US greenhouse gas output falls
Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)
Eric Swanson
>
>http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbf71502-5b8d-11da-b221-0000779e2340.html
Sounds like typical Gee Dubyah Administration anti-science bullshit to me.
Notice the comment appeared in a British publication devoted to economic
development.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/executive_summary.html
Emissions of CO2 (83% of the total GHGs) increased 13 % from 1990 to 2003.
Look at the complete report, published in dec 2004. One wonders why it took
Connaughton almost a year to notice these data.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
d...@dan.com
than a decade between 2000 and 2003 following a shift in heavy manufacturing
away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
To which I say, so? Even if true, all this article is saying is our
manufacturing went to China. Net CO2 releases haven't changed. The planet,
stubborn bugger that it is, doesn't care where the CO2 is coming from. All
this article really says is there are a lot of formerly middle-class blue
collar workers now just barely getting by working at Walmart.
"Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <en...@your.own.risk> wrote in message
news:0Bbhf.580$Bj1....@news.uswest.net...
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbf71502-5b8d-11da-b221-0000779e2340.html
w...@bas.ac.uk
>http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbf71502-5b8d-11da-b221-0000779e2340.html
2000 seems to have been a high year:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf
2003 is higher than any other year except 2000. 1991 was lower than 1990
but the long term trend is upwards. I bet 2004 was higher than 2000.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Coby Beck
> "Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <enter> wrote:
>>http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbf71502-5b8d-11da-b221-0000779e2340.html
>
> 2000 seems to have been a high year:
>
> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf
>
> 2003 is higher than any other year except 2000. 1991 was lower than 1990
> but the long term trend is upwards. I bet 2004 was higher than 2000.
Looking at the chart in that link it's clear this is just a classic
cherry-pick.
1999 is higher than 1998, 2000 is higher than 1999, 2001 is also higher than
1999, 2002 is higher than 2001, 2003 is higher than 2002. 2000 just sticks
out for whatever reason, there is no downward trend.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)
> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in more
> than a decade between 2000 and 2003 following a shift in heavy manufacturing
> away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
>
> To which I say, so? Even if true, all this article is saying is our
> manufacturing went to China. Net CO2 releases haven't changed. The planet,
> stubborn bugger that it is, doesn't care where the CO2 is coming from. All
> this article really says is there are a lot of formerly middle-class blue
> collar workers now just barely getting by working at Walmart.
Ask the question: had the US ratified and purposefully adhered to Kyoto
(which few, save Denmark, seem to be doing, even amongst signatories),
would US manufacturing have fled to China at the same rate,
or even faster?
Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)
> "Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <enter> wrote:
>> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbf71502-5b8d-11da-b221-0000779e2340.html
>
> 2000 seems to have been a high year:
>
> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf
>
> 2003 is higher than any other year except 2000. 1991 was lower than 1990
> but the long term trend is upwards. I bet 2004 was higher than 2000.
>
> -W.
>
I do believe that once the expensive transitional costs are absorbed,
Carbon neutral energy will drive the economy just fine.
However the fact that effects of recessions stick out as the CO2
decline years (1991, 2001) lends a lot of credence to the
Kyoto kills economies claimants.
That and the number of sign and cheat Kyoto countries.
Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)
> 2000 just sticks out for whatever reason, there is no downward trend.
Can you say 'recession'?
d...@dan.com
I think it would have been larely irrelevant to the flight of manufacturing
to China. Because it's hard to imagine it could have been done any faster
than it has been.
Ask yourself this question: what is Bush, or anyone else in a position of
leadership in this country, doing to actually solve the problem of global
warming? Kyoto is a favorite straw man, used by you and other modern-day
Easter Isanders, to avoid actually talking how we're going to solve the
problem of global warming. It's typical of Republicans: sit back, do
nothing, and criticize those trying to actually solve problems, because
their solution isn't perfect, meanwhile benefiting from the current broken
system. Bush isn't discussing it. To solve a problem, you must actually be
trying to solve it.
Eric Swanson
You mean that recessions cause overall energy consumption to decline.
If your "belief" about so-called "carbon neurtal" energy supply is correct,
then reducing CO2 emissions to zero would be reasonable and would not kill
the overall economy.
BTW, I searched the CEQ page at the White House site and found no reference to
the comments referenced in the FT story. I think the FT report was about the
latest DOE assessment of GHG releases, which is due out in December??
The data from last year shows a decline in GHG emissions in the Industrial
sector, while other sectors of the economy continue to rise. Ignored is the fact
that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
made overseas. The steel, petrochemicals, etc, which are used to make things
should be considered as part of the U.S. consumption and therefore emissions.
If we didn't import all that stuff from Asia, etc, they would not be using all
the fossil fuels they do now. Also, there is that strange Energy Intensity
business, where the emissions per GDP are considered. As more and more
production is shifted overseas, our service oriented GDP has gone up as our
industrial energy consumptin has gone down. It's another example of false
accounting, IMHO.
Roger Coppock
US GREENHOUSE GAS OUTPUT HAS NOT FALLEN!
Gases by years from THe United States of America
(in Gg of CO2 equivalent)
Year CO2 CH4 N2O HFCs PFCs SF6 Total
1990 5002324.50 642673.06 393178.56 35486.79 20345.88 35109.28
6129118.08
1991 4961684.00 643084.31 398663.75 31583.80 17796.74 33465.17
6086277.78
1992 5062351.00 646762.50 408458.16 36976.37 16584.79 31106.98
6202239.79
1993 5175351.50 638818.88 408548.91 36593.04 16492.89 35660.67
6311465.88
1994 5260865.50 645127.94 435204.84 41422.80 15103.38 32906.30
6430630.77
1995 5312188.50 650158.63 427049.22 51603.12 15564.98 28143.78
6484708.22
1996 5498549.00 637000.00 436874.44 66442.45 16637.13 31781.71
6687284.71
1997 5577635.50 628824.88 436311.22 76741.10 15772.76 29145.87
6764431.32
1998 5602499.50 620123.38 432134.06 97105.41 14448.15 24145.43
6790455.93
1999 5676290.00 613053.75 428354.56 96660.49 14425.87 23721.13
6852505.80
2000 5858981.50 614433.00 425829.78 105127.51 13821.45 20132.71
7038325.95
2001 5731773.00 605117.69 417278.59 103360.88 7511.00 18848.42
6883889.57
2002 5782362.50 598119.69 415849.34 111666.03 8718.83 17845.84
6934562.23
These data are from the UNFCCC organization
Alastair McDonald
"Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <en...@your.own.risk> wrote in message
The UK is well on course to meet it Kyoto targets, but not its own targets
which are stricter.
> would US manufacturing have fled to China at the same rate,
> or even faster?
If the US had made savings on energy use then they could have reduced their
manufacturing costs which would have made them more, not less, competitive
with the Chinese. The Kyoto 'costs' are the results of creative accounting by
the fossil fuel industry intent in maintaining its high production rates.
Over 1000 American soldiers have lost their lives so Haliburton can rake in
vast profits from Iraqi oil.
You really ought to change your name from atheist4bush to sucker4bush!
Cheers, Alastair.
d...@dan.com
in message news:dm581m$djk$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
sucker4bush is redundant. Anything "4bush" implies sucker.
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> > 2000 just sticks out for whatever reason, there is no downward trend.
>
> Can you say 'recession'?
Sure. The point, and you must be agreeing here, is that saying emissions
are going down since 2000 is a falsehood, not an outright lie because it is
true in the meaningless sense that 2003 is lower than 2000.
As for your other point that this is evidence that those who predict Kyoto
will kill us all are right, that is not logical in the slightest.
A recession causes lower CO2 is not at all evidence that lowering CO2 causes
a recession, how can you claim it is? Research and infrastructure building
should actually be a boon for economies, all that adaption and modification
and construction activity.
Coby Beck
> "Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <en...@your.own.risk> wrote in message
> news:bUnhf.104$WU1...@news.uswest.net...
>> d...@dan.com wrote:
>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in
>>> more than a decade between 2000 and 2003 following a shift in heavy
>>> manufacturing away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
>>>
>>> To which I say, so? Even if true, all this article is saying is our
>>> manufacturing went to China. Net CO2 releases haven't changed. The
>>> planet, stubborn bugger that it is, doesn't care where the CO2 is coming
>>> from. All this article really says is there are a lot of formerly
>>> middle-class blue collar workers now just barely getting by working at
>>> Walmart.
>>
>> Ask the question: had the US ratified and purposefully adhered to Kyoto
>> (which few, save Denmark, seem to be doing, even amongst signatories),
>> would US manufacturing have fled to China at the same rate,
>> or even faster?
>
> I think it would have been larely irrelevant to the flight of
> manufacturing to China. Because it's hard to imagine it could have been
> done any faster than it has been.
I tend to agree. But this is a nice example of that peculiarily Bushian way
of claiming "I was right" no matter what happens. If manufacturing had not
left for China, surely they would have claimed "see, good thing, no Kyoto"
now that it has anyway its "see, it would have been even worse with Kyoto".
"See? Look at all the terrorism in Iraq. We were right."
"See? Chemical weapons were used on civilians in Fallujah. (oops. that was
us..)"
> Ask yourself this question: what is Bush, or anyone else in a position of
> leadership in this country, doing to actually solve the problem of global
> warming?
Or the problem of manufacturing moving to China. The problem is simply they
don't consider either thing a problem.
