Ny Times..China Energy in 2020; 70% from...COAL

On Mar 4, 9:14*am, Monkey Clumps wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:22*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:19*am, AM wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

:On Mar 4, 5:56 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Get lost wrote:
:
: :
: :And their primary, cheapest and most plentiful source is coal
: :burning. *Why don't the global warming scum go after China instead of
: :the U.S. and Europe?
: :
:
: Because they know China will ignore them.
:
:
:translation, America cannot lead, we must follow the least common
:denominator argument (WRONG).
:

I don't think your translation into gibberish is required. *Most of us
speak English.

Please tell us how we can convince the Chinese to stop building coal
fired power plants, and cut back on emissions ?

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

pull investments from chinese companies, such as petrochina.

The Chinese don't need our money. *We need their money.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you need to seperate out chinese holdings in U.S. securities, from
U.S. foreign investment in china. U.S. FDI in china (2007) was $ 28.3
billion (see page 10 under bilateral flows in pdf below), so you are
wrong chinese companies need U.S. investors, and therefore divestment
by U.S. citizens would have an impact on the chinese economy.

China-U.S. Trade Issues
Congressional Research Sevice
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdf

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message

On Mar 4, 8:54 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message







On Mar 4, 8:37 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 7:50 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 7:19 am, AM wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Mar 4, 5:56 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Get lost wrote:

And their primary, cheapest and most plentiful source is
coal burning. Why don't the global warming scum go after
China instead of the U.S. and Europe?

Because they know China will ignore them.

translation, America cannot lead, we must follow the least
common denominator argument (WRONG).

I don't think your translation into gibberish is required.
Most of us speak English.

Please tell us how we can convince the Chinese to stop building
coal fired power plants, and cut back on emissions ?

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

pull investments from chinese companies, such as petrochina.

I don't think the gummint has invested in any chinese companies.
Besides
we are a debtor nation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you have a lot to learn.

Please identify some Chinese companies that the U.S. Government
has a vested interest in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i said activists, please read the original post that started this
thread. Now if some people dont want to act thats their choice, but
institutions, and individuals have large investments in chineses
companies, are you questioning that fact?

Nothing about activists in the original post.

Please identify some Chinese companies that the U.S. Government has a
vested interest in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dont have to, please see the term "scum", and you tell me if the
author was referring to the us government, or people, then you will
find you lame distraction argument is not really valid. So please
show me where this discussion is limited to the government, otherwise
your question should be more objective.

You have no answer. You were crushed. Tsk.

On Mar 4, 12:40*pm, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin wrote in message







On Mar 4, 8:54 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 8:37 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 7:50 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 7:19 am, AM wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Mar 4, 5:56 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Get lost wrote:

And their primary, cheapest and most plentiful source is
coal burning. Why don't the global warming scum go after
China instead of the U.S. and Europe?

Because they know China will ignore them.

translation, America cannot lead, we must follow the least
common denominator argument (WRONG).

I don't think your translation into gibberish is required.
Most of us speak English.

Please tell us how we can convince the Chinese to stop building
coal fired power plants, and cut back on emissions ?

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com-Hidequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

pull investments from chinese companies, such as petrochina.

I don't think the gummint has invested in any chinese companies.
Besides
we are a debtor nation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you have a lot to learn.

Please identify some Chinese companies that the U.S. Government
has a vested interest in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i said activists, please read the original post that started this
thread. Now if some people dont want to act thats their choice, but
institutions, and individuals have large investments in chineses
companies, are you questioning that fact?

Nothing about activists in the original post.

Please identify some Chinese companies that the U.S. Government has a
vested interest in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dont have to, please see the term "scum", and you tell me if the
author was referring to the us government, or people, then you will
find you lame distraction argument is not really valid. *So please
show me where this discussion is limited to the government, otherwise
your question should be more objective.

You have no answer. You were crushed. Tsk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you have no proof to show your question is valid, no validity, no
crush. Now you may wish you have a point, and you may really want
badly to crush, but you are not capable of either.

