clueless politicians

[Bob Adkins]

I asked:

"List all the environmental damage in your country, and ask where it
originated."

And I respond: List all the times you beat your wife, and who beat her.

Look Moosh, all countries in the world have their environmental problems.
Those problems are caused by the voters in free countries, and the
government in totalitarian systems.

Bob

 

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

There is no city in the U.S. with an air pollution problem that even comes
close to Bangkok or Manila. I've never been to India, but I believe there
are some cities there that Moosh wouldn't want us to think about. China has
the world's biggest water pollution problem and I suspect it also has the
worst air pollution as well, but I didn't find relative numbers for air
pollution. You don't find traffic cops in the U.S. wearing surgical masks
as you do in many Asian cities.

Many years ago I lived in Los Angeles and I actually moved away because of
the lack of air quality. It's better now than it was then, but I still
wouldn't want to live there. All in all, the U.S. is relatively
pollution-free. We can't really expect a person living on the opposite side
of the globe to know that. Moosh is only going to hear what he wants to
hear, and what he wants to hear is how terrible things are in the U.S.

Don W.

For air polution, the three worst cities I have ever been in are
London England, Mexico City, and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
In Londond and Mexico City, you could cut the air with a knife on the
best of days, and Ouaga has so many 2 stroke Mobilettes pouring smoke
into the sub-sahara dust-laden air that breathing is almost as
dangerous as not breathing.
Now, Toronto and Hamilton Ontario can be BAD at times as well, as can
Kitchener Waterloo where I live. We get a stream of air from the Ohio
and Tennessee valley areas, along with our home-brewed exhaust and
coal fired generator output.

 

[Steve Spence]

Sure it is.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org

hey what about the Rhine? and the Thames?

What about them? Is this relevant?

 

[Bob Adkins]

I tend to disagree with this statement. If it were true, our food would
still have high rat content and be canned in formaldehyde, employees
could still be chained to their work stations, the economy would be
dominated by monopolies, and humanitarian organizations wouldn't exist.
Plus, the Great Lakes would still be full of pollutants. Profits aren't
necessarily bad, but unchecked they're just as bad as unchecked
government.

The role of the government is not to interfere with the American people.
Their role is to protect us from enemies. Another good role for the
government is to educate the people about the dangers of pollutants and food
contamination. Once educated, we have a choice: Eat rotten meat and pollute,
or not. What educated person would choose to pollute and eat rotten meat?

The government, by-and-large, have the best of intentions. However, their
track record stinks. They have thrown trillions into social and educational
programs, and both our social structure and our children's education
continues to worsen. They would do much more good for the American people by
staying out of the way.

Bob

 

[Tony Wesley]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:33:03 -0400, "Tony Wesley"
[snip]

If you're comparing N.A. to Europe and Asia, and you bring up the Great Lakes,
you're comparing them to what? Lake Baikal?

I'm not comparing them to anything. Where did that idea spring from?
I merely asked who caused all the pollution problems in America. I was
responded to with "There aren't any" or words to that effect.

You were responded to by Bob Adkins with
"Our country is clean compared to Europe and Asia."

To which you replied
"None so blind as those who won't see."

But enough of that. It twists away from your point. I'll
answer your question.

Who caused all the pollution problems in America? All of the
Americans, myself included. I believe the worst two are coal and
cars.

 

[Bob Adkins]

That is why the almighty market is not always the best means of
deciding things.

I think there's a paradox, or at least a non-sequitur somewhere in that
sentence.

Bob

 

[Fred B. McGalliard]

....

The role of the government is not to interfere with the American people.
Their role is to protect us from enemies.

But, your greatest enemy is the rich man who can use the power of his riches
to take a bigger share of yours. Enron.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Who caused all the pollution problems in America? All of the
Americans, myself included. I believe the worst two are coal and
cars.

I blame it on the Brits, the Irish, the Italians, and the Germans. Yea, it
was those people who settled this country and started all the pollution
problems in motion.

Bob

 

[Bob Adkins]

Not at all - that's just money. Our greatest enemies are those who try to
kill us. Or do you consider "riches" to be more valuable than human life?

Correct sir! We must put things in perspective.