Well Done
>Kool-aid drinker and probable lefty troll d...@dan.com wrote:
>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in
>> more than a decade between 2000 and 2003 following a shift in heavy
>> manufacturing away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
>>
>> To which I say, so? Even if true, all this article is saying is our
>> manufacturing went to China. Net CO2 releases haven't changed. The planet,
>> stubborn bugger that it is, doesn't care where the CO2 is coming from.
>
Your posting only serves to show how full of shit you are.
Nice "own goal", loser.
>> All this article really says is there are a lot of formerly middle-class
>> bue collar workers now just barely getting by working at Walmart.
>
Bringing in some union propaganda only shows how full of shit you are,
Dan. Absolutely full of shit and with no redeeming qualities,
regarding this entire issue. Do you ACTUALLY THINK that no "real"
reduction in CO2 emission from the U. S. can be achieved? I can't
WAIT to see how assholes like you will spin U. S. efforts in the
future. Great fun!
>Ask the question: had the US ratified and purposefully adhered to Kyoto
>(which few, save Denmark, seem to be doing, even amongst signatories),
>would US manufacturing have fled to China at the same rate,
>or even faster?
>
No fair asking Dan a question. Don't you know he and his ilk are just
"Right"? The mere act of asking a question shows you are part of the
problem ;-)
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Sparky @zig-zag.net
Well Done wrote:
> Your posting only serves to show how full of shit you are.
> Nice "own goal", loser.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/01/on-powers.php
How I Lost the War in Iraq
Okay, okay. I admit it. It's my fault. Lord knows, I've tried to
pretend that I'm not to blame. After all, I opposed the invasion. I
spent years assailing the Bush administration - you know, the people
who chose the war. I've even spent thousands of dollars in taxes
paying for our soldiers in Baghdad and Falluja. How could I be
responsible for the mess over there?
I finally faced the cruel truth when President Bush and Vice President
Cheney recently lifted their noses from the grindstone - what hours
of hard work they put in keeping us safe! - and tackled this question
head-on. With customary Kantian rigor, they pointed out something that
had never once occurred to me. It is my skepticism, defeatism and
invidious "realism" - put simply, my bad attitude - that have
been undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.
As you can imagine, their words sobered me up. And I began a thorough
and searching moral inventory of the political mistakes I've made
over the past three years, misjudgments that - let's be brutally
frank - have given aid and comfort to every pro-fascist murderer who
straps on a bomb to blow up a mosque or a market.
The list of my blunders could hardly be more damning:
1. Although Saddam was a despicable tyrant, I opposed toppling him
because I thought the war would prove bloody and hugely expensive, and
would probably leave the world more chaotic and dangerous than before.
2. I insisted that the White House was inflating its claims about Iraq
being an imminent threat.
3. I doubted that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
4. I believed that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would botch the
reconstruction of Iraq.
5. I was shocked and appalled by Abu Ghraib.
6. I worried that the war would turn the world against us.
7. I scoffed every time we captured or killed the insurgents'
number-two man.
8. I . . .
You get the point. Blaming the war's failures on those who actively
opposed it and predicted, often with scary accuracy, just how it would
go wrong, reminds me of the time in high school when our football coach
blamed the team's lousy performance on our lack of school spirit
during a pep rally.
Knowing that the public has soured on the war, the administration has
itself been staging pep rallies for both Bush and his "vice president
for torture," as former CIA head Stansfield Turner recently dubbed
Dick Cheney. With the righteous self-pity that defines modern
conservatism, the administration has been blaming its problems on
everybody to the left of Bill O'Reilly. No matter that the right
controls the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court and most
corporate boardrooms. No matter that Iraq was the Bush
administration's war of choice. Somebody else is to blame.
And so, to the cheers of their flying monkeys in the blogosphere, Bush
and Cheney spent the past fortnight practicing their usual tricks -
slandering critics' patriotism, implying that dissent is an attack on
our troops, and dishonestly claiming that a bipartisan Senate
commission cleared them of misrepresenting prewar intelligence when, of
course, it did no such thing. True sore winners, they bristled with
outrage at being judged for their results, not their professed
intentions.
While I always enjoy the rare appearances of the incomparable Cheney,
who emerged from his spider-hole wearing his cummerbund as high as a
doo-rag, true connoisseurs of flop-sweat have relished watching Bush
grow more rabbity with each passing day. Talk about your ironies of
history. Dubya doubtless thought Vietnam was finally behind him when
Dan Rather got zapped, yet here he is hunkering down in full Lyndon
Johnson mode. Just as LBJ spent his final time in office speaking only
to uniformed personnel who wouldn't dare diss their commander in
chief, so Bush has been spending an eerie amount of time on military
bases talking to captive audiences. (He likes being seen with American
soldiers - as long as they're not dead or wounded.) You have to
admire his stern claims that he won't "cut and run" from Iraq,
when everybody knows members of his administration are busy figuring
out how, before next November's elections, they'll be able to cut
and jog.
The real cutters and runners are in the GOP - they're suddenly
worried about getting re-elected. Whether it's Pennsylvania's
reactionary senator Rick "Dead Fetus Hugger" Santorum ducking the
chance to appear with the president at a Veterans Day speech, or
Representative J.D. Hayworth saying he'd prefer that Bush not
campaign with him in his home state of Arizona, Republicans are now
scurrying to make sure that they aren't harmed by the increasing
unpopularity of what's happening in Iraq. Like the White House, they
know that their real problem isn't Americans who opposed the war all
along - they didn't vote Republican anyway. It's the millions of
Americans who trusted in Bush's judgment, supported the war, and now
see the whole thing as a debacle.
The right's political jockeying finds an echo in the bad-faith fiesta
thrown by liberal hawks who must deal with the fact that they promoted
an invasion that's turned out badly. None has been more egregious
than smug, gee-whizish New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who
always seems like the sort of high school history teacher who
couldn't finish his doctorate but wows 16-year-olds by calling Brazil
"amazon.country." Although he served as the war's most prominent
liberal fig leaf, he's still trying to have it both ways, taking
credit for his visionary ideals in supporting democracy and a remade
Middle East, then faulting other people for their incompetence in
executing the master plan. What did he think he'd get from George
Bush and Dick Cheney? They didn't exactly turn Afghanistan into the
Switzerland of Central Asia (with opiates instead of chocolates); in
fact, they mocked the idea of nation-building during the 2000 campaign,
and, in the run-up to war, kept claiming that the whole Iraq operation
would be a piece of cake.
Democratic politicians have been just as bad. As Rosa Brooks noted in
her Los Angeles Times column, November has become "Repudiate Your
Iraq Vote Month" - which is obviously linked to the war's poll
numbers. Years after it might have made a difference, Bill Clinton
called the war a mistake, a declaration that was immediately viewed
through the prism of his wife's presidential ambitions. Was this
Willie's slick way of signaling to liberal voters that, despite all
Hillary's hawkish talk, she didn't believe in the war?
Meanwhile, both members of last year's Democratic ticket publicly
said that they'd been wrong in okaying the war. While John Edwards
did this the canny way - identifying himself with all the ordinary
Americans who put their faith in the president to do the right thing
- John Kerry displayed his customary tin ear. He blamed the
administration for misleading him into approving an invasion. (Didn't
he learn anything in Vietnam?) "Knowing what we know now," he
brayed, "I would not have gone to war in Iraq." Now that's
leadership. I imagine he also feels strongly that it was a mistake to
have booked steerage on the Titanic, failed to defend Pearl Harbor or
traded Shaq to Miami.
While one could only laugh at Kerry's political ineptitude, I found
myself admiring the gutbucket integrity of Pennsylvania Congressman
John Murtha, a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars, who's known as
a sentimental tough guy - he visits soldiers in military hospitals
and grows teary at their suffering. Murtha had been solidly behind the
war in Iraq, so when this great friend of the military called for an
immediate withdrawal, you knew that the war was over in the American
people's heads, if not yet on the streets of Baghdad.
Predictably, the White House dragged out its familiar playbook, The
Chickenhawk's Guide to Smearing War Heroes, and tried to besmirch
Murtha's good name. Looking like he was battling a severe case of
flatulence, beleaguered Scott McClellan compared the beefy old
congressman to, of all people, Michael Moore. Well, I guess they both
could shed a few pounds.
It's unlikely that such attacks will work this time. Indeed, watching
Murtha on Meet the Press, one saw a decent, profoundly sincere man who,
though a Democrat, was conservative in the old-fashioned sense of the
word. You didn't have to agree with his call for immediate withdrawal
to grasp that he was articulating a feeling now shared by the majority
of Americans.
"In hindsight," Tim Russert asked him, "do you believe your vote
in Iraq was a mistake?"
"Obviously, it was a mistake," Murtha replied. And hearing this
doughty old Marine say such words, you knew that the question was no
longer, "Should we have gone to war in Iraq?" but "How do we get
our asses out of there?"
Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)
>> Ask the question: had the US ratified and purposefully adhered to Kyoto
>> (which few, save Denmark, seem to be doing, even amongst signatories),
>
> The UK is well on course to meet it Kyoto targets, but not its own targets
> which are stricter.
Not according to these guys:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30180/story.htm
Raymond Arritt
> However the fact that effects of recessions stick out as the CO2
> decline years (1991, 2001) lends a lot of credence to the
> Kyoto kills economies claimants.
You are committing one of the most basic fallacies in logic, known as
"affirming the consequent."