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message

On Mar 4, 12:40 pm, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message







On Mar 4, 8:54 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 8:37 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 7:50 am, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 7:19 am, AM wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Mar 4, 5:56 am, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
Get lost wrote:

And their primary, cheapest and most plentiful source is
coal burning. Why don't the global warming scum go after
China instead of the U.S. and Europe?

Because they know China will ignore them.

translation, America cannot lead, we must follow the least
common denominator argument (WRONG).

I don't think your translation into gibberish is required.
Most of us speak English.

Please tell us how we can convince the Chinese to stop
building coal fired power plants, and cut back on emissions ?

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com-Hidequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

pull investments from chinese companies, such as petrochina.

I don't think the gummint has invested in any chinese
companies. Besides
we are a debtor nation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you have a lot to learn.

Please identify some Chinese companies that the U.S. Government
has a vested interest in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i said activists, please read the original post that started this
thread. Now if some people dont want to act thats their choice,
but institutions, and individuals have large investments in
chineses companies, are you questioning that fact?

Nothing about activists in the original post.

Please identify some Chinese companies that the U.S. Government
has a vested interest in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dont have to, please see the term "scum", and you tell me if the
author was referring to the us government, or people, then you will
find you lame distraction argument is not really valid. So please
show me where this discussion is limited to the government,
otherwise your question should be more objective.

You have no answer. You were crushed. Tsk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you have no proof to show your question is valid, no validity, no
crush. Now you may wish you have a point, and you may really want
badly to crush, but you are not capable of either.

You were crushed. You have no answer whether valid or not.

Bots don't answer questions.

On Mar 4, 1:17*pm, "James" wrote:"You were
crushed. You have no answer whether valid or not. Bots don't answer
questions"

so tell me, have you stopped eating babies yet? (remember if you
answer yes, you admit you were eating babies) (if you answer no, you
admit you were eating babies) and according to you (if you dont answer
you are a bot). Good luck

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message

On Mar 4, 1:17 pm, "James" wrote:"You were
crushed. You have no answer whether valid or not. Bots don't answer
questions"

so tell me, have you stopped eating babies yet? (remember if you
answer yes, you admit you were eating babies) (if you answer no, you
admit you were eating babies) and according to you (if you dont answer
you are a bot). Good luck

You continue to drift into off topic. lol

On Mar 4, 1:34*pm, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin wrote in message



On Mar 4, 1:17 pm, "James" wrote:"You were
crushed. You have no answer whether valid or not. *Bots don't answer
questions"

so tell me, have you stopped eating babies yet? *(remember if you
answer yes, you admit you were eating babies) (if you answer no, you
admit you were eating babies) and according to you (if you dont answer
you are a bot). *Good luck

You continue to drift into off topic. lol

(No answer you are a bot) So i have shown how you continue to hold
others to higher standards than you do yourself, now thats funny.

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message

On Mar 4, 1:34 pm, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin
wrote in message



On Mar 4, 1:17 pm, "James" wrote:"You were
crushed. You have no answer whether valid or not. Bots don't answer
questions"

so tell me, have you stopped eating babies yet? (remember if you
answer yes, you admit you were eating babies) (if you answer no, you
admit you were eating babies) and according to you (if you dont
answer you are a bot). Good luck

You continue to drift into off topic. lol

(No answer you are a bot) So i have shown how you continue to hold
others to higher standards than you do yourself, now thats funny.

Wrong again. I am a bot who eats babies. Now answer the question put to
you. Don't rememnber the question now that you have milked this to
death? Just run along then. You are wasting bandwidth.

On Mar 4, 1:51*pm, "James" wrote:"I am a bot who
eats babies."

LAUGHING, you need some major help

"Sid9" wrote in message
...

Americans are not motivated about energy.

Carter tried to open the subject with American...Reagan dropped the ball
and we allowed 30 years to be wasted.

Americans are still not awake regarding energy...

