nasty
names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist and
Nazi. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
limited government.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>

Hardly the only choices facing the uninsured and non-rich. Maybe you wish
that was really the case to give more weight to the feds taking over medical
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.
> >
> >

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> either go bankrupt or do without any care?

Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where (unnamed)
people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and shoot
as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.

So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
describe it, parker.

1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
4) New plant = best option for the environment.

Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
environment or politics?

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.

Many HMOs are not even for profit. And let's attack drug companies and put them
out of business. After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs, so who
needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more useful drugs
than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally, having the
government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is socialism you'd end
up spending far more under your socialism plan.

>
>
> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
> health care, just national health insurance.

Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit TRILLIONS of
dollars. And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to get
needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality. Trouble is
where would the US people go that needed urgent care with the Canada system here?

> >
> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want an
> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the supply
> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there won't
be
> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
struggle
> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
will
> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with no
> >competitors.
>
> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have national
> health care, just national health insurance.
>

That's the point. A national HMO. You don't really think the government
would be better at controlling costs that an HMO do you? Oh, and I suppose
you think the government would do a better job of devoloping drugs that
pharmaceuticals? IF those countries you mention actually do spend less (per
capita) on health care than in the US, it's because those governments are
"controlling" costs, i.e., limiting the supply.

> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, John S <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >z wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
> >
> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the
> Clean Air Act
> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air
> Act. Secondly, the
> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
> (new sources) to have
> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be
> initially exempted
> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts
> would then be capped
> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
> production is shifted to
> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
> cheaper to operate due
> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
> advanced pollution controls
> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
> (when they WOULD be
> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or
> they get too old to
> >operate anyway.
> >
> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
> maintenance on plants as
> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>
> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> exactly what the law allowed (and required).

MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency, such
as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.

> If during 10 years of routine
> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.

No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source. Try
becoming familiar with what you talk about.

>
>
> Treating it this way
> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
> requirements of new plants.
>
> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;

Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.

>
>
> ?This
> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer
> maintenance and not
> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in.
> But the effect of
> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive
> because of overzealous
> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting
> plants are left in
> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively
> on this, and
>
> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
> corporate profit it didn't want increased.

What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with actual
facts, so you attack/smear the messenger. Try actually reading the WSJ for once
in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that Daimler
Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, as if
Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't even
exist!



>
>
> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO
> CLEAN because they
> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
> memos.
>
> It was not.

Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long ago. And
those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last full
day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that Clinton
EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the Clinton
Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The philosophy of
the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required legislation
or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how ABC
News is really just a shill. too. Ha!

>
>
> >
> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier
> for people to make
> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
> reason why they were
> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws,
> or what is going on
> >in general.
>
> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!

A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants NOT
to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could become
tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel, the low
arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA is
forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River. Thanks for
all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the government
records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you needed
to erase it.

I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently forgot to
comment on it!

"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to
replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its
biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the old,
meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of energy--more
power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source Review
anyway, so the plan was scrapped.

Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet
new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new kilowatt
of electricity.

Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a
sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least
80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review guidelines, it
didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It simply
filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.

Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the
two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of
coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ
11/26/02