Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, z 
wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new 
plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall 
the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally 
as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand 
their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to 
enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all.  First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the 
Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act.  Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced.  The act was designed to require NEW 
PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology.  Older plants 
would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics.  However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) 
and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they 
are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits.  In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them.  Eventually the older plants are shut down or 
upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to 
operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.  They started treating major modifications as new sources, which 
was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications.  Not minor improvements which would INCREASE 
efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under 
your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because 
you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No.  The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and 
should
>> be.  Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue.  Routine maintenance 
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review.  This 
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended.  That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued 
until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in 
the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true.  I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records 
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to.  Yep, the 
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.

Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?

>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably 
operated
>> in.
>> >>  But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all.  The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about?   You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have 
any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club 
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.

As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an 
objective source.

>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE)   or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others  
didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt)  are LISTED on the 
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony 
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE.  Global Shares are no less listed on the 
NYSE
>than ADPs.

OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:

"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York 
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001."  (from the DB web site)

So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.

"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in 
18 countries simultaneously..." -- 
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html

>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity.  This was all recorded 
in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of  these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the 
last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration.  ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives 
destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order.    I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding.  The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies.  Let me guess, now you're going to start saying 
how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too.  Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review.  But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, 
the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment!  LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for 
plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they 
could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires.   Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's 
EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton.  Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too.  Glad you were so proud of your record that 
you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> >   "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., 
tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines 
at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million 
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse 
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. 
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that.  By the way, your computer's 
clock
>is wrong too.
>