Lulled by the oil industry and their stooges we go our merry way



I actually tend to agree, the oil companies and their policies have done
nothing but really damage to the American economy. As most you know I'm
very much a person of free enterprise, but I also believe in managed trade.
Just like any conservative we believe in strong property rights, and
strongly taking care of the family. We also have those same beliefs and
extend them to our nation. We need to put our nation first. We need to take
care of our nation. I think we're reaching the point now where would be much
more beneficial to the American people to have a National Oil Company that
speaks for the interest of America.

No question that the activist environmentalists have prevented much of the
places in United States from developing oil, and California's a great
example: they have massive reserves just off their shores, and they used to
be a fairly active oil producing state. Most of that's gone now, and that's
absolutely no reason for this.

However, blame on the Oil companies is due and they simply taken the route
of importing cheap oil from Middle East countries, when they should be
producing (and investing) far more here in the USA. Even Alaska could use
more oil development right now, but every hurdle among the way by government
and activists has prevented this from happening. So in all fairness, the
oil companies are not only to blame here, but they're not doing their part
for us.

At the same time, clean coal technology and clean energy from coal is
entirely possible. In fact the new coal reactors run at 700° F, and if the
working fluid stops, the reactor will actually melt down. These new high
temperature coal plants are very clean and about the only emissions they
produce is water vapor and carbon dioxide, both of which we know are not a
problem these days.

Also at oil at the $50.00 range, then coal to gasification for liquid fuel
actually becomes economically viable, and once again we have such a rotten
environmental lobby in the states, that they not utilizing this fantastic
resource. And once again, the oil industry has no interest in the coal
industry producing oil, as then they'll not be able to import cheap oil from
other places without having to make the LARGE investments in people and
labor to give us the jobs that we so badly need here. One of the great
things about coal to gas liquefication, is there's a fair amount of labor
involved, and it creates great jobs here. This is also why the tar sands
investments are great, because you get a while, but you also create
truckloads of great jobs along with this. In other words, there's a good
labor component to getting that energy.

I have little doubt that the future will bring this more increased use of
clean nuclear energy, which really holds the keys to our future of electric
cars, high speed rails, and truly clean energy. However while we make the
transition to nuclear energy, we still need to utilize and exploit the
fossil fuel resources that we have, and everybody else on the planet is
going to do that. If we don't do this, then we'll continue to see our stand
living deteriorate, and we will be unable to afford decent things like
Health Care, and we're pretty much in that situation already.

If you look at the current standard of living and job numbers we see, we're
really much in the same situation as in the depression years as the 1930s.
It's just that were reporting jobs in a different way today. Furthermore,
in the last 20 years the standard of living of most Americans has
deteriorated to the point that both husband and wife have to now work to be
able to run a household. So things are quite bad, and we've definitely need
a better National Energy policy.

If we just sit here the world will pass us by, and we see today that all the
engineering, road building, dam building, coal plant building etc. occurring
in other parts of the world where THEY are enjoying good jobs and increasing
standards of living, while we see the reverse occurring for us.

It is time for us to become again a nation of plant builders, manufacturing
builders, and that of creating jobs so people can afford the new green
technologies that future of tomorrow will bring. However, adopting green
technologies will not create jobs unless we have a high standard of living
to to afford those green technologies.

If you look at the world today, the less industrialized, and more poor the
nation as, the more the people tend to pollute and make a mess of their
water, Food Supply, and air.

In Detroit, it's almost like Beirut and it's an economic disaster zone.
Avergae house prices is $5500. If you are asking these people in Detroit if
they want some jobs, or to wait around in poverty for some green
technologies, I think the choice is going to be pretty simple. Jobs in our
industry has to come before those green technologies, it won't work the
other way around as we allready have way too many poor people, and the ranks
of people in poverty in this country is still growing at an alarming rate.
If we don't stop this downward spiral, we'll never afford any these clean
technologies, and will actually see our air quality, water quality, and all
the gains we've made of the last 30 years start to reverse and that would be
a true tragedy.

Super Turtle