Bob

 

[Steve Spence]

you mean my hydro powered computer, in my hydro powered AC home,
with my hydro powered lights, etc, etc.... while my vegetable oil fueled
carriage
sets in my garage.

 

[Scott A Crosby]

you mean my hydro powered computer, in my hydro powered AC home,
with my hydro powered lights, etc, etc.... while my vegetable oil fueled
carriage
sets in my garage.

Hydropower only supplies about 7% of US electrical generation. Thats
only enough to satisfy about 20 million people's demand. Where do the
other 260 million get their power from? Also, hydropower isn't very
evenly distributed; there's no way houston has any within a few
hundred miles.

The same sorts of issues crop up with vegetable oil. Running numbers,
according to DoE EIA, about 3 billion gallons of diesel is used on
farms (33 billion gallons trucking and 58 billion gallons
total). According to journeytoforever.org,

gal/ acres harvested
acre (million)
Wheat - 59
Hay - 60
Corn 18 69
Cotton 35 13
Soybean 48 66
Rapeseed 127 ??
Palm 635 ??

For comparison,

Diesel use in farming per acre of cropland: 5.3 gal/acre
Claim (of a pro-biodiesel site) for growing soy 12.5 gal/acre
Diesel use in the economy per acre of cropland: 88 gal/acre
Average (of 270 million acres) of maximum potential harvest per acre:
18 gal/acre

A farm might be able to barely support itself with biodiesel grown
on-site, but it won't be able to fuel much else.

Also, according to the presentation, biodiesel is about 2.5 times as
expensive as diesel, thus they propose diluting it 20:1 to dilute the
price shock. Some of the literature I read discusses the benefit to
soy producers (3-10% price increase) if just 1% of diesel were diluted
to be 1% biodiesel. From this I would speculate that supplying just
the farms (5% of diesel) with 100% biodiesel while expanding tha
acreage used for soy from 10% to 50% would only increase soy prices
3x-10x.)

Sure, biodiesel exists. But its a niche; it can only be used by a
small minority or at great expense.

Scott

 

[Moosh:]]

Funny, I don't see any discussion limited to present conflict between Islam,
Judaism and Christianity, I was discussing conflicts in the middle east.

Well we certainly weren't talking about 3, 4000 year old myths.
The present conflicts are between the players of Islam, Judaism and
Christianity. It is surely logical that the history is of those
groups. Otherwise it's an irrelevant discussion.

There has been conflict much longer than Islam or Christianity

As there has throughout the world. The argument is that things in the
Middle East have never been worse in the 1400 year history of the
three present participants, than it has in the last century since the
West has been interfering.

has been
around. who was discussing religion in this context?

That's what happens to distinguish the three antagonists, if you
hadn't noticed.

that's the big problem
that Islamic folk have, they think it's a religious issue.

A tiny minority do, but then same with Judaism and Christianity.

Americans are not
Christian. some are, but our politics and our religion are unrelated. in
Islam, they are one and the same.

You just can't see the connection. America has been said to be the
most religious country in the world. It depends what criteria you use,
but it isn't far wrong.

 

[Moosh:]]

That's quite a load of horse manure there. You might want to get a refund on
your university bill. islam is a fairly new thing compared to the history of
the region. The area has been full of strife for many thousands of years.
look at the Romans and the Greeks. and they are newcomers so to speak.

Islam has been going for nearly 1400 years. As we are talking about
present conflict between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, it seems
logical to confine our discussion to the last 1400 years or so.

During that time, there has been relatively little conflict between
these groups, and it is only since the discovery of oil and the
formation of Israel on Arab lands that such intractable hatred and
killing has occurred.

The point is that the interference of the West has caused
unprecedented friction between these three "Peoples of the Book"

Don't forget the interference of the East. The Ottomans aided Germany
in WWI.

I believe the main interference or damage, was the British (mainly)
inflicting nation-state concepts on peoples to whom this was totally
foreign. Colonel Blimps drawing red lines on maps to say "You lot of
wallas on that side and you other lot on the other side"

 

[Steve Spence]

we make our own biodiesel for .70 / gallon, but not many can. I gave the
numbers earlier showing 11000 square miles of desert can provide enough
algae grown biodiesel for the entire usa transportation fuel needs.