In short, "A causes B" does not imply "B causes A".
d...@dan.com
news:o7dco1lsep1cpbh2g...@4ax.com...
> "Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <en...@your.own.risk> wrote:
>>Kool-aid drinker and probable lefty troll d...@dan.com wrote:
>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in
>>> more than a decade between 2000 and 2003 following a shift in heavy
>>> manufacturing away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
>>>
>>> To which I say, so? Even if true, all this article is saying is our
>>> manufacturing went to China. Net CO2 releases haven't changed. The
>>> planet,
>>> stubborn bugger that it is, doesn't care where the CO2 is coming from.
>>
> Well, Dan, Kyoto cares; it excuses India and China altogether.
Again with Kyoto. When is Bush going to propose a solution? Attacking Kyoto
because it wasn't perfect doesn't solve any problems. The rest of your rant
was a barely sensical and completely illogical ad hominem.
Alastair McDonald
"Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)" <en...@your.own.risk> wrote in message
It says;
"The UK's legally binding Kyoto target is to reduce emissions of six
greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the main one, to 12.5 percent below 1990
levels by 2009-2012.
...
According to Friends of the Earth, the latest projections show the UK's
emissions for 2004 are just 12.6 percent below 1990 levels. "
Cheers, Alastair.
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>I
snip
>
>The data from last year shows a decline in GHG emissions in the Industrial
>sector, while other sectors of the economy continue to rise. Ignored is the fact
>that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
>made overseas.
Yes, imports by the USA are bought and paid for by the USA, not
donated.by the exporting countries. Thus those countries too must
account for a portion of the USA's production.
> The steel, petrochemicals, etc, which are used to make things
>should be considered as part of the U.S. consumption and therefore emissions.
>If we didn't import all that stuff from Asia, etc, they would not be using all
>the fossil fuels they do now.
Conversely the exporting countries are receiving high energy
dollars thus their energy consumption must include a portion of
the USA's domestic.
> Also, there is that strange Energy Intensity
>business, where the emissions per GDP are considered. As more and more
>production is shifted overseas, our service oriented GDP has gone up as our
>industrial energy consumptin has gone down. It's another example of false
>accounting, IMHO.
That service oriented GDP is also an integral part of the rest of
the world's GDP otherwise US $ would not be in demand.
Atheist 4 Bush (reformed)
I was just pointing out the high degree of correlation.
It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see that in this
case the corollary is valid. It takes energy to produce, transport,
consume, and use widgets (and ideas).
Squeezing energy use will squeeze the economy.
As I pointed out, in the longer term, once infrastructure changes are
paid for, carbon neutral energy will power the economy just fine.
Lloyd Parker
>"Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in more
>than a decade between 2000 and 2003 following a shift in heavy manufacturing
>away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
Also due to Bush's economic recession.
Lloyd Parker
The UK is on target to meet its Kyoto goals.
"Unlike many other EU countries, Britain is on target to meet its Kyoto goal
of a 12.5 percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2008-2012 after the
replacement of many polluting coal-fired power stations with cleaner
gas-fuelled plants."
Eric Swanson
says...
>
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:40:51 +0000 (UTC), swa...@notspam.net
>(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>>I [snip]
>>
>>The data from last year shows a decline in GHG emissions in the Industrial
>>sector, while other sectors of the economy continue to rise. Ignored is the
fact
>>that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
>>made overseas.
>
>Yes, imports by the USA are bought and paid for by the USA, not
>donated.by the exporting countries. Thus those countries too must
>account for a portion of the USA's production.
I think that an accounting based on final consumption might provide a more
realistic representation of what is actually happening. Sure, foreign
consummers would then be "charged" for the GHG emissions required to produce
products which they imported and consumed. For example, nations, such as
Japan, which consume large quantities of wood and paper would be required to
include this in their emissions accounting, while nations which export wood
products would be allowed to deduct the emissions which were emitted to cut
the wood, process and ship it.
>> The steel, petrochemicals, etc, which are used to make things
>>should be considered as part of the U.S. consumption and therefore emissions.
>>If we didn't import all that stuff from Asia, etc, they would not be using
>>all the fossil fuels they do now.
>
>Conversely the exporting countries are receiving high energy
>dollars thus their energy consumption must include a portion of
>the USA's domestic.
Oh? Does burning dollars produce more energy than burning euros or Yen? :-)
But seriously, I think I agree with that statement, as I indicated above.
>> Also, there is that strange Energy Intensity
>>business, where the emissions per GDP are considered. As more and more
>>production is shifted overseas, our service oriented GDP has gone up as our
>>industrial energy consumption has gone down. It's another example of false
>>accounting, IMHO.
>
>That service oriented GDP is also an integral part of the rest of
>the world's GDP otherwise US $ would not be in demand.
What does that have to do with the GHG emissions by the U.S.?
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>I
sniip
>>>
>>>The data from last year shows a decline in GHG emissions in the Industrial
>>>sector, while other sectors of the economy continue to rise. Ignored is the
>fact
>>>that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
>>>made overseas.
>>
>>
snip
>
>>> Also, there is that strange Energy Intensity
>>>business, where the emissions per GDP are considered. As more and more
>>>production is shifted overseas, our service oriented GDP has gone up as our
>>>industrial energy consumption has gone down. It's another example of false
>>>accounting, IMHO.
>>
>>That service oriented GDP is also an integral part of the rest of
>>the world's GDP otherwise US $ would not be in demand.
>
>What does that have to do with the GHG emissions by the U.S.?
So if that accounting and in particular if this:
>>>... Ignored is the
>fact
>>>that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
>>>made overseas.
then this: the exporting countries' exports to the USA portion of
their own GDP are also being ignored as actually being the USA's.
If the exporting counties do not want to be part of the USA's
economy all they have to do is stop trying to get US$. Their
wealth comes from the USA. You can't have your accounting cake
and eat it too.
It is impossible to precisely apportion energy consumption and
GHG linking each and every country and each and every commodity
and service. It can't be done so the only sensible way is use
directly measurable energy use within a border per whatever other
parameter is desired that is also directly ascertainable within
the border.
Can the energy usage and GHG emmisions of a Canadian doctor who
gets paid for treating a mechanic , plumber, carpenter and farmer;
and buys services or goods from them be falrly apportioned amongst
them and similarly, all of theirs amongst themselves and their
lawyers and mayor? No. So we use the gallons and kilowatt hours
each pays for as a measure of energy use of each..
Finally, as a justifiable aside: let's not forget Canada's and
Australia's more than equal to the USA's if population prorated
contributions; and soon to overshadow all three China, India and
Russia in these little ruminations that are always actually just
USA bashings because USA has the worlds biggest single economy --
one greater than the entire EU no matter how hard those energy
wasting Brussels gnomes try to pack it with new members...
Eric Swanson
Thus, GDP is not a good measure of CO2 emissions.
The wealth of these other nations does not come from the U.S.
It is derived from their raw materials, labor and intellectual efforts.
That they are able to sell these to the U.S. indicates that the U.S.
is nolonger willing or able to provide these products at the same price
as that of the foreigners. Have you noticed that those same foreign
nations are buying our debt and thus subsidizing our continuing binge
of material consumption? One of these days, these guys just might
decide to cut us off, especially as China and India develop their
economies past the point at which their markets can consume what they
can produce. Remember that the start of the American Dream was the
decision by Henry Ford to pay his workers enough such that they could
buy the cars which they built. How many Mexican auto workers earn
enough to buy a new Ford or GM car? (See the story in today's NYT
about Russian workers in Ford's new plant).....
>It is impossible to precisely apportion energy consumption and
>GHG linking each and every country and each and every commodity
>and service. It can't be done so the only sensible way is use
>directly measurable energy use within a border per whatever other
>parameter is desired that is also directly ascertainable within
>the border.
No, but the industrial products flowing across borders can be tracked and
an analysis of the embodied energy (or, CO2 emissions) can be calculated.
Ever heard of Input-Output analysis??
>Can the energy usage and GHG emmisions of a Canadian doctor who
>gets paid for treating a mechanic , plumber, carpenter and farmer;
>and buys services or goods from them be falrly apportioned amongst
>them and similarly, all of theirs amongst themselves and their
>lawyers and mayor? No. So we use the gallons and kilowatt hours
>each pays for as a measure of energy use of each..
No, we use the gross production/consumption data for fossil fuels.
And, we include energy imported from other nations, such as oil and
natural gas. In other words, the data includes the energy at the point of
final consumption. Why not include the amount of energy which is used to
produce the imported products at their point of final consumption as well?
>Finally, as a justifiable aside: let's not forget Canada's and
>Australia's more than equal to the USA's if population prorated
>contributions; and soon to overshadow all three China, India and
>Russia in these little ruminations that are always actually just
>USA bashings because USA has the worlds biggest single economy --
>one greater than the entire EU no matter how hard those energy
>wasting Brussels gnomes try to pack it with new members...
Yes, the Canadians, with their colder climate and linear population
distrubution use more energy per person than the U.S., as long as
one is only looking at the energy consumed within the national
boundaries. What about subtracting the energy used to mine the
tar sands, as most of the resulting product is exported? How about
subtracting the energy used in metal mining and timber production,
when these products are exported? How about the automobile and
aerospace factories which produce for export?
Coby Beck
news:lvjgo1luiqpif65l1...@4ax.com...
> If the exporting counties do not want to be part of the USA's
> economy all they have to do is stop trying to get US$. Their
> wealth comes from the USA. You can't have your accounting cake
> and eat it too.
