CEOs have to eat. And get their laundry done. And buy clothes. And buy cars. And pay taxes. And buy Christmas presents.
RESULT: A WHOLE LOT of that "earned in China" money gets back into the pockets of hard-working Americans, in America.
I can hardly believe that the "Lights Of America" bulbs are China-Made. I'm going to e-mail them myself and ask them why their website says differently.
larsb: Gary - Every dollar paid to any employee of that company in the USA gets back into the US economy.
So it doesn't matter whether a product is made here or overseas, when considering where the money went? Wow!
The correct answer is that if a U.S. company sells a product for a $1 and it is made in China, and the materials, labor, and transportation in a foreign flagged vessel cost $0.60/unit, that $0.60 is not recycled in the U.S. ($0.40 in profits is what we get). That $0.60 is recycled into the Chinese economy to provide their people with money to buy more cars and gasoline.
I am anti big government. I can see I am in the minority on this thread.
I doubt there is anyone more anti big government than I am. However when it comes to the environment I can't see how we can expect corporations to make balanced decisions in this regard. So who's to intervene?
That $0.60 is recycled into the Chinese economy to provide their people with money to buy more cars and gasoline.
That is what I am trying to say here. Just does not sink in. We keep doing more of that every year. Now the US government is forcing us to buy Chinese goods. I wonder if they got a lot of lobby money from the likes of GE and Sylvania.
If automobiles are part of the GW problem another few hundred million cars spewing CO2 should give us valuable data.
However when it comes to the environment I can't see how we can expect corporations to make balanced decisions in this regard. So who's to intervene?
This is not about the environment. It is about corporate welfare and the individuals right to make his own choices. If what many say is true we will be out of oil in 30-50 years and the horse will not be around to beat. If the individual wants to use ethanol and thinks it is greener than fossil fuel fine. Don't force us all to use it as is done by these two latest energy bills. If folks want to save on electricity and think paying as much as 20 times more for a CFL, that is fine also. These mandates may seem green to you. They seem very RED to me.
We keep doing more of that every year. Now the US government is forcing us to buy Chinese goods.
Though trade makes a war between countries less likely, in the future there is going to be more and more stress on competition for resources. And China is looking like it is that competition. So, besides the fact that we are growing their economy and power so quickly, we are also putting Chinese built parts into many systems like computers (servers), phones, and such.
Now it may be paranoia, but I'm sure the Chinese have the equivalents of our CIA, and maybe the desire to bury some Trojan-horses in those devices. I believe I've seen some news show which highlighted that the Pentagon is concerned that in any future conflict with China, the first thing that may happen is the lights and communications networks will be attacked. Instead of Japanese torpedo planes, that would be the first shot.
Oh and I used to take classes with some engineers at a Sylvania lightbulb plant here in NH (I believe they many sold to auto mfr's). They have several hundred unionized workers; I don't see McDonald's being an alternative good-job.
Not to get political, but I was listening to Candidate Clinton describe a economic plan of what I call "arrested development" in the context of "environmental" concerns. If I can point to a real life manifestation of that sort of policy, it would be FRANCE. (pre Sarkosy) If one likes that so much, be like the actor Johnny Dep and move there. The infrastructure and mindset has long since been baked into the croissant.
As for China's CIA counterpart/s, it makes ours look like a Three Stoogies meets the Keystone Cops episode . Many times more powerful than the [non-permissible content removed] in its time. Progress in the death penalty law is billing the family of the executed for the bullet used to fulfill the sentence.
As for competition for resources, I am not sure what that really means. For example, if there are two aluminium plants, one in the US and one in China, they both NEED/WANT/REQUIRE resources. IF the US aluminum plant closes, what would be the need for the same resources to run the closed US aluminium plant?
Another example, per non growth policy, there is a ban on NEW coal fired plants in the US. This would on the face of it not bode well for US coal mining companies? Yet in China, they can not build coal fired power plants FAST enough? Coal companies show record sales and growth? And we wonder why guys like Warren Buffett buy railroad companies?
Now keep in mind that US/Europe has app 235.4/225.M passenger vehicle fleets. What do you think will happen when 1.3B population China has the same ratio's?
What do you think will happen when 1.3B population China has the same ratio's?
The current projection is China will match our demand for automobiles by 2016. I think that is the resources kernick was referring to. They will need some kind of fuel. Many electric vehicles in that mix. Which will require more of those coal fired electric plants. We can be proud that we paid to bring China out of the 19th century. Much of it mandated by our own Congress. Think Hybrid batteries and CFLs.
And if there are new oil finds in international waters, you can bet there will be similar issues. Or maybe the conflict/tension will be over uranium ore? Or some other resource in Africa?
First they are all made in China. Second they can be found for very low prices. I just bought a 3 pack from Walmart for $2.22. These are 15 Watt mini softwhite model # 2714. It is a promotional price from SDG&E. That is 74 cents each. I tried one in my Hunter fanlight. It works fine if the second light is incandescent. If you use CFLs in both they flicker. I think that is one of the problems with CFL. They put out frequencies that corrupt the AC. This promotional at 74 cents each includes model # 2725 which is a 23 Watt softwhite.
