Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <20031201224506281-0900@news.newsguy.com>, Del Rawlins wrote:
> On 01 Dec 2003 07:49 PM, Brent P posted the following:
>> In article <20031201190834633-0900@news.newsguy.com>, 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.
>
> So either way I am still subsidizing Red China's machine tool industry?
> Krap.
No, if it's made in taiwan, it's made in taiwan. Just agreeing that
the quality of the work is better in taiwan so usually the tooling is
done there rather in mainland china.
> On 01 Dec 2003 07:49 PM, Brent P posted the following:
>> In article <20031201190834633-0900@news.newsguy.com>, 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.
>
> So either way I am still subsidizing Red China's machine tool industry?
> Krap.
No, if it's made in taiwan, it's made in taiwan. Just agreeing that
the quality of the work is better in taiwan so usually the tooling is
done there rather in mainland china.
#5282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
#5283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
#5284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>
Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
#5285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>> >
>> >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 *****.
>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
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.
So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>> >
>> >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 *****.
>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
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.
So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>
#5286
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>> >
>> >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 *****.
>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
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.
So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>> >
>> >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 *****.
>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
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.
So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>
#5287
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>> >
>> >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 *****.
>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
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.
So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>> >
>> >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 *****.
>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
>****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
>limited government.
So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what genders
can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>
#5288
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Mr. Short-term Memory,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.
#5289
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Mr. Short-term Memory,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.
#5290
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Mr. Short-term Memory,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<dsLyb.384437$Fm2.396249@attbi_s04>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010936.1f31d963@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<nvOxb.342157$Fm2.345797@attbi_s04>...
> >> There's not less of it. In fact there is more of it. By moving production
> >> from the USA and other developed nations where there are strict
> >> environmental protections, where energy production is more streamlined,
> >> etc and so forth to nations where there is little to no regulation to
> >> protect the environment, the energy generation is at the turn of the
> >> 20th century, global environmental damage and CO2 released is increased.
>
> > Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
> > reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
> > just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
> > Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
> > cost of energy?
>
> What sort of babblespeak are you useing? There is no need to streamline
> anything in china. The communist state doesn't care about streamlining,
> they need to put people to work, lots of people. The people can't object
> to the pollution, because they'll just go to prison if they do.