Just because a country's economy is *measured* in US dollars does not mean
"their wealth comes from the US". Their wealth comes from whatever
resources they are selling.
There is a reason that countries do not simply stop trying to buy US
dollars: oil is traded in US dollars. Countries can not purchase oil unless
they have US dollars. That is no accident and that is the only reason the
US economy can function with a constant massive deficit.
Another data point in that bizarre and outlandish conspiracy theory that the
US did not invade Iraq to rescue its people but rather for geopolitical and
economic reasons (who could believe such nonsense!) is that Iraq started to
trade it oil in Euros in the early 2000's and was trying to persuade others
to do the same. This would spell disaster for the US dollar.
> It is impossible to precisely apportion energy consumption and
> GHG linking each and every country and each and every commodity
> and service. It can't be done so the only sensible way is use
> directly measurable energy use within a border per whatever other
> parameter is desired that is also directly ascertainable within
> the border.
I'm not sure why it should be so hard. Commodities can be measured, their
origins are knowable and the emissions cost of producing them calculated.
The rest is just arithmetic!
> Can the energy usage and GHG emmisions of a Canadian doctor who
> gets paid for treating a mechanic , plumber, carpenter and farmer;
> and buys services or goods from them be falrly apportioned amongst
> them and similarly, all of theirs amongst themselves and their
> lawyers and mayor? No. So we use the gallons and kilowatt hours
> each pays for as a measure of energy use of each..
This is a strawman. You do not need such a microscopic viewpoint. Just
look at countries, commodities and manufacturing methods.
> Finally, as a justifiable aside: let's not forget Canada's and
> Australia's more than equal to the USA's if population prorated
> contributions; and soon to overshadow all three China, India and
> Russia in these little ruminations that are always actually just
> USA bashings because USA has the worlds biggest single economy --
> one greater than the entire EU no matter how hard those energy
> wasting Brussels gnomes try to pack it with new members...
What we ill-disguised US bashers are really trying to point out is that this
world's largest economy consumes a hugely disproportionate share of world
resources, that's all. Americans eat more, burn more, waste more than any
other people on the planet. As the global nature of natural resources
becomes more and more relevant, this disparity becomes more and more clearly
unfair, and perhaps more significantly (after all, who said life was fair,
right?) it becomes more and more clearly *unsustainable*.
H. Dziardziel
<cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>"H. Dziardziel" <hd...@zworg.nospamcom> wrote in message
>news:lvjgo1luiqpif65l1...@4ax.com...
>> If the exporting counties do not want to be part of the USA's
>> economy all they have to do is stop trying to get US$. Their
>> wealth comes from the USA. You can't have your accounting cake
>> and eat it too.
>
>Just because a country's economy is *measured* in US dollars does not mean
>"their wealth comes from the US". Their wealth comes from whatever
>resources they are selling.
>
Quite. I did not mean to imply anything else except to restate
the economic fact that demand creates wealth, not the supply .
The US $, like the Yen is a univeral accepted proxy for the
tangible wealth the dollar can secure because the issuer is
indestructible and reliable. It thus has intrinsic value in
itself even though the gold standard is kaput.
>There is a reason that countries do not simply stop trying to buy US
>dollars: oil is traded in US dollars. Countries can not purchase oil unless
>they have US dollars. That is no accident and that is the only reason the
>US economy can function with a constant massive deficit.
>
Countries do not buy US dollars, they sell goods and services for
US dollars. They can of course secure oil or anything else with
anything they want that is of value. So, the dollar is not merely
an accounting tool and exchange medium acceptable to anyone. A
promise like a bar of gold. It has intrinsic value from the
issuer's, its citizens efforts, wealth as I stae above..
I should qualify my first sentence, Countries with no domestic
goods and services creation of their own, like North Korea, do
seek $s.
>Another data point in that bizarre and outlandish conspiracy theory that the
>US did not invade Iraq to rescue its people but rather for geopolitical and
>economic reasons (who could believe such nonsense!) is that Iraq started to
>trade it oil in Euros in the early 2000's and was trying to persuade others
>to do the same. This would spell disaster for the US dollar.
>
Let's not continue with that, politics, but since you brought it:
1. Any country does what it perceives to be in its own best
nattional interest so it's not nonsense. The USA is capitalist
and a trading nation. History has amply shown that dictatorships,
and e.g., communism don't make wealthy reliable trading partners.
2.Why is the USA pressuring China etc to revalue which weakens the
dollar?
3.Printing Euros mean weak Euros.
4.The USA's GDP is greater than all of the EUs
5.The US's is growing...
etc. etc
>> It is impossible to precisely apportion energy consumption and
>> GHG linking each and every country and each and every commodity
>> and service. It can't be done so the only sensible way is use
>> directly measurable energy use within a border per whatever other
>> parameter is desired that is also directly ascertainable within
>> the border.
>
>I'm not sure why it should be so hard. Commodities can be measured, their
>origins are knowable and the emissions cost of producing them calculated.
>The rest is just arithmetic!
>
See my other postings about that If it was easy and gave
meaningful results it would have been done long ago..
>> Can the energy usage and GHG emmisions of a Canadian doctor who
>> gets paid for treating a mechanic , plumber, carpenter and farmer;
>> and buys services or goods from them be falrly apportioned amongst
>> them and similarly, all of theirs amongst themselves and their
>> lawyers and mayor? No. So we use the gallons and kilowatt hours
>> each pays for as a measure of energy use of each..
>
>This is a strawman. You do not need such a microscopic viewpoint. Just
>look at countries, commodities and manufacturing methods.
>
Where are the limits then? That was an analogy only
>> Finally, as a justifiable aside: let's not forget Canada's and
>> Australia's more than equal to the USA's if population prorated
>> contributions; and soon to overshadow all three China, India and
>> Russia in these little ruminations that are always actually just
>> USA bashings because USA has the worlds biggest single economy --
>> one greater than the entire EU no matter how hard those energy
>> wasting Brussels gnomes try to pack it with new members...
>
>What we ill-disguised US bashers are really trying to point out is that this
>world's largest economy consumes a hugely disproportionate share of world
>resources, that's all
No more proportionately than Australia, and Canada and a couple of
EU countries I can't recall just now , Why not bash them too?
Not significantly more than the rest of the OECD yet all three
have a significantly higher standard of living and critically, a
much much lower population density than the rest of the OECD.
Soon all three will be totally surpassed on all energy and
pollution accounts by Russia, China and India each.
The USA wrote miore than 50% of Kyoto etc. contributes more than
80% of all international data and research into earth sciences and
is the meanest of all when it comes to policing itself about
anything you can think of. That's why everyone else piles on --
there's no risk at all -- and comfy as hell from swanky
airconditioned hotel rooms.
>. Americans eat more, burn more, waste more than any
>other people on the planet. As the global nature of natural resources
>becomes more and more relevant, this disparity becomes more and more clearly
>unfair, and perhaps more significantly (after all, who said life was fair,
>right?) it becomes more and more clearly *unsustainable*.
See above about the US's contribution and self corrections.
Johnny-come-latelies always make the most noise.
Just because the fellow next door is strong and healthy because of
his effort and had the good fortune to be blessed with resources
he uses to full persoanl advantage is unfair? That's whining and
typical of limp wristed socialist liberal hedonists who offer no
solutions..
The Arabic and African countries are awash with internationally
coveted natural wealth yet look at what they have created --
nothing but despair and misery.. There's where the bashing should
be directed. At least the Chinese and most of the former USSR
learned. Even Vietnam.
.
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
I believe that means national GDP as currently computed is not a
totally accurate parameter in some CO2 related emission
calculations? I agree.
So: ".. people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and
use products made overseas" merges portions of GDPs i.e,
redefning GDP to be beyond national borders. A true modern
free trade global no socio-economic borders analysis but see my
other comments about that can be computed. Where are the lines
drawn? Hence my Canadian doctor analogy.
>The wealth of these other nations does not come from the U.S.
>It is derived from their raw materials, labor and intellectual efforts.
Buyer and seller, supply and demand. That is needless to say,
yet there are people in this group who seem to think that wealth
exists only by dint of the eye of the owner. Only a totally
self sufficient nation can claim independent wealth yet it can do
so only because others also value what it has..
Again, the USA is a good example of that. It has an immigration
problem for a reason. A usually and intetionally forgotten fact
it is the worlds single largest importer and exporter and has a
total GDP greater than all of the EU's It has thus has enormous
wealth coveted by others..
>That they are able to sell these to the U.S. indicates that the U.S.
>is nolonger willing or able to provide these products at the same price
>as that of the foreigners.
But thats is irrelevant! Isn't that called trade, capitalism,
open markets and economics? The plumber and doctor trading
services and goods? Why is that even a point?. It exists within
the borders of every country and state. It benfits both sides
just like my buying a carrot in the supemarket is more efficient
all around than my trying to grow one on my own window sill.
> Have you noticed that those same foreign
>nations are buying our debt and thus subsidizing our continuing binge
>of material consumption?
When did national economies (excluding North Korea) become drug
dealers? They supply what they can sell for their own national
interests. The USA is wealthy by its citizens endeavors thus its
debt is cash.
They buy USA debt because there is percieved intrinsic and real
long term value. They do not subsize anything except their own
(unadmitted) inefficent economies with a currency that has
universal value in the globe.for that same intrinsic reason,
Buyer and seller both binge if you mean both are wasting resources
because making, selling, buying and consuming e.g., digital junk
food is a waste of resources. .