When I put them in the same string of hall lights the new Lights of America came on faster than the older FEIT CFLs that are sold at Home Depot.
I have not found any deals on Bathroom Globes or recessed P30 floods. They seem to be holding in the $4 - $7 range each. Not really a savings over incandescents for several years. I Put 6 Phillips globes in the guest bathroom. They are not consistent in coming on or brightness. I am keeping the package and receipt for possible return to Walmart. I also went to Target. They had little to nothing in CFLs.
Stuff like that is habitual and ongoing, unless you are trying to make a case for the US continuing in its role as international cop.
You didn't address the example of aluminum plants.
So as it applies to automobiles, ala crude, why should we care if Europeans pay 7 per gal while we pay say 1-3 per gal? On a trip to Venezuela (less than 3 years ago, my sister saw ) RUG was .29 cents (US) at the pumps. To ask the un ask able question, why would we not want to pay .29 cents per gal?
So going forward if Europe wants 10 dollar per gal fuel, why should we care?
Indeed China can NOT continue to grow if the price of fuel at the pumps is even close to what we in the US pay. As you can see at the pumps, the price of the SAME gal of RUG can and does range from .29 cents to 7/8 dollars.
Again if we were not bank rolling the various latest wars for the years that we have, the price of fuel would probably be FAR lower for us now!? But then I have maintained the real goal is to increase the prices and indeed that is EXACTLY what is happening.
..."We can be proud that we paid to bring China out of the 19th century. Much of it mandated by our own Congress."....
Indeed it costs a LOT to bring a whole civilization up to code. ( so to speak)
ruk: You didn't address the example of aluminum plants.
I'm not an expert on aluminum plants. In fact I have enough trouble keeping cactuses alive. I'l let you address aluminum plants since you introduced the item.
ruk: Indeed China can NOT continue to grow if the price of fuel at the pumps is even close to what we in the US pay.
All that matters is that they continue to increase GDP, and their use in energy will grow similarly. Their industry still will put out products cheaper than ours as if all else is equal, $1/hr will always beat $20/hr. But it is the new Chinese middle-class that makes more / hr and is buying the cars and gasoline. And because China is not setup such that they have long commutes, V8's, and ever-heavier vehicles, each individual there does not need to use so much gasoline. The average Chinese motorist can get by with a few gallons a week, I bet.
..."I'm not an expert on aluminum plants. In fact I have enough trouble keeping cactuses alive. I'l let you address aluminum plants since you introduced the item. "...
The point was the demand for those resources drops (if not to zero) at the closed US aluminum plant.
So NOW (in the example) when there is a new order say in the China aluminum plant (given your $1 vs $20 per hour LABOR example), the cost obviously drops, (as a min $19. per hour) but you add back in the transportation costs. (among others)
So another reason why China wants to become a "oil producer nation" They can now consume oil bought at the China currency (devaluation) yet SELL in higher value US dollar denominations. As such it would be STUPID to deny you oil (given they sell it to YOU at FAR higher prices than they could in China.
So since we are on China, GM sees them as a HUGE growth market.
China. And they expect to sell 60% more than that in 2008. I would guess that a lot of Chinese could get along with one of those new Tato Nano automobiles. Enough skin to protect them from the rain but not a very good car if you want to exceed 40 mph. Indeed you'll prematurely wear your Nano's wheel bearings out quickly if you exceed 44 mph! But for the crowded Chinese cities a Nano would beat a motorcycle, perhaps, and keep the rain off your head at the same time.
February 2 – Beijing Hyundai sold 30,063 vehicles in January, up 23.5 percent from one year earlier. The number represents Beijing Hyundai’s best single month sales record since it was founded a couple of years ago.
Beijing Hyundai sold 17,958 Elantra vehicles and 4,949 Tucson SUV vehicles in January. Elantra’s impressive January sale represents a comeback of the once hot-selling Korean sedan in Chinese market.
Earlier last month, Hyundai Motor Co., South Korea's top auto maker announced that the company aims at selling 380,000 vehicles in China in 2008, about 60 percent increase from last year's 231,000 units.
The automaker said the completion of its second plant and the launch of new models in Chinese market will help the company to achieve its 2008 target.
With the completion of a new $1billion plant on the suburbs of Beijing, Hyundai's annual capacity in China will be doubled to 600,000 units. Volume production in the second plant is set to start in May this year. Source: chinacarforums
Too bad there's not a more cost effective mode of producing electricity than coal-fired plants. With out saying the word nuclear. We need to be able to get rigs that are all-electric, or hybrid, but more so electric, without furthing causing envirnonmental harm. May be easier said than done, even if automobiles are not the main cause of global warming, we should not make the pollution problem worse on earth.
It does surprise me that China rests so heavily on coal fired generation. I would think they would be building hundreds of nuclear power facilities. They also have the luxury of not being threatened by litigation if a Li-Ion battery burns a house down. They should be building Xebras by the millions. They will go about 41 MPH for about 30 miles on a charge using lead acid batteries.
