Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4201
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:
> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> protections for sale in the USA?
It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
exist.
If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
because of pervasive counterfeiting...)
Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
perspective.
We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.
DS
> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> protections for sale in the USA?
It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
exist.
If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.
This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
because of pervasive counterfeiting...)
Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.
Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
perspective.
We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.
DS
#4202
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.
Persoanlly I am all for a hefty tax on imported oil ramped up over a period of ten
years.
Ed
#4203
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.
Persoanlly I am all for a hefty tax on imported oil ramped up over a period of ten
years.
Ed
#4204
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.
Persoanlly I am all for a hefty tax on imported oil ramped up over a period of ten
years.
Ed
#4205
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <boojos$dmh$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4206
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <boojos$dmh$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4207
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <boojos$dmh$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>for.<
>>>
>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>
>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
state taxes alone.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#4208
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
> parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.
I believe the EPA was established under a Republican administration. I believe the
first National Parks were established under a Republican administration.
Have you ever been to an oil drilling site? I have. Publishing the picture of the
40 acres that are actually affected by drilling for an oil well out of a 1000 acre
(or larger) tract is about as fair as nitpicking one misspelled word in a
paragraph.
The national forests belong to all of us. "All of us includes" loggers, ranchers,
and environmentalist. I have no problem with some of the National Forest being set
aside as untouched, but I also think it is reasonable for much of the acreage to
be run for the public benefit. The public benefit includes allowing it to be
logged and grazed and even mined. What was missing in the past was proper
management of the public lands. Unfortunately politicians continually interfere
with the implementation of proper management practices.
Ed
#4209
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
> parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.
I believe the EPA was established under a Republican administration. I believe the
first National Parks were established under a Republican administration.
Have you ever been to an oil drilling site? I have. Publishing the picture of the
40 acres that are actually affected by drilling for an oil well out of a 1000 acre
(or larger) tract is about as fair as nitpicking one misspelled word in a
paragraph.
The national forests belong to all of us. "All of us includes" loggers, ranchers,
and environmentalist. I have no problem with some of the National Forest being set
aside as untouched, but I also think it is reasonable for much of the acreage to
be run for the public benefit. The public benefit includes allowing it to be
logged and grazed and even mined. What was missing in the past was proper
management of the public lands. Unfortunately politicians continually interfere
with the implementation of proper management practices.
Ed
#4210
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> The Republicans won't allow me to choose to have clean air and water, national
> parks and forests undamaged by mining and lumbering and drilling, etc.
I believe the EPA was established under a Republican administration. I believe the
first National Parks were established under a Republican administration.
Have you ever been to an oil drilling site? I have. Publishing the picture of the
40 acres that are actually affected by drilling for an oil well out of a 1000 acre
(or larger) tract is about as fair as nitpicking one misspelled word in a
paragraph.
The national forests belong to all of us. "All of us includes" loggers, ranchers,
and environmentalist. I have no problem with some of the National Forest being set
aside as untouched, but I also think it is reasonable for much of the acreage to
be run for the public benefit. The public benefit includes allowing it to be
logged and grazed and even mined. What was missing in the past was proper
management of the public lands. Unfortunately politicians continually interfere
with the implementation of proper management practices.
Ed