> One of these days, these guys just might
>decide to cut us off, especially as China and India develop their
>economies past the point at which their markets can consume what they
>can produce.
That would be a bright day for them and the world and I applaud
and have worked hard here in Asia to support their, and other
countries here, efforts. However, even if those countries had
the national resources for it, it ever it will not happen
overnight, nor even over a century of course. Even natural
resource and citizens blessed Canada, Australia, and Norway
haven't done it have they?
> Remember that the start of the American Dream was the
>decision by Henry Ford to pay his workers enough such that they could
>buy the cars which they built. How many Mexican auto workers earn
>enough to buy a new Ford or GM car? (See the story in today's NYT
>about Russian workers in Ford's new plant).....
>
Do you think that will never happen there? Of course it will or
there will be political turmoil. Knowing is wanting. Nothing,
not even something Ford's astute marketing tactic gives resuls
overnight. He created a market, with clever altruistic nuances
>>It is impossible to precisely apportion energy consumption and
>>GHG linking each and every country and each and every commodity
>>and service. It can't be done so the only sensible way is use
>>directly measurable energy use within a border per whatever other
>>parameter is desired that is also directly ascertainable within
>>the border.
>
>No, but the industrial products flowing across borders can be tracked and
>an analysis of the embodied energy (or, CO2 emissions) can be calculated.
>Ever heard of Input-Output analysis??
>
By all means try it and don't forget that new iPod, shoes, banana
and the airbag.. Where does one stop is the point? Otherwise it
becomes impractical and just academic number crunching with maye
some jazzy new economic theory and out of work physicists tossed
in. I admit there is a plethora of super computers, just
computers and programmers from every possible niche of science to
put to work. Just computing their own contributions should be a
good tutorial for them
>>Can the energy usage and GHG emmisions of a Canadian doctor who
>>gets paid for treating a mechanic , plumber, carpenter and farmer;
>>and buys services or goods from them be falrly apportioned amongst
>>them and similarly, all of theirs amongst themselves and their
>>lawyers and mayor? No. So we use the gallons and kilowatt hours
>>each pays for as a measure of energy use of each..
>
>No, we use the gross production/consumption data for fossil fuels.
We are saying the same thng but I was using an analogy.
Consumption data that is used is directly reported by each country
from its own usage records. It is not computed as you would like
it to be, an academic exercise of immense magnitude,. to be
meaningful..
>And, we include energy imported from other nations, such as oil and
>natural gas. In other words, the data includes the energy at the point of
>final consumption. Why not include the amount of energy which is used to
>produce the imported products at their point of final consumption as well?
>
>>Finally, as a justifiable aside: let's not forget Canada's and
>>Australia's more than equal to the USA's if population prorated
>>contributions; and soon to overshadow all three China, India and
>>Russia in these little ruminations that are always actually just
>>USA bashings because USA has the worlds biggest single economy --
>>one greater than the entire EU no matter how hard those energy
>>wasting Brussels gnomes try to pack it with new members...
>
>Yes, the Canadians, with their colder climate and linear population
>distrubution use more energy per person than the U.S., as long as
>one is only looking at the energy consumed within the national
>boundaries. What about subtracting the energy used to mine the
>tar sands, as most of the resulting product is exported? How about
>subtracting the energy used in metal mining and timber production,
>when these products are exported? How about the automobile and
>aerospace factories which produce for export?
Well, as I say above why not? What else should be added? How
about Wall Street's airconditioning and heating while they make a
buck for a shrewd Dutch investor? He should be billed for some
too.perhaps based on his profits?
Eric Swanson
>>>
>>> Eric Swanson (swa...@notspam.net) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The data from last year shows a decline in GHG emissions in the Industrial
>>>>>>sector, while other sectors of the economy continue to rise. Ignored is the
>>>>fact
>>>>>>that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
>>>>>>made overseas.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>snip
>>
>>>>>>... Ignored is the fact
>>>>>>that people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and use products
>>>>>>made overseas.
>>>
>>>then this: the exporting countries' exports to the USA portion of
>>>their own GDP are also being ignored as actually being the USA's.
>>>If the exporting counties do not want to be part of the USA's
>>>economy all they have to do is stop trying to get US$. Their
>>>wealth comes from the USA. You can't have your accounting cake
>>>and eat it too.
>>
>>Thus, GDP is not a good measure of CO2 emissions.
>>
>I believe that means national GDP as currently computed is not a
>totally accurate parameter in some CO2 related emission
>calculations? I agree.
>
>So: ".. people in the U.S. consume energy indirectly as we buy and
>use products made overseas" merges portions of GDPs i.e,
>redefning GDP to be beyond national borders. A true modern
>free trade global no socio-economic borders analysis but see my
>other comments about that can be computed. Where are the lines
>drawn? Hence my Canadian doctor analogy.
Greenhouse Gas emissions are a global problem. Drawing lines on maps
tends to confuse things. I contend that the people who do the consumming
are the ones who will need to change and those of us that consume the most
will need to change the most to have any real effect.
>But thats is irrelevant! Isn't that called trade, capitalism,
>open markets and economics? The plumber and doctor trading
>services and goods? Why is that even a point?. It exists within
>the borders of every country and state. It benfits both sides
>just like my buying a carrot in the supemarket is more efficient
>all around than my trying to grow one on my own window sill.
[cut]
Your long reply regarding economics really has no bearing on the real problem
of GHG emissions. If GHG emissions are a serious problem and there is much
evidence that they are, then we either do something about it or learn to live
with the results. That means that some nations will no longer prosper, either
due to the changes in climate or as the result of efforts to reduce GHG
emissions. State boundaries and accounting based on GPD economics can be used
to ignore the problems by saying that reducing GHG emissions will hurt the
economy, thus "we" aren't going to do anything. That's the U.S. position,
IMHO. Recent statements by James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's
Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of
State for Global Affairs, just point out the cynical nature of the present U.S.
Administration.
The U.S. has not reduced emissions of GHG's, as we have exported our emissions
to other nations, primarily Asian, as our industrial production has been
transfered to these low wage nations by multinational corporations. The fact
remains that the U.S. is the ultimate consumer of such imported products and
should therefore be accountable for the resulting emissions.
Martin
news:g3ohf.106$WU1...@news.uswest.net...
> Can you say 'recession'?
George Bush is God's messenger, and therefore there will be no economic
failure while he is in power and doing God's good work of advancing freedom
and christianity around the world.
God protects America as long as Christian Republicans are in power.
--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.
"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.
"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
snip
>
>Greenhouse Gas emissions are a global problem. Drawing lines on maps
>tends to confuse things. I contend that the people who do the consumming
>are the ones who will need to change and those of us that consume the most
>will need to change the most to have any real effect.
>
Good, so why hasn't the EU's imports from developing nations been
mentioned? It's much larger than the US's Why ignore the
products the EU imports from Japan and China? It isn't all that
different from the US in total and certainly nearly equal per
capita.
China, Russia and India will shortly be -- if not already so in
fact:since data is self reported to the UN accountants -- " those
of us that consume the most" so when and what is the accounting
for that? The UN accountants must be breathless wiating for all
that data to sift through but it will have toi be presented with
kid gloves of course..
I.e., "Drawing lines on maps tends to confuse things" = all
users _and_ all sources (suppliers) of energy or products that
consume are one entity By considering only the USA, is for
poltical reasons, arbitrarily moving only one countriy's economic
lines around at will to fit an agenda.
Reviling the USA because of it;s size and standard of living
does not provide solutions. The USA leads in research in all of
this whilst mantaining a strong economy, population growth fueled
by immigration ( I wonder why they emmigrate there?) and global
leadership in science and standard of living.
>
>
>[cut]
>
>Your long reply regarding economics really has no bearing on the real problem
>of GHG emissions.
It was counterpoint to the statement :
"Ignored is the fact that people in the U.S. consume energy
indirectly as we buy and use products made overseas'.
which equally "has no bearing on the real problem of GHG
emissions" Accounting that consistently ignores the
suppliers' responsibility in GHG production -- and the rest of the
OECD..
> If GHG emissions are a serious problem and there is much
>evidence that they are,
Overall pollution, deforestation and land use and overfishing,
all due to exploding high standard of living demanding
overpopulation are by far _the_ real problems. GHGs are ancillary
and the effect, not the cause. But GHGs can be easily computed
and thus blamed on currently the admitted single largest
producer. All this regardless of that producer's intimate global
linchpin role in the global standard of living of many countries
especially the developing
> then we either do something about it
Ah, so there are programs for dealing with China, India et all.,
and Russia.! Great, let's hear them please.
> or learn to live
>with the results.
Pretty much a False Dilemma
> That means that some nations will no longer prosper,
Which and exactly why? If by that, Canada, Australia, and the
USA, should bite the bullet then where will China, India, Russia
Africa etc sell their commodities so they can prosper? Of course
the EU just trucks in (sic) getting bigger, importing more but
essentially getting poorer? France ring a burning bell by any
chance?
> either
>due to the changes in climate
No country is not going to prosper due to climate change. Give
just one concrete detailed example please
>or as the result of efforts to reduce GHG
>emissions. State boundaries and accounting based on GPD economics can be used
>to ignore the problems by saying that reducing GHG emissions will hurt the
>economy, thus "we" aren't going to do anything. That's the U.S. position,
That is not an accurate statement of the USA position since if it
was there would be no USA research, nor investment, by far the
largest globally This kind of data and self analysis doesn't
come from the EU nor did 50%+ of Kyoto and soon from Montreal.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/emission.html
>IMHO. Recent statements by James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's
>Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of
>State for Global Affairs, just point out the cynical nature of the present U.S.