Just like here, they probably do not want their friends to see them in some funky little car. So they like those big Buicks, BMWs and Mercedes. With a Jetta TDI for commuting. I think VW is still the largest foreign automaker in China.
An article on the Amazon rainforest, that highlights how complex natural systems are - such as the CO2 cycle, and how scientists are reexamining their "proven theories".
WASHINGTON: In the first ever analysis of the effect of the transport sector on climate, it has been established that road traffic contributes the most to global warming, aviation sector has the second largest warming effect, and shipping has a net cooling effect on the Earth’s climate.
According to a report in ENN (Environmental News Network), for the analysis, five researchers from CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research) broke down the transport sector to four subsectors: road transport, aviation, rail, and shipping.
The research team then calculated each subsector's contribution to global warming by looking at the radiative forcing (RF) caused by transport emissions.
The study concludes that since pre-industrial times, 15 per cent of the RF caused by man-made CO2-emissions has come from the transport sector.
It also looks at other emissions. For ozone (O3), transport can be blamed for 30 per cent of the forcing caused by man-made emissions.
The study implies that more attention needs to be put on the fast growing road sector. Looking solely at CO2 emissions, road traffic alone has led to two-thirds of the warming caused by total transport emissions.
Well basically saying automobiles cause global climate change is a similar categorical distinction (loads of H/S and gun smoke- hmmm might be a bio diesel nexus here) BUT- essentially proves nothing. Indeed it might be dangerous to highly misleading to claim that it DOES.
..."However, this record is not long enough to determine if this warming should be expected under a naturally varying climate, or if it is unusual and perhaps due to human activities. Paleoclimatic proxy data can be used to extend climate records and provide a longer time frame (hundreds to tens of thousands of years) for evaluating the warming of the last 140 years. "...
Indeed
"The cause of global warming over the last century remains a heated debate with significant economic and societal implications"... (EMPHASIS on economic and societal!!???)
..."Weather variability and extreme events such as floods and droughts, may be an unpredictable response to climate change."...
..."Climate is the weather pattern we expect over the period of a month, a season, a decade, or a century. More technically, climate is defined as the weather conditions resulting from the mean, or average, state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system, often described in terms of "climate normals" or average weather conditions. Climate Change is a departure from the expected average weather or climate normals"....
Less than a generation ago the so called "environmental intelligensia" made strong cases for global winter and so called third world nations such as China, India, being " basket cases" and in effect: not worth saving. Indeed time would bring LIBERAL policies such as die backs (systematical extermination of "basket case". populations) to the fore .
Now aren't we all glad they were WRONG !!!! So how did we scientifically (in the climate context) go from nuclear winter to GLOBAL WARMING!! ???
(in less than two generations?)
But then again no good deeds go unpunished!?
Now these "basket cases" are being blamed for taking US jobs!!! My My, How things have changed in a generation or two. Now every kid in China/India wants to get an American engineering degree, and/or come here. STAY even!!??
it has been established that road traffic contributes the most to global warming, aviation sector has the second largest warming effect,
Someone got paid to do that study? I think most of us could have said road-traffic puts out more CO2 then other forms of transport!
The study concludes that since pre-industrial times, 15 per cent of the RF caused by man-made CO2-emissions has come from the transport sector.
That's about what the Road & Track article I posted several months ago said. Road traffic is a part of transportation, and transportation is a small part of the overall anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The majority of CO2 emissions is coming from electricity generation.
And electricity generation and road traffic increase as we continue to grow in population, despite having cut-back and become more efficient on a per capita basis.
Electricity usage and population growth are the 2 things that are driving CO2 emissions. The person running the AC is as responsible for CO2 emissions as the person driving the SUV.
Indeed the most pollutive thing one can do is to live in a home. Living in a home in say NYC in the winter?.... heavens!? Where is WASH D.C., Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore to name a few!? Living in a home in the North east that is heated by home heating oil!!!????
"Lawmakers have thrown up a roadblock for owners of small, low-speed electric cars by killing debate on a bill that would allow the vehicles to mingle with regular traffic on public streets with 35 mph speed limits.
Members of the House Transportation and Defense Committee say they worry it would be a safety nightmare to allow the cars onto roads with 35 mph speed limits, since federal safety regulations forbid the vehicles from traveling faster than 25 mph on public streets."
The auto dealer lobby is in support of the bill, which I didn't expect. I guess they figure that's a 3rd (or 4th) car they can sell every household.
But hey they needed some reason to put the kibosh on alternative "fuels" that do not generate near the revenue they do not mention.
