Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5331
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
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.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<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.
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.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5332
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
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.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<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.
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.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5333
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "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.
> > 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
>
#5334
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "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.
> > 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
>
#5335
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "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.
> > 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
>
#5336
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, 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%.
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.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, 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%.
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.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
#5337
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, 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%.
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.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, 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%.
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.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
#5338
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, 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%.
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.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, 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%.
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.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
#5339
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 1 Dec 2003 09:36:26 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
>the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
>already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
>reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
>just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
>Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
>cost of energy?
If "efficiency" were the goal of the regulations, that might be so.
But it isn't, is it?
It just never seems that the pollution regulations result in a more
streamlined energy production, but rather result in expensive add-ons.
Only during upgrades of major plants does the streamlining occur, and
that's strictly on an 'as needed' basis, not by regulation.
And there are precious few new major generating plants being built,
because (surprise!) regulations make them too expensive.
IOW, Yes, new regulations here will indeed speed up the movement of
manufacturing to other countries, where the costs are lower.
And, yes, making energy production more efficient lowers the cost of
power; but governmental regulations are about pollution, not
efficiency.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
>the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
>already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
>reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
>just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
>Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
>cost of energy?
If "efficiency" were the goal of the regulations, that might be so.
But it isn't, is it?
It just never seems that the pollution regulations result in a more
streamlined energy production, but rather result in expensive add-ons.
Only during upgrades of major plants does the streamlining occur, and
that's strictly on an 'as needed' basis, not by regulation.
And there are precious few new major generating plants being built,
because (surprise!) regulations make them too expensive.
IOW, Yes, new regulations here will indeed speed up the movement of
manufacturing to other countries, where the costs are lower.
And, yes, making energy production more efficient lowers the cost of
power; but governmental regulations are about pollution, not
efficiency.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5340
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 1 Dec 2003 09:36:26 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
>the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
>already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
>reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
>just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
>Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
>cost of energy?
If "efficiency" were the goal of the regulations, that might be so.
But it isn't, is it?
It just never seems that the pollution regulations result in a more
streamlined energy production, but rather result in expensive add-ons.
Only during upgrades of major plants does the streamlining occur, and
that's strictly on an 'as needed' basis, not by regulation.
And there are precious few new major generating plants being built,
because (surprise!) regulations make them too expensive.
IOW, Yes, new regulations here will indeed speed up the movement of
manufacturing to other countries, where the costs are lower.
And, yes, making energy production more efficient lowers the cost of
power; but governmental regulations are about pollution, not
efficiency.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>But there are already all those environmental and labor regulations in
>the US, and industry is moving manufacturing, and now serive, overseas
>already. Do you think that this will be speeded up by regulations
>reducing CO2, making 'energy production more streamlined', which is
>just another way to say making energy production more efficient?
>Doesn't making energy production more efficient end up lowering the
>cost of energy?
If "efficiency" were the goal of the regulations, that might be so.
But it isn't, is it?
It just never seems that the pollution regulations result in a more
streamlined energy production, but rather result in expensive add-ons.
Only during upgrades of major plants does the streamlining occur, and
that's strictly on an 'as needed' basis, not by regulation.
And there are precious few new major generating plants being built,
because (surprise!) regulations make them too expensive.
IOW, Yes, new regulations here will indeed speed up the movement of
manufacturing to other countries, where the costs are lower.
And, yes, making energy production more efficient lowers the cost of
power; but governmental regulations are about pollution, not
efficiency.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"