>Administration.
>
Sorry, no idea what statements are being referred to and in any
case it's obvious anything said or done by the current
administration is considered cynical and inadequate. The US
senate rejected Kyoto (as we know) and the previous
adminstration accepted that seeming fait accompli to armchair
environmentalists, just passing the buck to the next. That the
USA doesn't jump through useless expensive bureacratic UN hoops
displeases a lot of people who have nothing better to do than
shake and point fingers.
>The U.S. has not reduced emissions of GHG's, as we have exported our emissions
>to other nations, primarily Asian, as our industrial production has been
>transfered to these low wage nations by multinational corporations. The fact
>remains that the U.S. is the ultimate consumer of such imported products and
>should therefore be accountable for the resulting emissions.
By all means but the fact also remains that the suppliers and the
rest of the OECD are being ignored because of a political agenda.
Multinational corporations from any country are welcomed by Asian
and any other country, developed or not unless one includes NK or
some African dictatorships .
Gun boat diplomacy just like the slave trade, and colonization, is
long dead and in fact, was practiced by the Europeans, not the
USA., Canada, or Australia. This multinational corporation bashing
as if they are alien entities run by BEMs and not employing
millions of real humans who make a living is surreal, a movie
title I can't recall just now..
Eric Swanson
says...
>
>On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:49:34 +0000 (UTC), swa...@notspam.net
>(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>>
>snip
>>
>>Greenhouse Gas emissions are a global problem. Drawing lines on maps
>>tends to confuse things. I contend that the people who do the consumming
>>are the ones who will need to change and those of us that consume the most
>>will need to change the most to have any real effect.
>>
>
>Good, so why hasn't the EU's imports from developing nations been
>mentioned? It's much larger than the US's Why ignore the
>products the EU imports from Japan and China? It isn't all that
>different from the US in total and certainly nearly equal per
>capita.
Did I suggest that similar accounting for other nations should NOT be
conducted? But, the thread began with the U.S. and a statement by Connaughton
about U.S. GHG emissions decreasing. The comment was not about the Kyoto
Treaty, although the meeting in Montreal this week is about it and the
statement was probably directed towards that process.
So, I've cut all the middle stuff so we can get on with it.
>>IMHO. Recent statements by James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's
>>Council on Environmental Quality, and Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of
>>State for Global Affairs, just point out the cynical nature of the present
>>U.S. Administration.
>>
>
>Sorry, no idea what statements are being referred to and in any
>case it's obvious anything said or done by the current
>administration is considered cynical and inadequate.
Do look back at the start of the thread. Sorry, but the FT story is now
available only to subscribers. Dobriansky is leading the delegation to the
talks in Montreal.
>The US senate rejected Kyoto (as we know) and the previous
>adminstration accepted that seeming fait accompli to armchair
>environmentalists, just passing the buck to the next. That the
>USA doesn't jump through useless expensive bureacratic UN hoops
>displeases a lot of people who have nothing better to do than
>shake and point fingers.
The Kyoto Treaty was signed, but never ratified by Congress.
As I recall, the treaty was never brought up for a vote on ratificaiton.
>>The U.S. has not reduced emissions of GHG's, as we have exported our
emissions
>>to other nations, primarily Asian, as our industrial production has been
>>transfered to these low wage nations by multinational corporations. The fact
>>remains that the U.S. is the ultimate consumer of such imported products and
>>should therefore be accountable for the resulting emissions.
>
>By all means but the fact also remains that the suppliers and the
>rest of the OECD are being ignored because of a political agenda.
>Multinational corporations from any country are welcomed by Asian
>and any other country, developed or not unless one includes NK or
>some African dictatorships .
I wish you would stick to the topic, which was the claim that U.S. GHG
emissions
have decreased.
>Gun boat diplomacy just like the slave trade, and colonization, is
>long dead and in fact, was practiced by the Europeans, not the
>USA., Canada, or Australia. This multinational corporation bashing
>as if they are alien entities run by BEMs and not employing
>millions of real humans who make a living is surreal, a movie
>title I can't recall just now..
But the multinational corporations have no allgiance to any one nation and
they obey the laws only when it suits them to do so. Their size and economic
power allows them to influence the legal processes with much greater effect
than that available to the average man. The constant labor/management strife
which has gone on for centuries is but one example of the different priorities
between the large corporations and those millions of "little" people that they
employ. They are "alien" constructs, as they do not directly experience the
results of their negative impacts on the Earth Life Support functions, having
only one goal, making a profit. That goal will result in total destruction
of the environment, if the logic of Scrouge the Bean Counter is allowed to
rule without bounds.
The history of civilizations shows repeatedly that the destruction of the local
environment has led to collapse. As the U.S. "lifestyle" is spread around
the world, the resulting environmental insults will be global, not local.
Hey, I bet you could buy some cheap mountain top land in West Virginia, now
that the coal has been "extracted" by bulldozing the overlying material into
the hollows. Would you want to live there (assuming you could find water and
a place to dispose of your poop)?
Steve Schulin
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
Gee whiz, Roger. The article in the link you snip was quite specific in
citing when the output dropped: the 2000-2003 period. Here's the article
text:
Source: Fiona Harvey, "US greenhouse gas output falls", Financial Times
(London, England), November 23, 2005, p. 9
Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in
more than a decade between 2000 and 2003 owing largely to a shift in
heavy manufacturing away from US shores to cheaper locations such as
China.
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's Council on
Environmental Quality, said yesterday the decrease of 0.8 per cent in
gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had been
unexpected: "This was not something we would have projected."
The slight fall had come even as the US population grew by 8.6m and
increased its gross domestic product by the worth of the economy of
China, Mr Connaughton said.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the US, from sources such as electricity
generation, motor transport and industry, increased by an average of
about 1 per cent a year during the 1990s. The last time the country's
greenhouse gas output fell significantly was in the early 1980s
following a recession, and there was a slight decline in about 1990-91.
Mr Connaughton hailed the "stabilisation" of greenhouse gas output as a
victory for the US policy of avoiding mandatory targets and
concentrating on new technologies, such as methane capture and "clean
coal".
But he admitted that alongside these "good reasons" for the drop, there
were also "bad reasons", such as the offshoring of manufacturing and
commodity chemicals and agricultural fertiliser industries.
He said industrial emissions, defined as those generated directly by
industry or by the energy used in industrial processes, were below 1990
levels - the baseline for calculating the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from developed countries under the United Nations-brokered
Kyoto treaty on climate change.
--- END FT ARTICLE
According to an AP story, Connaughton was in London that day, where he
addressed several hundred business representatives at a two-day annual
conference hosted by the Environment Agency, the environmental
regulatory body for England and Wales.
The AP cites Connaughton as telling the conference attendees that the
United States is implementing new pollution laws and tax breaks to
encourage improved air quality: "We have new tax law changes that allow
faster write-offs for new capital purchases," he said. "So instead of
paying the repairman to fix the old, clunky, inefficient piece of
equipment, these new tax law changes are creating a renaissance in new
capital goods orders." The result is billions of dollars in purchases of
more environmentally friendly equipment, he said. "Do not underestimate
the power of giving people incentives to buy something new rather than
repair something old," he said.
[Ref: Jenn Wiant (Associated Press Writer), "U.S. is reducing greenhouse
gases without Kyoto, White House adviser says", Associated Press
Worldstream, November 23, 2005]
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <1132861896.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> YET ANOTHER FOSSIL FOOL FUCKHEAD FALSEHOOD!
>> US GREENHOUSE GAS OUTPUT HAS NOT FALLEN!
>Gee whiz, Roger. The article in the link you snip was quite specific in
>citing when the output dropped: the 2000-2003 period. Here's the article
>text:
>
>Source: Fiona Harvey, "US greenhouse gas output falls", Financial Times
>(London, England), November 23, 2005, p. 9
>
>Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in
>more than a decade between 2000 and 2003 owing largely to a shift in
>heavy manufacturing away from US shores to cheaper locations such as
>China.
>
>James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's Council on
>Environmental Quality, said yesterday the decrease of 0.8 per cent in
>gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had been
>unexpected: "This was not something we would have projected."
[cut]
>He said industrial emissions, defined as those generated directly by
>industry or by the energy used in industrial processes, were below 1990
>levels - the baseline for calculating the reduction in greenhouse gas
>emissions from developed countries under the United Nations-brokered
>Kyoto treaty on climate change.
Connauthgon is simply wrong, as I have showed previously in this thread.
The Industrial sector HAS seen a decline, however I think this is more than
made up for by increases by the commercial, transportation and residential
sectors of the economy. Besides, we aren't counting the energy consumed
by the U.S. military in their overseas activities, are we?
I suggest that the FT reporter screwed it up.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/executive_summary.html
>--- END FT ARTICLE
>
>According to an AP story, Connaughton was in London that day, where he
>addressed several hundred business representatives at a two-day annual
>conference hosted by the Environment Agency, the environmental
>regulatory body for England and Wales.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/672157/672903/1123626/?lang=_e
H. Dziardziel
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
snip
>
>Did I suggest that similar accounting for other nations should NOT be
>conducted? But, the thread began with the U.S. and a statement by Connaughton
>about U.S. GHG emissions decreasing. The comment was not about the Kyoto
>Treaty, although the meeting in Montreal this week is about it and the
>statement was probably directed towards that process.
