down, but it is a matter or ratios in a highly populated but not fully industrialized country. I'd like to see comparitive figures as we import more from them. That was 1997.
I do know that we are soon installing about $500,000 in equipment to reduce emissions at our company. (not that it is a bad thing environmentally) It is required in most areas of the US, but not at all in China.
interviews of both candidates in this months Field and Stream magazine. Here's a link.
and take a look. It's a pretty even handed look at both candidates but I'm in the already decided catogory myself. The other thing to read is the Theodore Roosevelt Editorial from 1927 (obviously published after his death) well worth a read.
Allen
and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet goes to hell, is it ?
Not at all. But it's a good reason not to join a treaty that would hurt us.
That's all very well, Allen, but saving the planet means sacrifices, both jobs and money, and you can't expect politicians to support such ideas with an election looming.
But one thing is certain : our children and grand-children will hate us for our utter selfishness and complacency.
No it isn't. You can't expect every country in the world to be there on day one. If the rich countries set a good example then the others can be persuaded, given time.
It's tougher because American quality isn't really much better (if at all) than Chinese quality. I'd have no problem paying top dollar for a US made tool if it was head-and-shoulders above the competition in quality, but unfortunately, I've found that in many cases, the US tool is no better, or worse inferior, than the import stuff that's much cheaper.
I buy quality for the price, regardless of where it comes from. If the US wants to get my money, they need to pony up the quality.
If you say so. I think China will do what China wants to do, regardless of whether we set a good example or not.
Bob,
you crack me up.......I am not an economist and I consider myself a conservative. I am betting you are niether. But do you really believe there are any sane, honest and hardworking american citizens who prefer bad air...bad water...desolate forests....wildlife confined to a zoo etc? Everyone, but for the nutcases recognize that environmental issues are important. The difference, it seems, has to do with our beliefs a solution. Any solution that costs US jobs has to be considered carefully. Nothing can wreck the environment faster than poverty. A simple glance around the world will show that.
Does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread discussing the loss of US manufacturing and therefore the loss of mfg jobs, that failure to sign the Kyoto treaty should be bemoaned.
PS: Mark my words --the biggest news story immediatly AFTER the election will be the UN/oil for food scandal. The story won't change between now and then, but the coverage certainly will.
It's actually pretty straightforward. Only the time question is hard to figure. Given current population levels our standard of living will need to drop down well into what we consider "developing nation" status before we will be competitive on the world market. Expect to see an economy where a car is a luxury and where 75% or more of your income goes to subsistence - i.e. food and minimal clothing. It is not a pretty picture, but the world's supply of resources is inadequate to give everyone much above that.
Tim Douglass
Tim Douglass did say:
Quite a bleak picture when you consider that the average American pays 55% of their income in taxes of one sort or another. Doesn't leave nearly enough for your 75% subsistence requirement.
many weapons and seem to keep putting people with the blood lust and the power lust in charge of them.
Give me a break. Blood lust, Power lust? A bunch of Europeans came upon a continent, rich with resources and populated by stone age people. They did what anybody with their moral and ethical background would do and exploited it. We are the result. Fat, dumb and happy. The solution to everyone having "enough" on this planet is population control. In the short, selfish term, it means population control in the United States. There's a lot to go around on this planet if the number to whom it must "go around" is small. If that number is sufficiently large, there can never be enough to go around. Sooner or later, humans will take steps to control their numbers or natural forces will intervene and it won't be pretty.
bob g.
snipped-for-privacy@thanks.com wrote:
well, you're wrong there.
No, of course not, but "sane, honest and hardworking" certainly doesn't describe the CEOs who put this year's bottom line before their social responsibilities, or the managers who are set near-impossible targets. And even the good folks mostly put their head in the sand and hope the problem will go away.
The Kyoto Protocol is NOT a bad treaty - anyone who believes that has been paying too much attention to GWB - and Clinton's administration recognized that and signed it. All the developed countries except the US have ratified it - even Russia for christ's sake !
No, sorry. The developed countries produce most of the pollution and they are the ones who can afford to do something about it.
Ask yourself - how much are YOU prepared to pay to give your grand-children breathable air and drinkable water? And the later you leave it the more it will cost.
The U.S. is hardly and issue on the population front. Our actual birth rate is only slightly above replacement, while much of the world is several times that. The population growth in the U.S. is largely fueled by immigration.
Tim Douglass
I don't think so. Currently, Chinese government is trying many things to boost internal consumption. Things like many long stretch of holiday weeks to allow people to travel far and away to spend money. Basically, China cannot rely on foreign market to cure China unemployment problem; the foreign market is simply not large enough for all the products from China. China will have to cure the problem by increasing domestic consumption. With China already in WTO, this means US companies have a chance to get a piece of the increasing Chinese market. The key is to sell products that match the need in that market. US can sell raw material to China, or US can sell finished products from highly automated factories (to keep cost down).
This will be a win-win situation. There will be short term pain both in China and in other countries. In the long term, the global market will be bigger. When we add the growing India market into the mix, the global market will be even bigger. And when we add a recovering Russia into the mix, the global market will be bigger and bigger...
Of course, US would lose the opportunity of gaining Chinese market share to other countries if US was only concerning of what market they would lose instead of what market they would gain. Luckily, this doesn't seem to be what is happening considering the fact that large number of US companies are actively marketing in China.
Jay Chan
This is a part of the problem. US is spending way too much money on military, and US cannot just sell the military products to any other country. This means US is sinking a lot of money on something that it cannot sell freely. If US had cut its spending on military and others, given the tax saving to private companies to encourage capital investment (_in_ US), US could have many many state of the art factories that produce many wonderful products -- and at a low cost; that would have sold well in the domestic and global market.
Jay Chan
Unfortunately, this is true. With more people getting richer, they start driving cars around instead of riding bicyles. This increases the CO2 emission and pollution in China.
I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2 emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't see any short term solution.
Jay Chan
Bob,
You don't sound happy
RHomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.