I read in passing the new sexy Tesla, the $100,000 electric sports car was granted side air bags exemption, as the article mentioned, the reason being COST. Imagine that!!! Require even more costly regulations for diesels and give the farm away for the PC stuff. This seems all but bizzare to me. In addition, the article mentioned the batteries weighed in at 1000#'s.NO mention of HUGE environmental life cycle impact of 1000#s of batterie. :lemon:
Looks like Idaho is trying to be more restrictive than CA. In CA you can drive the NEV on streets posted 35 MPH. Most of the main streets around my old house were posted 40 MPH. There is a local bail bondsman that drives his on the 40 MPH streets all the time. I see a couple Gems parked in front of his office. I think he also sells them. Maybe to people that have lost their license. I don't think they require a license???? I see no problem as long as you stay in the right lane with the Prius drivers.
What a boob this guy is. I think he must have OD'd on Ketchup.
Politicians using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a tried-and-true strategy. Paint the idea green and a natural catastrophe became political fodder for former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).
Kerry appeared on MSNBC on February 6 to discuss storms that have killed at least 50 people throughout the Southeastern United States. So, of course, Kerry used the platform to advance global warming alarmism.
“[I] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms,” Kerry said. “
Kerry’s assertion tornado activity is related to any type of climate change is questionable based on the writings of at least one meteorologist. Roger Edwards, a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center of the National Weather Center in Norman, Okla., has doubts about any global warming and tornado relationship.
“As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic global temperature trends to tornadoes,” Edwards wrote on the Earth & Sky Web site in April 2007. “I don’t expect any such results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small, short–lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to day, even minute to minute weather conditions.”
Two new studies published in "Science" (so at least they've been peer-reviewed) state ALL current biofuels increase GHGs. So much for that selling point! :sick: :sick: :sick:
This is a better place for this breaking news. Now will Congress take heed? The more people try to make change, the bigger the mess.
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert disastrous environment consequences.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. “We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,” the letter said.
Just a note on the 52 CFL lights I bought to comply with the new energy bill. Of those 52 six were defective. They were all "Lights of America" made in China. I returned them to WalMart for a refund, which was given. My question is where do you think they will end up? My bet is the dumpster in back of the store. Then to the landfill where they will be crushed under a D8 Cat and the Mercury will be in the Landfill.
If the average initial failure rate on CFL bulbs is 11.5% that could amount to a sizable amount of mercury dumped. Most CFLs fail right out of the box, or they last a Long time. I cannot remember replacing one in the last 10 years.
MADE IN CHINA, little quality control. I doubt they waste the electricity to test them. Most just went poof and one smelled bad. Hope it did not leak any mercury. I had one that was only about half bright. I have so many lights in this new house. I have more recessed lights in the kitchen than was in my entire home that I am selling. 11 recessed and 7 under cabinet florescents. The newer homes here in CA have a lot more lights than the older ones. The living room has 5 recessed and 4 wall lamps. We are good about turning lights off when not in the room. It will be interesting to see if my electric bill goes down much. We used 829 KWH last month.
Global cooling could be more devastating than global warming....
Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
I just read the same thing...maybe the alarmists are trying to get their agenda passed quickly, so all the political money will be made, before they wise up and repeal everything...
But this study says "It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance. " I.e., the Sun affects global warming and cooling far more than all the SUVs and factories and bloated cows combined could ever accomplish.
Whether you're talking short, medium or long terms, Earth's climate correlates directly and undeniably with solar activity. It does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels.
By the way, the calculations to which you refer are somewhat pathetic. It's like picking a half dozen of the country's poorest people and "calculating" that Jethro contributes the most to the gross national product. But we'll just ignore the fact that the entire group of six contributes practically nothing.
Seems to me the argument is like trying to reintroduce the concept of the FLAT earth. It may have worked from the sociological, psychological, economic (and etc,) points of views, but the cat has long been let out of the bag, so to speak..
the GW alarmists that are trying to institute their worldwide rules before anyone really figures out it is a lie...
Why are they afraid to honestly debate the other side...all they do is get shriller and shriller...
And the fact that AlGore's movie is now played in schools without any admission of rebuttal or the opposing side makes me believe that something is amiss...maybe not a conspiracy, but why is the GW side adamant about their "consensus" when there is nothing of the sort???...and when schools, run by the NEA, fail to admit to both sides and only show Al's movie. don't you think something is amiss???
Don't you smell the suppression of information in the air???
Because some environmentalists are extremists (I guess that's true with any ideology). And GW is their poster-child of "man is bad, and is sinning against the Earth". Environmentalists realized that "saving the worlds" just wasn't cutting it, with scaring the mainstream folks.
So now they are trying to scare everyone with something big and awful, making any actual GW into a cataclysmic scenario, when mankind may have little to do with it. If the extremists amongst environmentalists didn't have GW what would they try and scare us with? So I can understand why they have to defend their cataclysmic GW scenarios.
The real goal of environmentalists isn't to just to supposedly stop GW. I believe the real goal is to use GW to stop development and industrialization. I bet today if a battery technology came out that was really cheap and really good such that autos didn't emit any CO2, they would have a fit! They would then create a theory that the battery production was creating some sort of great harm and try and stop that!
Ask yourself what groups challenge every wind power project that is proposed? Besides any wealthy, powerful politicians who may have their view impinged upon.