>
>So, I've cut all the middle stuff so we can get on with it.
>
The thread was widened by inclusion of ex national border
emissions ("... we have exported our emissions..") data that are
not considered by the UN for national emission calculations.
>
snip
>
>>The US senate rejected Kyoto (as we know) and the previous
>>adminstration accepted that seeming fait accompli to armchair
>>environmentalists, just passing the buck to the next. That the
>>USA doesn't jump through useless expensive bureacratic UN hoops
>>displeases a lot of people who have nothing better to do than
>>shake and point fingers.
>
>The Kyoto Treaty was signed, but never ratified by Congress.
>As I recall, the treaty was never brought up for a vote on ratificaiton.
>
The Senate turned it down unanimously beforehand.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
Byrd-Hagel Resolution
Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck
Hagel (R-NE)
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions
for the United States becoming a signatory to any international
agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations...
(Passed by the Senate 95-0)
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 98
etc.
And in this excerpt note the second sentence from our Internet
hero about submission and developing nations:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/CEQ/19981112-7936.html
STATEMENT BY VICE PRESIDENT GORE
ON THE UNITED STATES' SIGNING OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
"Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no
obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding
only with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. As we have
said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification
without the meaningfulparticipation of key developing countries in
efforts to address climatechange."
>>>The U.S. has not reduced emissions of GHG's, as we have exported our
>emissions
>
snip
>
>I wish you would stick to the topic, which was the claim that U.S. GHG
>emissions
>have decreased.
>
".. as our industrial production has been transfered to these low
wage nations by multinational corporations."
>>Gun boat diplomacy just like the slave trade, and colonization, is
>>long dead and in fact, was practiced by the Europeans, not the
>>USA., Canada, or Australia. This multinational corporation bashing
>>as if they are alien entities run by BEMs and not employing
>>millions of real humans who make a living is surreal, a movie
>>title I can't recall just now..
>
>But the multinational corporations have no allgiance to any one nation and
>they obey the laws only when it suits them to do so.
Multinational corporattions, just like single country corporations
are legal entities that must operate within the laws of each
country they do business in. Some countries have progressive
laws some don't; 99% enforce those laws (and exceptions don't
make the rule), some don't,; some are very corrupt, all have it
to a degree since it's a universal cultural artifact, so none
have none. Corporations are run by people, so are governments,
unions. universities and the corrupt UN. Corporations that last
long enough to be discussed obey the laws of each country they do
business in.
> Their size and economic
>power allows them to influence the legal processes with much greater effect
>than that available to the average man.
Yes that's a fact of life in any society but that's why there is
democratic govenment -- to make sure .the average Joe is has
recourse and equal oppurtunity. Would you prefer communism or
dictatorship, benevolant African monarchy ? Or maybe a corrupt UN
style bureaucracy? China did that for a long time too, tried
bloody communism and now returns to Shanghai capitalism
> The constant labor/management strife
>which has gone on for centuries is but one example of the different priorities
>between the large corporations and those millions of "little" people that they
>employ.
I agree history is important to learn from but that is irrelevant
here, it's old history -- we've learned from it. Modern
corporations that last long enough to debate also know they owe
their continuing existence and profits to the consumer, the very
people they hire. A good business is a good community partner and
that's true for 99+% of them. Taxes make sure of that.
>They are "alien" constructs, as they do not directly experience the
>results of their negative impacts on the Earth Life Support functions, having
>only one goal, making a profit.
Not any more for many many years now since colonialism died. And
again governments are being let off the hook for what happened in
the past which is irrelevant here anyhow.
> That goal will result in total destruction
>of the environment, if the logic of Scrouge the Bean Counter is allowed to
>rule without bounds.
>
Governments make and enforce the rules and regulations in every
country. I agree about bean counters but in the (very short too)
end they destroy the corporations first since they are
shortsighted.. They do not rule at all. Taxes do.
>The history of civilizations shows repeatedly that the destruction of the local
>environment has led to collapse. As the U.S. "lifestyle" is spread around
>the world, the resulting environmental insults will be global, not local.
So, blame the US for living well right, the seller, not the drug
addict? And again, what happened to the high living, Aussies and
Canucks, Norwegians and Swedes? The clever Japanese
industrialists? The Germans and their autobahn and BMWs? Why are
all of them of the publicity hook for making a hard working
Chinese want some -- no, all of -- that oh so good stuff?
>Hey, I bet you could buy some cheap mountain top land in West Virginia, now
>that the coal has been "extracted" by bulldozing the overlying material into
>the hollows. Would you want to live there (assuming you could find water and
>a place to dispose of your poop)?
I 'd have to see it first. It may be a good restoration project
Any leads? The coal was extracted because government and society
wanted it. We learn.
beav
Eric Swanson
says...
Which was about the idea of crediting the emissions to the end user, instead
of the nation where the products are produced. If you want to credit the
emissions to the producing nation instead of the consuming one, then Saudi
Arabia would be one of the largest emitters. But, I understand that the
accounting is based on UN IPCC rules of some sort.
[cut]
>>The history of civilizations shows repeatedly that the destruction of the
local
>>environment has led to collapse. As the U.S. "lifestyle" is spread around
>>the world, the resulting environmental insults will be global, not local.
>
>So, blame the US for living well right, the seller, not the drug
>addict? And again, what happened to the high living, Aussies and
>Canucks, Norwegians and Swedes? The clever Japanese
>industrialists? The Germans and their autobahn and BMWs? Why are
>all of them of the publicity hook for making a hard working
>Chinese want some -- no, all of -- that oh so good stuff?
There is a considerable difference between "living right" in the short term
and over the long term. The U.S. life style which you call "living right"
is a short term joy ride, based on cheap fossil fuels. The emissions of
CO2 are the result. That there other people in many nations who strive for
the percieved creature comforts does not make the high energy consumption
lifestyles any more rational, especially as there is a clear limit to the
availability of cheap fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Surely
there is another way, as continuing down the road we are on will lead to
the increased use of coal and thus much more CO2 emissions will result.
Current scientific understanding shows us that the resulting global changes
will be large and possibly unpleasant for many regions. Since there appears
to be little effort on the part of the U.S. Government to change the basic
economic assumptions, I DO blame the U.S. for continuing to support such
lifestyle choices.
>>Hey, I bet you could buy some cheap mountain top land in West Virginia, now
>>that the coal has been "extracted" by bulldozing the overlying material into
>>the hollows. Would you want to live there (assuming you could find water and
>>a place to dispose of your poop)?
>
>I 'd have to see it first. It may be a good restoration project
>Any leads? The coal was extracted because government and society
>wanted it. We learn.
I've seen some in pictures and viewed some from a distance. Eastern Kentucky
appears to be a prim possiblilty. I can only imagine that the coal companies
which own the land would probably like to get rid of them. A few years ago,
I went to the top of one in Tennessee that the TVA had reclaimed and used for
a wind energy installation. Others didn't look so nice as that one. Beware,
living at high elevation can be an interesting experience, expecially in
winter.
Martin
> Connauthgon is simply wrong, as I have showed previously in this thread.
> The Industrial sector HAS seen a decline, however I think this is more
than
> made up for by increases by the commercial, transportation and residential
> sectors of the economy. Besides, we aren't counting the energy consumed
> by the U.S. military in their overseas activities, are we?
>
> I suggest that the FT reporter screwed it up.
Only a Liberal would blame others for the failed predictions of thier own
cowardly and crummy scientists.
God has promised protection and paradise to his followers, and death to
those who are under the influence of Lucifer.
The only path to salvation is through Christ. Science is anti-God,
anti-Morality and the path to eternal hellfire and death.
Those who follow the teachings of science are walking dead men who are in
league with the Devil.
Martin
Methane has been found on Titan - a moon of Saturn.
Not only does this storehouse of combustable hydrocarbons add to Earth's
reserves - giving us more fule to burn - it also proves - as the bible
scholars all know - that OIL IS NOT MADE FROM FOSSILS.
The EARTH IS MADE FROM OIL.
Now since
GOD MADE THE EARTH.
We know that....
GOD PUT OIL HERE FOR US TO BURN.
Hence...
GLOBAL WARMING IS PROVEN TO BE A LIE.
This conclusion follows from simple logic and illustrates how
LIBERALS ARE ANTI-AMERICAN and ANTI-GOD.
--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.
"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.
"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@notspam.net> wrote in message
news:dmks1q$8762$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Martin
> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the US fell for the first time in more
manufacturing
> away from US shores to cheaper locations such as China."
America has all the smarts and can destroy any enemy domestic or
international with our God Given Military Superiority.
Let the ignorant communists do the digging and the sewing.
Chinese products are nothing more than low quality, recycled American
Garbage.
It used to be called "Jap Scrap".
Martin
--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.
"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.
"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.
<d...@dan.com> wrote in message
> Ask yourself this question: what is Bush, or anyone else in a position of
> leadership in this country, doing to actually solve the problem of global
> warming? Kyoto is a favorite straw man, used by you and other modern-day
> Easter Isanders, to avoid actually talking how we're going to solve the
> problem of global warming.
There is no problem you Faggot loving Pinko...
Kyoto is death and Global warming is nothing more than a Communist lie,
spun to destroy the American dream and God's great plan for this world.
