Chuck

Congratulations! The subject title of your post matches perfectly the 
inferences you are trying to make us draw. I'm not going to reply to 
your rant a) because nothing will make you change your mind, b) I don't 
have the time to write a 10,000 word document with references giving the 
scientific facts and c) you are just as capable of finding out the 
facts, rather than maintaining your idée fixe, as I am. In the past, I 
have referred you to scientific papers which you have pooh-poohed 
because they did not agree with your rednecked views.

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
> For some reason, which now eludes me, I had the impression that this
> forum was populated by highly skilled scientists and engineers - people
> that one normally associates with critical thinking and analysis of
> hard facts.  But maybe everybody needs a break once and a while, and
> needs to just engage in a little cocktail party conversation - you know
> - "B.S."  'Cause that is what has been coming out of this forum for the
> last couple days.
> 
> Jim Speakman blasts the U.S. and the capitalist system "I think that we
> are all very well aware of the cavalier approach of the
> US to the effects of pollution." Well, Jim, I am not aware of that so
> please provide me with the evidence to support that remarkable
> statement. As an American who has to live under a host of very
> burdensome and expensive environemental regualtions and one that has
> travelled a fair piece around this country I would hardly call our
> goverment's approach to the environment as cavalier. In fact, I think
> this is a pretty, damned clean country.  But that is just my humble
> opinion, and once Jim gives us the data, we can make informed decisions.
> 
> Jim says in a later posting "the fact remains that the US is, de facto,
> the principal polluter of this fair planet, and its government is not,
> IMHO, doing enough."
> Could you be so kind as to give us the facts (not humble opinions) to
> support that claim.  By the way, just what sort of pollution are you
> talking about?  I know everyone likes to toss out that statistic about
> the U.S. having only 6% of the world's population, but it consumes 33%
> (or some equally irrelevant figure) of the world's energy (is CO2 really
> a pollutant?).  Would the world be better off if the U.S. only consumed
> 6% of the world's energy?  12%? 18%?  Just what is the U.S.'s proper and
> fair share of energy consumption?  Just who or what in the world would
> be better off  if the U.S. consumption dropped to such egalitarian levels?
> 
> As long as we are talking about Kyoto (which is really what this is all
> about, isn't it?)...  As we all know China is exempt from Kyoto.  Let's
> say that China consumed a percentage of the world's energy consistent
> with the size of its population? Would that make everyone happy?  Well,
> we're all gonna have a chance to find out soon enough. Although China is
> still among the developing countries with a relatively low per capita
> income, it has experienced tremendous economic growth since the late
> 1970s.  In a recent report from the Asian Development Bank, China's
> growth rate for the coming years is predicted to be 8.5 % and above.
> According to economists at Lehman Brothers, if this growth is sustained,
> "...China's economy by 2030 will be bigger than each of the major
> European economies and could conceivably displace Japan to become the
> largest economy in Asia, and the world's second largest economy after
> the US...."
> 
> China is one of the world's major mineral-producing countries. Coal is
> the most abundant mineral (China ranks first in the world in coal
> production).  Oil fields discovered since the 1960s made China a net
> exporter, and by the early 1990s, China was the world's fifth-ranked oil
> producer. Growing domestic demand beginning in the mid-1990s, however,
> has forced the nation to import increasing quantities of petroleum. Coal
> is the single most important energy source; coal-fired thermal electric
> generators provide over 70% of the country's electric power. China also
> has extensive hydroelectric energy potential (but that would mean
> damming rivers - not good for the environment). So what will China's CO2
> emissions look like in a few years? Coal is particularly dirty, and do
> you think they are going to be putting expensive scrubbers on their
> smoke stacks to reduce emissions? I am will ing to wager that they
> won't. What will that do to Kyoto?  Then the U.S. will no longer be
> consuming 33% of the world's energy. Will the world be better off then?
> 
> Jim also says:
> "The recent arguments that are being put forward by some elements of
> this forum appear to be grasping at evidential 'straws' that disposing
> of vast quantities of electrical equipment within landfill sites is
> somehow 'not a problem', and that recovery, re-use and recycling is not