I believe the real goal is to use GW to stop development and industrialization.
Some people just like to have clean air and clean water. You want a gold mine, fine - just keep the arsenic and mercury out of my well aquifer. If you take the cat off your blech-mobile and send my wife looking for her inhalers, I'm calling DEQ, not Greenpeace.
what groups challenge every wind power project
Idaho Power (a public utility) charges the same hookup fees for wind as anything else. No break for renewables around here. You'd think they don't want any competition. Spain seems to way out in front with wind generation btw, with 10% of its energy coming from wind. (link).
Some people just like to have clean air and clean water.
We all do and there are many compelling reasons to make the air and water cleaner. GW just isn't one of them. Why not attack the real problem (pollution) for what it is without introducing the GW bugbear? In the meantime we can try to get the science right without the corrupting influence of politics.
Wanting clean air and water is universally acceptable as a good thing. The whole global warming issue is very polarizing. It smells like government control of our lives with little evidence of need. It reminds me of gun control. Same mentality says you take guns away and people will not kill other people. GW is just an elitist scheme to gain more control over the populace. Has absolutely nothing to do with clean air and water. In fact plant life requires CO2 to survive.
In the EU clean air and GW are at odds with each other. The EU would rather use less fuel than have sterile exhaust from their cars. We could cut CO2. if it was important. by easing up on diesel engine restrictions.
Saw this in the local rag (mercurynews.com.), SJMN, Sunday, February 10, 2008, pg 2A
..."How much C02 Washington emits
This weeks quiz is provided by The Globalist, a daily online feature service that covers issues and trends in globalization. This non partisan organization provides commercial services and non-profit educational features
QUESTION
Washington D.C. is home to the U.S. federal government and world-famous monuments. With its many trees and parks, it is also considered one othe the greenest capitals in the world. Yet, we wonder: How does the Washington region's carbon dioxide output compare on a global scale?
ANWERS
A. It produces more C02 emissions than all of Finland B. It produces more C02 emissions than eight industrialized European countries C. Washington area residents produce less C02 than the average American D. All of the above"...
The Washington D.C. metro region is only 3,020 square miles, but it has a COUNTRY-sized emissions problem. While local officials in and around Washington are making promises and developing programs to reduce emissions, the region's carbon dioxide output is predicted to increase 35 percent by 2030.
Big Government has Big GHG output. How many limos have been replaced by a Prius? The big Kahuna in the House insists on having a 747 to fly her around in. Let this GW Congress show us how it is done. Not just buying carbon credits with our tax dollars to perpetrate their opulent lifestyles. Let them wear long johns in the Senate Chambers and turn off the heat. The very people pushing the GW religion are the biggest offenders.
Comments
CEOs have to eat. And get their laundry done. And buy clothes. And buy cars. And pay taxes. And buy Christmas presents.
RESULT: A WHOLE LOT of that "earned in China" money gets back into the pockets of hard-working Americans, in America.
I can hardly believe that the "Lights Of America" bulbs are China-Made. I'm going to e-mail them myself and ask them why their website says differently.
Very little of that returning money ends up in the US working man's wallet.
Gary - Every dollar paid to any employee of that company in the USA gets back into the US economy.
Almost every single dollar the CEO/VP/PREZ spends gets given to someone who makes less money than they do.
It all blends back into the economy. The only ones who don't are American CEOs who NEVER SPEND A US DOLLAR in the USA.
How many of those are there?
So it doesn't matter whether a product is made here or overseas, when considering where the money went? Wow!
The correct answer is that if a U.S. company sells a product for a $1 and it is made in China, and the materials, labor, and transportation in a foreign flagged vessel cost $0.60/unit, that $0.60 is not recycled in the U.S. ($0.40 in profits is what we get). That $0.60 is recycled into the Chinese economy to provide their people with money to buy more cars and gasoline.
I am anti big government. I can see I am in the minority on this thread.
I doubt there is anyone more anti big government than I am. However when it comes to the environment I can't see how we can expect corporations to make balanced decisions in this regard. So who's to intervene?
That is what I am trying to say here. Just does not sink in. We keep doing more of that every year. Now the US government is forcing us to buy Chinese goods. I wonder if they got a lot of lobby money from the likes of GE and Sylvania.
If automobiles are part of the GW problem another few hundred million cars spewing CO2 should give us valuable data.
This is not about the environment. It is about corporate welfare and the individuals right to make his own choices. If what many say is true we will be out of oil in 30-50 years and the horse will not be around to beat. If the individual wants to use ethanol and thinks it is greener than fossil fuel fine. Don't force us all to use it as is done by these two latest energy bills. If folks want to save on electricity and think paying as much as 20 times more for a CFL, that is fine also. These mandates may seem green to you. They seem very RED to me.
Though trade makes a war between countries less likely, in the future there is going to be more and more stress on competition for resources. And China is looking like it is that competition. So, besides the fact that we are growing their economy and power so quickly, we are also putting Chinese built parts into many systems like computers (servers), phones, and such.
