Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:14AM, rabello wrote:

In the scheme of things, it's a petty criticism.   How much money and tax payer dollars has the US spent creating far more pollution in it's Iraq, Aftghanistan and Pakistan adventures?   How much money and tax payer dollars does the US use to imprison other country's citizens without charge, torture them and then deny them real trials?   Money spent by governments is relative to what they think is important.   Most travelling to Copenhagen aren't spending their country's wealth on war, prisons and torture.  So maybe Americans can give them a break.

As for teleconferencing, well that's a good idea for wealthy, developed nations.   Not so automatic for impoverished, developing or underdeveloped nations, delegations from which are also attending, as the people of these countries have the most at stake and the least amount of political clout to get their needs considered/addressed.   

Lets hope that America will be a participant instead of a spoiler this time!!

All governments have teleconferencing capabilities.  If they don't then perhaps the first world nations can buy them a system  for use within governemnt for less than the cost they paid to attend this Hollywood love fest so they can in turn save the carbon emissions.

it is just inconsionable.  This is like a priest having sex with married women but preaching on sexual morality. 

Is there anything that a lefty might do that could ever potentialy concern you? because it appears you question nothing anyone does as long as they have lefty credentials

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:19AM, Erey wrote:

All governments have teleconferencing capabilities. 

I'm sure they all don't.   Perhaps you have some data to share?

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:19AM, Erey wrote:

If they don't then perhaps the first world nations can buy them a system  for use within governemnt for less than the cost they paid

And maybe some of the aid that might go to impoverished nations will go to something like that.   Won't substitute for in-person global meetings, no matter how much Americans complain about other countries'  "waste"

Can you imagine how easy it would be for the teleconferencee's to ignore some delegation from, say, the Marianas Islands?   Not so easy in person, where the delegation has a time to speak and has to be looked at straight in the eye.

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:19AM, Erey wrote:

to attend this Hollywood love fest so they can in turn save the carbon emissions.

A meaningless putdown. 

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:19AM, Erey wrote:

it is just inconsionable.  This is like a priest having sex with married women but preaching on sexual morality. 

Hardly.  Not even related.  They are meeting to find solutions and come to agreements, not to "party".  A better analogy would be America telling other countries how they should live, and refusing to participate in a global effort to reduce pollution, even as we continue topping the list of carbon dioxide emitters and creating lasting pollution from our military adventures.

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:19AM, Erey wrote:

Is there anything that a lefty might do that could ever potentialy concern you? because it appears you question nothing anyone does as long as they have lefty credentials

It might appear that way to you.  For me, I wonder if there's anything that a "rightie" might do that could ever potentially concern you?  because it appears you......

But, got any comments on how much pollution, including the radioactive kind from depleted uranium, we've caused in just the past 8 years "over there" for NO wmd and NO Osama bin Laden?

Dec 7, 2009 -- 11:24PM, Erey wrote:

If it is not feisable for them to change their lifestyles then why should it be mandatory for me to change mine?

What specifically are you talking about?

I keep asking questions for concrete complaints, but all I get back is diffuse fear of loss...

If it's all so evasive to you, why afford an opinion?

You know why we are have such a hard time building a manufacturing base?  Too damn expensive - not just because of the labor costs but because of all the environmental hoops a business has to go through.  They don't make it busienss friendly.  They want to further restrict carbon which will lose the US MORE jobs and MORE industries.  And will happily make China and India happy because they are not going to restrict squat and they will be thrilled to absorb all our loss.

This is just one example of how off the mark you are.  The reason we "have such a hard time building a manufacturing base" is global competition, not environmental costs. 

How on earth are you going to have a profitable manufacture of toys paying 10 or 15   dollars an hour when a Chinese can do it for 50 cents an hour, for instance?  And so with everything else.

You say the Chinese have no environmental restrictions. Take a look at any  city in China and see how good their environment is  without environmental restrictions.

Dec 9, 2009 -- 1:10PM, Erey wrote:

Dec 8, 2009 -- 3:54PM, arielg wrote:

You know why we are have such a hard time building a manufacturing base?  Too damn expensive - not just because of the labor costs but because of all the environmental hoops a business has to go through.  They don't make it busienss friendly.  They want to further restrict carbon which will lose the US MORE jobs and MORE industries.  And will happily make China and India happy because they are not going to restrict squat and they will be thrilled to absorb all our loss.

 

This is just one example of how off the mark you are.  The reason we "have such a hard time building a manufacturing base" is global competition, not environmental costs. 

How on earth are you going to have a profitable manufacture of toys paying 10 or 15   dollars an hour when a Chinese can do it for 50 cents an hour, for instance?  And so with everything else.

You say the Chinese have no environmental restrictions. Take a look at any  city in China and see how good their environment is  without environmental restrictions.

 

 

OK, so you are of the opinion that all the palms that have to be greased all the hoops that have to be jumped through in the name of new and increased environmental regulations have zero bearing on manufacturing costs?

Alrighty!

Erey,

There is an effect on manufacturing costs, but you are probably overrating it compared to the wages.

The right answer in my opinon is not to ignore or set aside regulations which ensure a good quality environment, but rather to get and international agreement on environmental standards. The whole idea of the Copenhageclimate Conference , and International Trade Commision is to regulate international commerce by creating a" level playing field". Too little attention is paid to environmental standards so far by the International  Trade Commission. The climate legislation passed so far does contain a tarrif on those countries that don't have cap and trade or tax GHG emissions, which seems like the right thing.