Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.

 

???
But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
impression, that people go into climatology research because they
hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
plodding around on the planet?

 

Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
instead of the U.S.

Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"

Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
clear what their real goals are.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

See you miss the point of global economy and a global problem.
When you call CO2 released in the USA bad, and CO2 released in china
good with a plan that limits US releases and not china's you encourage
a shift in means of production to china. A person in the USA is still
going to buy that widget, you've just changed the point on the globe
where it's made and the energy to make it is generated.

Of course the US could look really good in your book by just adding alot
of people to the population. Of course that doesn't address this concept
of a CO2 induced global warming problem. But these measures and these
solutions do achieve social and political goals, they just don't do
squat with regards to protecting the environment or addressing the idea
that CO2 releases cause global warming. In fact they have the opposite
effect.

 

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.

Sure you can take the populations of india and china and make *LOOK* like
it's less CO2 by a misplaced use of per capita numbers, but the actual
amount of CO2 and pollution *PER WIDGET* made, the only real measure
that we should look at, the only one that is fair from one nation to
another, actually at best, stays the same but very likely increases.
(when production is moved out of the developed countries)

Someone who is truely concerned about the environment as I am sees
through this farce of the political left and their use of the environment
as a mere excuse for their political and social goals.

 

I think you need to see how the funding for research works. That aside,
the kyoto treaty policies encourage corporations to relocate to places
where they can still destroy the environment and spew whatever they
wish into the air and water.

If it were really about the environment, environmentalists would be
demanding high world-wide standards of protection. They would be demanding
that various manufacturing processes meet the same standards world wide.
Environmentalists would be doing all they can to keep production in
nations where hard won environmental protections are in place. But what
do we see? Policies that favor big corporations to move their facilities
overseas and spew at will. To repeat the same environmental disasters of
the 19th and 20th centuries in developing nations when there is no need
to do this damage because we (as people of this planet) know better now.

Maybe you should look closer at the policies you support, because it's
those corporations you hate that are winning regardless of wether it is
the left or right that wins an election.

 

look at how much animal and plant life we waste keeping massive earth movers
like you alive.

choke and die feltcher.

 

like lloyds digestive tract. combine flatulance that registers on the
richter scale with the cries of taped up gerbils desperately fighting to
escape his colon and thats what youre left with.

 

just look at how much oxygen is wasted on you. die pig.

 

The analogy is total bullshit.
You're actually trying to say that reloacation of C02 production will
mean less C02 production, just because it's in China?
Get real.
Actually, this would mean MORE C02 production because the goods would
need to be shipped further to the markets.
Don't you ever *THINK* about what you write? Or are you just copying
this stuff out of your "Liberal Playbook"?

 

Change the subject again.
Why not just admit that you're wrong and be done with it?

 

We cannot forget manufacturing, because it is the key part. But if you
want to talk about wasteful individuals, why don't you reform your
own behavior Dr. Parker? You're driving a mercedes benz, and it's not
an A class either as I recall. Why not a little 4 cylinder car?
How about a bicycle? How about a smaller home?

 

Or a large mercedes benz sedan.

Heaven forbid people play games.... you sound like a puritianical right
winger lloyd. Cept you use the environment as your excuse to keep people
from doing things they enjoy.

 

How about answering the question! He's right on the money.

And talk about waste, do *you* ride a bike to work? Do you take a bus?
Drive a hybrid? Ride a horse? Do you have a garage door opener? An electric
can opener? A stereo system? An air conditioner? A television (a big
"SUV" style TV)? A large monitor on your computer? More than one computer?
Do you have solar panels? Toilet paper from recycled fibers? A chandelier?
A single low watt light bulb per room?

How far back should we go so you can say there's no waste? Should
government mandate consumption? Does everything I do in my life over riding
a horse for transportation or using anything electric affect the air you
breathe to the point that the government must protect you against the
polluction produced by my consumption? How much?

Lloyd's answer: Blame SUV's.