Now it may be paranoia, but I'm sure the Chinese have the equivalents of our CIA, and maybe the desire to bury some Trojan-horses in those devices. I believe I've seen some news show which highlighted that the Pentagon is concerned that in any future conflict with China, the first thing that may happen is the lights and communications networks will be attacked. Instead of Japanese torpedo planes, that would be the first shot.
Oh and I used to take classes with some engineers at a Sylvania lightbulb plant here in NH (I believe they many sold to auto mfr's). They have several hundred unionized workers; I don't see McDonald's being an alternative good-job.
As for China's CIA counterpart/s, it makes ours look like a Three Stoogies meets the Keystone Cops episode . Many times more powerful than the [non-permissible content removed] in its time. Progress in the death penalty law is billing the family of the executed for the bullet used to fulfill the sentence.
As for competition for resources, I am not sure what that really means. For example, if there are two aluminium plants, one in the US and one in China, they both NEED/WANT/REQUIRE resources. IF the US aluminum plant closes, what would be the need for the same resources to run the closed US aluminium plant?
Another example, per non growth policy, there is a ban on NEW coal fired plants in the US. This would on the face of it not bode well for US coal mining companies? Yet in China, they can not build coal fired power plants FAST enough? Coal companies show record sales and growth? And we wonder why guys like Warren Buffett buy railroad companies?
Now keep in mind that US/Europe has app 235.4/225.M passenger vehicle fleets. What do you think will happen when 1.3B population China has the same ratio's?
The current projection is China will match our demand for automobiles by 2016. I think that is the resources kernick was referring to. They will need some kind of fuel. Many electric vehicles in that mix. Which will require more of those coal fired electric plants. We can be proud that we paid to bring China out of the 19th century. Much of it mandated by our own Congress. Think Hybrid batteries and CFLs.
If you didn't watch much news this summer.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2137048,00.html
And if there are new oil finds in international waters, you can bet there will be similar issues. Or maybe the conflict/tension will be over uranium ore? Or some other resource in Africa?
When I put them in the same string of hall lights the new Lights of America came on faster than the older FEIT CFLs that are sold at Home Depot.
I have not found any deals on Bathroom Globes or recessed P30 floods. They seem to be holding in the $4 - $7 range each. Not really a savings over incandescents for several years. I Put 6 Phillips globes in the guest bathroom. They are not consistent in coming on or brightness. I am keeping the package and receipt for possible return to Walmart. I also went to Target. They had little to nothing in CFLs.
You didn't address the example of aluminum plants.
So as it applies to automobiles, ala crude, why should we care if Europeans pay 7 per gal while we pay say 1-3 per gal? On a trip to Venezuela (less than 3 years ago, my sister saw ) RUG was .29 cents (US) at the pumps. To ask the un ask able question, why would we not want to pay .29 cents per gal?
So going forward if Europe wants 10 dollar per gal fuel, why should we care?
Indeed China can NOT continue to grow if the price of fuel at the pumps is even close to what we in the US pay. As you can see at the pumps, the price of the SAME gal of RUG can and does range from .29 cents to 7/8 dollars.
Again if we were not bank rolling the various latest wars for the years that we have, the price of fuel would probably be FAR lower for us now!? But then I have maintained the real goal is to increase the prices and indeed that is EXACTLY what is happening.
..."We can be proud that we paid to bring China out of the 19th century. Much of it mandated by our own Congress."....
Indeed it costs a LOT to bring a whole civilization up to code. ( so to speak)
I'm not an expert on aluminum plants. In fact I have enough trouble keeping cactuses alive.
ruk: Indeed China can NOT continue to grow if the price of fuel at the pumps is even close to what we in the US pay.
All that matters is that they continue to increase GDP, and their use in energy will grow similarly. Their industry still will put out products cheaper than ours as if all else is equal, $1/hr will always beat $20/hr. But it is the new Chinese middle-class that makes more / hr and is buying the cars and gasoline.
And because China is not setup such that they have long commutes, V8's, and ever-heavier vehicles, each individual there does not need to use so much gasoline. The average Chinese motorist can get by with a few gallons a week, I bet.
The point was the demand for those resources drops (if not to zero) at the closed US aluminum plant.
So NOW (in the example) when there is a new order say in the China aluminum plant (given your $1 vs $20 per hour LABOR example), the cost obviously drops, (as a min $19. per hour) but you add back in the transportation costs. (among others)
So another reason why China wants to become a "oil producer nation" They can now consume oil bought at the China currency (devaluation) yet SELL in higher value US dollar denominations. As such it would be STUPID to deny you oil (given they sell it to YOU at FAR higher prices than they could in China.
So since we are on China, GM sees them as a HUGE growth market.
February 2 – Beijing Hyundai sold 30,063 vehicles in January, up 23.5 percent from one year earlier. The number represents Beijing Hyundai’s best single month sales record since it was founded a couple of years ago.
Beijing Hyundai sold 17,958 Elantra vehicles and 4,949 Tucson SUV vehicles in January. Elantra’s impressive January sale represents a comeback of the once hot-selling Korean sedan in Chinese market.