> a cost-effective solution.  Well, I firmly believe that it is a problem,
> and whether recovery, re-use and recycling is cost effective or not,
> design of equipment should be geared towards making those options
> feasible, and it should be done."
> 
> I am anxious to see the data upon which Jim has formulated his belief
> that landfills are a problem. Of course, I guess we will first have to
> define exactly what the "problem" is.  If the problem is that virgin
> material has to be mined - OK. But what are the real costs of recycling
> vs. mining. If it would be more economical to mine virgin materials,
> then by mandating inefficient recycling you are diverting resources from
> some other activity.  Just what are you willing to sacrifice for the
> sake of recycling?  If putting materials into the ground is creating a
> health problem for humans and other living things - first, let's see the
> data that supports that and then let's consider the alternatives. If
> putting WEEE into landfills results directly in 100,000 deaths per
> year,  what if the cost of eliminating that diverts resources from other
> activites - which then results in 200,000 deaths per year because we
> could no longer pursue that activity.  This is not mere mind games or
> sillly little academic exercises. Consider the banning of DDT.  Before
> it was banned, malaria was all but eliminated as a disease. Since the
> ban malaria has claimed the lives of millions - almost exclusively in
> the third world, impoverished nations.  The rich nations could afford
> the more expensive alternatives.  I'm am not here going to debate the
> pros and cons of banning DDT (although I am more than happy to do so at
> another time and in another forum) but the truth of the matter is that
> banning it carried a terrible human price tag.  Some will say that is
> OK,  it was OK to sacrifice those people  in order to gain some other
> benefit somewhere else. Let us just be cognizant of the fact that these
> decisions to have human consequences.
> 
> As soon as Jim comes up with some real data to back up his claims I will
> be more than happy to look at it and respond. Keep in mind, I am not
> disputing the truth of Jim's claims, I am merely saying I would like to
> look at the same data that Jim has looked at so that I can make up my
> own mind.
> 
> Brian Ellis says:
> "As for the economics of WEEE recycling, it is break-even or positive in
> Europe, so why isn't it in the USA?"
> 
> Brian, can you please refer us to the studies you have researched that
> show that WEEE recycling in Europe is at a break even point? I recall
> reading articles in British periodicals about the concerns that the
> British had about old refrigerators being discarded all over the
> countryside because the recycling infrastructure simply did not exist.
> Of course, I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the
> newspapers, so it all could have been bogus. However, I am highly
> skeptical of many surveys about costs and benefits of this or that
> activity, because they often don't count all the costs or they ignore
> subsidies or hidden transfer payments.  So let's look at the data. Once
> we are given the references that support that claim then we will be able
> to analyse the data and see if  it really is a break even proposition in
> Europe.
> 
> Chris James says:
> "In most environmental issues you need to look well into the future.
> There are no short terms gains or benefits from WEEE or RoHS almost
> certainly to the contrary, but by implementing them NOW it will
> hopefully ensure a cleaner and better world for our children's,
> children's, children."
> 
> Interesting argument. But if WEEE and RoHS provide no short term gains,
> just when, and by what mechanism do industry and the environment begin
> to benefit? When and how does this metamorphosis take place?
> 
> "We have seen the effects of 2000 years of escalating marine pollution
> which accelerated at an unprecedented rate since Victorian times and
> which has only recently been curbed by legislation on what may be
> discharged into the seas and oceans."
> 
> 2000 years of marine pollution?  Why 2000 years?  I wouldn't have
> thought that the total human population back then was sufficiently large
> to have such an impact.  I am curious about your source for that one.
> Alright, I won't be anal retentive about it. I will give you a little
> license to engage in some harmless hyperbole. But is this a backhand
> slap at Christianity?
> 
> Chuck Dolci
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee 
> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks 
> send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site 
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional 
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 
> ext.2815
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> 

-- 
______________________________________________
Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------