Kyoto = Death
Global Warming = Lie.
<d...@dan.com> wrote in message
> It's typical of Republicans: sit back, do
> nothing, and criticize those trying to actually solve problems, because
> their solution isn't perfect, meanwhile benefiting from the current broken
> system.
Ya, just ask Saddam if we Republicans sit back and do nothing.
Saddam attacked America on 9/11 and now he is on a one way magic carpet
ride to hell.
Liberals would have continued to give him BlowJobs just as Clinton did.
<d...@dan.com> wrote in message
> Bush isn't discussing it.
There is nothing to discuss. George W. Bush has said it all. Global
Warming is a lie and Kyoto is economic death.
Those who claim otherwise are liars and traitors who are working to
further the interests of the communist states.
Martin
> Or the problem of manufacturing moving to China. The problem is simply
they
> don't consider either thing a problem.
What problem?
Freedom of movement is part of Liberty, and economic liberty = freedom of
movement of capitol.
Markets unfettered by regulation are perfect markets and are examples of
perfect freedom.
More freedom = Less Regulation.
More freedom = Zero Taxation.
All forced taxation is contrary to the U.S. constitution.
This is a fact that Faggot loving Liberals will never understand.
Martin
> Over 1000 American soldiers have lost their lives so Haliburton can rake
in
> vast profits from Iraqi oil.
You filthy Liberal Liar.
You deserve to be hanged, but a simple noose is too good for you.
Hate is the heart of Every Liberal.
Martin
<d...@dan.com> wrote in message
> sucker4bush is redundant. Anything "4bush" implies sucker.
Clinton supporters are <experts> at <sucking>. Just ask Monica.
Thank God for George W. Bush. Finally America has a honest, respectable,
moral, dependable, president who is bringing honour and respect back to the
white house after Clinton and his dope smoking band of criminals almost
destroyed the reputation of this nation.
Fortunately Clinton's responsibility for 9/11 gave Bush the opening he
needed to begin doing God's work on this earth.
Praise God, and Praise George W. Bush.
Martin
in
> According to Friends of the Earth, the latest projections show the UK's
> emissions for 2004 are just 12.6 percent below 1990 levels. "
Which we know to be a lie of cource, since we know with absolute certainty
that Kyoto = ECONOMIC DEATH.
Hence it follows logically that Europe - not being economically dead,
could not have reduced it's CO2 emissions.
Simple logic exposes the big Socialist lie.
Martin
Kyoto
> because it wasn't perfect doesn't solve any problems. The rest of your
rant
> was a barely sensical and completely illogical ad hominem.
There is no problem. Kyoto is Economic death and Global Warming is a lie.
Saddam is on a one way magic carpet ride to hell because he attacked us on
9/11.
His oil belongs to God now.
Martin
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dm7ie5$dti$5...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> The UK is on target to meet its Kyoto goals.
Impossible. Stop reading the Lying Liberal Press, and THINK FOR YOURSELF
for a change.
Fact. Kyoto = Economic Death.
Fact Europe is not dead.
Conclusion: Europe isn't abiding by Kyoto.
Faggot Loving, child murdering, liberal Pinko's are incapable of even the
simplist of logics.
Martin
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dm7i8r$dti$4...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> Also due to Bush's economic recession.
Bush has proven once and for all that a free economy, free of government
influence will heal itself from recessions like the last one that <CLINTON
CAUSED> with his socialist Liberal meddeling.
America has never been in better economic shape thanks to the fiscal
policies of Bush and Republicans in congress.
What America needs is a tax rate of zero to maximize government revenues.
Cheney is right. Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.
Martin
Your numbers don't mean anything you moron. Especially since you got them
from the U.N.
When will you Faggot loving Liberal Commies learn that the U.N. was
created to DESTROY AMERICA?
You are all a bunch of traitors.
NobodyYouKnow
<a whole lot of insane gibberish>
Are you for real? Just wondering..
Martin
>> Are you for real? Just wondering..
What do you think you are asking piglet?
--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.
"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.
"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.
"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.com> wrote in message > Are you
for real? Just wondering..
hanson
twisted political cartoon cochon Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>,
aka Vendickarse DickArian aka Scott Nudds, aka Scott Douglas, aka
VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts", aka Nuddley, the nuddler and confused
US-expatriate has one of his episodes again, scuttling his nudds...
... But Scotty, this time you have tilted so far to the Right, so totally out
of whack, that not even the most fanatical pinko-green little idiots do
believe in, nor buy any of your tripe. ... Just look at their retorts to you...
You've failed again, Scotty. But then you have always been a failure.
Blame the sorry condition of your mentation on AGW.... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/7b90109e4b67f2cd
Thanks for the laughs, you lovely old fool... carry on!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:KuHkf.731$eo....@read1.cgocable.net...
hanson
twisted political cartoon cochon Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>,
aka Vendickarse DickArian aka Scott Nudds, aka Scott Douglas, aka
VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts", aka Nuddley, the nuddler and confused
US-expatriate has one of his episodes again, scuttling his nudds...
... But Scotty, this time you have tilted so far to the Right, so totally out
of whack, that not even the most fanatical pinko-green little idiots do
believe in, nor buy any of your tripe. ... Just look at their retorts to you...
You've failed again, Scotty. But then you have always been a failure.
Blame the sorry condition of your mentation on AGW.... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/7b90109e4b67f2cd
Thanks for the laughs, you lovely old fool... carry on!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:RsHkf.730$eo....@read1.cgocable.net...
hanson
twisted political cartoon cochon Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>,
aka Vendickarse DickArian aka Scott Nudds, aka Scott Douglas, aka
VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts", aka Nuddley, the nuddler and confused
US-expatriate has one of his episodes again, scuttling his nudds...
... But Scotty, this time you have tilted so far to the Right, so totally out
of whack, that not even the most fanatical pinko-green little idiots do
believe in, nor buy any of your tripe. ... Just look at their retorts to you...
You've failed again, Scotty. But then you have always been a failure.
Blame the sorry condition of your mentation on AGW.... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/7b90109e4b67f2cd
Thanks for the laughs, you lovely old fool... carry on!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:vpHkf.729$eo....@read1.cgocable.net...
hanson
twisted political cartoon cochon Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>,
aka Vendickarse DickArian aka Scott Nudds, aka Scott Douglas, aka
VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts", aka Nuddley, the nuddler and confused
US-expatriate has one of his episodes again, scuttling his nudds...
... But Scotty, this time you have tilted so far to the Right, so totally out
of whack, that not even the most fanatical pinko-green little idiots do
believe in, nor buy any of your tripe. ... Just look at their retorts to you...
You've failed again, Scotty. But then you have always been a failure.
Blame the sorry condition of your mentation on AGW.... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/7b90109e4b67f2cd
Thanks for the laughs, you lovely old fool... carry on!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:RhHkf.727$eo....@read1.cgocable.net...
hanson
twisted political cartoon cochon Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>,
aka Vendickarse DickArian aka Scott Nudds, aka Scott Douglas, aka
VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts", aka Nuddley, the nuddler and confused
US-expatriate has one of his episodes again, scuttling his nudds...
... But Scotty, this time you have tilted so far to the Right, so totally out
of whack, that not even the most fanatical pinko-green little idiots do
believe in, nor buy any of your tripe. ... Just look at their retorts to you...
You've failed again, Scotty. But then you have always been a failure.
Blame the sorry condition of your mentation on AGW.... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/7b90109e4b67f2cd
Thanks for the laughs, you lovely old fool... carry on!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:peHkf.726$eo....@read1.cgocable.net...
hanson
twisted political cartoon cochon Vendicar Decarian <V...@Pyro.net>,
aka Vendickarse DickArian aka Scott Nudds, aka Scott Douglas, aka
VD Scotty, aka "Scuttle Nutts", aka Nuddley, the nuddler and confused
US-expatriate has one of his episodes again, scuttling his nudds...
... But Scotty, this time you have tilted so far to the Right, so totally out
of whack, that not even the most fanatical pinko-green little idiots do
believe in, nor buy any of your tripe. ... Just look at their retorts to you...
You've failed again, Scotty. But then you have always been a failure.
Blame the sorry condition of your mentation on AGW.... ahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/7b90109e4b67f2cd
Thanks for the laughs, you lovely old fool... carry on!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:TbHkf.725$eo....@read1.cgocable.net...
Alastair McDonald
"Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
> "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >
> >> Are you for real? Just wondering..
>
> What do you think you are asking piglet?
That should have read
"What, do you think you are asking a piglet?"
You certainly seem to have the brains of one!
Cheers, Alastair.
Martin
> tends to confuse things. I contend that the people who do the consumming
> are the ones who will need to change and those of us that consume the most
> will need to change the most to have any real effect.
Wrong. Carbon Dioxide is FOOD and more CO2 will Green the earth and Grow
the Economy.
More Plant food = More Plants = More animals = More Environment.
The Free Market is God's will and God's design.
That which limits the unfettered marketplace is Luciferian Communism, pure
and simple.
Martin
in message news:dn130d$8g5$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Martin" <G...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
> news:kmLkf.996$ph....@read2.cgocable.net...
> > "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >
> > >> Are you for real? Just wondering..
> >
> > What do you think you are asking piglet?
>
> That should have read
You should spend less time pretending what you should have said, and spend
more time learning the trugh of this uinverse by reading the Christian
bible.
Thank God George Bush was sent to rule in the new Millenium.