Earlier last month, Hyundai Motor Co., South Korea's top auto maker announced that the company aims at selling 380,000 vehicles in China in 2008, about 60 percent increase from last year's 231,000 units.
The automaker said the completion of its second plant and the launch of new models in Chinese market will help the company to achieve its 2008 target.
With the completion of a new $1billion plant on the suburbs of Beijing, Hyundai's annual capacity in China will be doubled to 600,000 units. Volume production in the second plant is set to start in May this year.
Source: chinacarforums
Too bad there's not a more cost effective mode of producing electricity than coal-fired plants. With out saying the word nuclear. We need to be able to get rigs that are all-electric, or hybrid, but more so electric, without furthing causing envirnonmental harm. May be easier said than done, even if automobiles are not the main cause of global warming, we should not make the pollution problem worse on earth.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Just like here, they probably do not want their friends to see them in some funky little car. So they like those big Buicks, BMWs and Mercedes. With a Jetta TDI for commuting. I think VW is still the largest foreign automaker in China.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-03-amazon_N.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/lf_nm_life/china_weather_dc
WASHINGTON: In the first ever analysis of the effect of the transport sector on climate, it has been established that road traffic contributes the most to global warming, aviation sector has the second largest warming effect, and shipping has a net cooling effect on the Earth’s climate.
According to a report in ENN (Environmental News Network), for the analysis, five researchers from CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research) broke down the transport sector to four subsectors: road transport, aviation, rail, and shipping.
The research team then calculated each subsector's contribution to global warming by looking at the radiative forcing (RF) caused by transport emissions.
The study concludes that since pre-industrial times, 15 per cent of the RF caused by man-made CO2-emissions has come from the transport sector.
It also looks at other emissions. For ozone (O3), transport can be blamed for 30 per cent of the forcing caused by man-made emissions.
The study implies that more attention needs to be put on the fast growing road sector. Looking solely at CO2 emissions, road traffic alone has led to two-thirds of the warming caused by total transport emissions.
Veddy Interestink............
The one making that claim is... not me.
..."However, this record is not long enough to determine if this warming should be expected under a naturally varying climate, or if it is unusual and perhaps due to human activities. Paleoclimatic proxy data can be used to extend climate records and provide a longer time frame (hundreds to tens of thousands of years) for evaluating the warming of the last 140 years. "...
Indeed
"The cause of global warming over the last century remains a heated debate with significant economic and societal implications"... (EMPHASIS on economic and societal!!???)
..."Weather variability and extreme events such as floods and droughts, may be an unpredictable response to climate change."...
..."Climate is the weather pattern we expect over the period of a month, a season, a decade, or a century. More technically, climate is defined as the weather conditions resulting from the mean, or average, state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system, often described in terms of "climate normals" or average weather conditions. Climate Change is a departure from the expected average weather or climate normals"....
Less than a generation ago the so called "environmental intelligensia" made strong cases for global winter and so called third world nations such as China, India, being " basket cases" and in effect: not worth saving. Indeed time would bring LIBERAL policies such as die backs (systematical extermination of "basket case". populations) to the fore .
Now aren't we all glad they were WRONG !!!! So how did we scientifically (in the climate context) go from nuclear winter to GLOBAL WARMING!! ???
(in less than two generations?)
But then again no good deeds go unpunished!?
Now these "basket cases" are being blamed for taking US jobs!!! My My, How things have changed in a generation or two. Now every kid in China/India wants to get an American engineering degree, and/or come here. STAY even!!??
Someone got paid to do that study? I think most of us could have said road-traffic puts out more CO2 then other forms of transport!
The study concludes that since pre-industrial times, 15 per cent of the RF caused by man-made CO2-emissions has come from the transport sector.
That's about what the Road & Track article I posted several months ago said. Road traffic is a part of transportation, and transportation is a small part of the overall anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The majority of CO2 emissions is coming from electricity generation.
And electricity generation and road traffic increase as we continue to grow in population, despite having cut-back and become more efficient on a per capita basis.
Electricity usage and population growth are the 2 things that are driving CO2 emissions. The person running the AC is as responsible for CO2 emissions as the person driving the SUV.
Indeed the most pollutive thing one can do is to live in a home. Living in a home in say NYC in the winter?.... heavens!? Where is WASH D.C., Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore to name a few!? Living in a home in the North east that is heated by home heating oil!!!????
Members of the House Transportation and Defense Committee say they worry it would be a safety nightmare to allow the cars onto roads with 35 mph speed limits, since federal safety regulations forbid the vehicles from traveling faster than 25 mph on public streets."
The auto dealer lobby is in support of the bill, which I didn't expect. I guess they figure that's a 3rd (or 4th) car they can sell every household.
Idaho bill to boost use of low-speed electric cars stalls (Idaho Statesman - probably a registration link)
But hey they needed some reason to put the kibosh on alternative "fuels" that do not generate near the revenue they do not mention.