--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org

 

[Steve Spence]

you are clueless one, even more so than the politicians. go back to sleep.

*plonk*

 

[Steve Spence]

ah, there is the problem, anything you don't agree with is a myth. oh well,
that's your problem, not mine.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org

"We are trying to figure why the Middle East is such a hot spot today"

you are limiting the discussion.

Of course. That's what it is all about. Oil and the Middle East
problem. Did you think this wa an ancient history newsgroup?

we were talking about how there would be
conflict in this are even without the west.

And if you look at the history of the present combatants, this is not
necessarily so.

history proves it.

History proves that in the main, the present combatants have generally
lived peacefully side by side.

you want to
dismiss the historical evidence to skew the numbers.

History of the present combatants are surely the only relevant
history. Why do you mention a bunch of myths and odd occurrences 3000
years ago? Nothing more recent in your history?

fine, go have a
conversation with yourself.

Well please explain what 3000 year old myths and stories have to do
with Islam, Judaism and Christianity living together peacefully.

What evidence have you to discount my assertion that the present
combatants can and have lived peacefully side by side, and it wasn't
until Western interference that all this hatred and turmoil has
occurred. And 3000 year old myths don't count.

 

[Moosh:]]

It's easy! Once on top of the hill, they ask the guy in front of them if
they can tow the boat just to the bottom of the hill.

"Tow" being the wrong word

 

[Moosh:]]

I don't think it was ever quite so bad that you couldn't eat the fish at
all, but even now pregnant women and children are still advised to limit
consumption of certain fish from the Great Lakes. Occasionally there are
still short-term advisories issued for everybody on certain types of
fish. As I recall, mercury is the primary remaining issue. There are
also municipalities that pump their sewage into the lakes, which has
caused some public beach closings in recent years due to fecal coliform
issues.

As someone who has swallowed his fair share of the Great Lakes I can say
that I vastly prefer the tap water in Germany and Japan over the lake
water. I did avoid drinking the tap water in India, but I brushed my
teeth with it and never got sick.

In other words, the reality seems to be somewhere in between each of
your arguments.

Well my argument is that there IS pollution in USA, and it is NOT
caused by government. That's all. Whatever other countries have is
irrelevant.

Western European cities, by and large, have cleaner air than major
American cities, but air quality in both locations is much, much better
than it was 100 years ago. The worst air quality tends to occur in the
most developed of the third-world nations -- Mexico, India, China,
Brazil, Egypt, etc.

I agree, but it has nothing to do with my point..

I tend to disagree with this statement. If it were true, our food would
still have high rat content and be canned in formaldehyde, employees
could still be chained to their work stations, the economy would be
dominated by monopolies, and humanitarian organizations wouldn't exist.
Plus, the Great Lakes would still be full of pollutants. Profits aren't
necessarily bad, but unchecked they're just as bad as unchecked
government.

My point exactly. Thanks.

 

[Moosh:]]

There is no city in the U.S. with an air pollution problem that even comes
close to Bangkok or Manila.

And your point?

I've never been to India, but I believe there
are some cities there that Moosh wouldn't want us to think about.

Why not? Are you becoming delusional?

China has
the world's biggest water pollution problem and I suspect it also has the
worst air pollution as well, but I didn't find relative numbers for air
pollution. You don't find traffic cops in the U.S. wearing surgical masks
as you do in many Asian cities.

And your point?

Many years ago I lived in Los Angeles and I actually moved away because of
the lack of air quality.

But the point is, did govt cause this?

It's better now than it was then, but I still
wouldn't want to live there. All in all, the U.S. is relatively
pollution-free.

Not the point. The point is WHO CAUSED IT?

We can't really expect a person living on the opposite side
of the globe to know that.

To know what? That you have pollution and that the govt didn't cause
it?

Moosh is only going to hear what he wants to
hear, and what he wants to hear is how terrible things are in the U.S.

Where did I say that? Paranoia noted.

You are therefore saying tha US has NO pollution, and if there was a
tiny bit, govt caused it. That's what you must be saying by
disagreeing with me here.

 

[Moosh:]]

Well, I get a "so what" too then.

Try to read what others have written.
What have rivers outside USA got to do with the cause of pollution
within the US?