I read in passing the new sexy Tesla, the $100,000 electric sports car was granted side air bags exemption, as the article mentioned, the reason being COST. Imagine that!!! Require even more costly regulations for diesels and give the farm away for the PC stuff. This seems all but bizzare to me. In addition, the article mentioned the batteries weighed in at 1000#'s.NO mention of HUGE environmental life cycle impact of 1000#s of batterie.
Politicians using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a tried-and-true strategy. Paint the idea green and a natural catastrophe became political fodder for former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).
Kerry appeared on MSNBC on February 6 to discuss storms that have killed at least 50 people throughout the Southeastern United States. So, of course, Kerry used the platform to advance global warming alarmism.
“[I] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms,” Kerry said. “
Kerry’s assertion tornado activity is related to any type of climate change is questionable based on the writings of at least one meteorologist. Roger Edwards, a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center of the National Weather Center in Norman, Okla., has doubts about any global warming and tornado relationship.
“As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic global temperature trends to tornadoes,” Edwards wrote on the Earth & Sky Web site in April 2007. “I don’t expect any such results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small, short–lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to day, even minute to minute weather conditions.”
Biofuels increase GHG
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert disastrous environment consequences.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. “We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,” the letter said.
If the average initial failure rate on CFL bulbs is 11.5% that could amount to a sizable amount of mercury dumped. Most CFLs fail right out of the box, or they last a Long time. I cannot remember replacing one in the last 10 years.
Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
They oughta just leave it like it is...
" I.e., the Sun affects global warming and cooling far more than all the SUVs and factories and bloated cows combined could ever accomplish.
The Sun also Sets
Whether you're talking short, medium or long terms, Earth's climate correlates directly and undeniably with solar activity. It does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels.
By the way, the calculations to which you refer are somewhat pathetic. It's like picking a half dozen of the country's poorest people and "calculating" that Jethro contributes the most to the gross national product. But we'll just ignore the fact that the entire group of six contributes practically nothing.
Why are they afraid to honestly debate the other side...all they do is get shriller and shriller...
And the fact that AlGore's movie is now played in schools without any admission of rebuttal or the opposing side makes me believe that something is amiss...maybe not a conspiracy, but why is the GW side adamant about their "consensus" when there is nothing of the sort???...and when schools, run by the NEA, fail to admit to both sides and only show Al's movie. don't you think something is amiss???
Don't you smell the suppression of information in the air???
So now they are trying to scare everyone with something big and awful, making any actual GW into a cataclysmic scenario, when mankind may have little to do with it. If the extremists amongst environmentalists didn't have GW what would they try and scare us with? So I can understand why they have to defend their cataclysmic GW scenarios.
The real goal of environmentalists isn't to just to supposedly stop GW. I believe the real goal is to use GW to stop development and industrialization. I bet today if a battery technology came out that was really cheap and really good such that autos didn't emit any CO2, they would have a fit! They would then create a theory that the battery production was creating some sort of great harm and try and stop that!
Ask yourself what groups challenge every wind power project that is proposed? Besides any wealthy, powerful politicians who may have their view impinged upon.
Some people just like to have clean air and clean water. You want a gold mine, fine - just keep the arsenic and mercury out of my well aquifer. If you take the cat off your blech-mobile and send my wife looking for her inhalers, I'm calling DEQ, not Greenpeace.
what groups challenge every wind power project
Idaho Power (a public utility) charges the same hookup fees for wind as anything else. No break for renewables around here. You'd think they don't want any competition. Spain seems to way out in front with wind generation btw, with 10% of its energy coming from wind. (link).
We all do and there are many compelling reasons to make the air and water cleaner. GW just isn't one of them. Why not attack the real problem (pollution) for what it is without introducing the GW bugbear? In the meantime we can try to get the science right without the corrupting influence of politics.
In the EU clean air and GW are at odds with each other. The EU would rather use less fuel than have sterile exhaust from their cars. We could cut CO2. if it was important. by easing up on diesel engine restrictions.
Maybe because it's easier to attack people raising the issues?
We're either making assumptions about the "real goals of environmentalists" or calling people "deniers."
Science is politics.
..."How much C02 Washington emits
This weeks quiz is provided by The Globalist, a daily online feature service that covers issues and trends in globalization. This non partisan organization provides commercial services and non-profit educational features
QUESTION
Washington D.C. is home to the U.S. federal government and world-famous monuments. With its many trees and parks, it is also considered one othe the greenest capitals in the world. Yet, we wonder: How does the Washington region's carbon dioxide output compare on a global scale?
ANWERS
A. It produces more C02 emissions than all of Finland
B. It produces more C02 emissions than eight industrialized European countries
C. Washington area residents produce less C02 than the average American
D. All of the above"...
The Washington D.C. metro region is only 3,020 square miles, but it has a COUNTRY-sized emissions problem. While local officials in and around Washington are making promises and developing programs to reduce emissions, the region's carbon dioxide output is predicted to increase 35 percent by 2030.
(source: The Globalist.com)