From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.025905.24216@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>, abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> > US leads environmentally in just about every category.
> 
> > Auto emissions control.
> > elimination of lead from gasoline.
> With the exception of California and possibly NY I believe Japan is
> ahead of the USA in these two.

US is the only country to have cut lead nationwide to the extent we have.
As for emissions controls, it is the CA standards that have consistently
pushed the envelope on emissions control technology.  Japan would not have
emissions controls without this impetus.

> > governmental mechanisms for smog abatement.
> This is too vague to address in a short amount of time.

Not vague.  The SCAQMD is the only governmental organization of its kind
and scope.  It's ability to react both short and long term to smog threats
is unequalled.

> > recycling.
> At least with bottle recycling Norway is ahead of USA.

I'm talking about recycling as a whole.  Bottles aren't that big a deal
anyway.  The amount of energy saved is not as large as with many other
recyclables, the resource saved is merely sand, and the glass itself is
environmentally inert.

> > etc.
> Speaking of vague...

etc. is an acceptable element of speech.  It means there are more categories,
but I have listed enough to make my point.  You claimed the US is dead last
in every category, when we lead in most every category.  I don't need to list
every category.  You listed only one and that was incorrect - you were more
vague.

> > The US is not "dead last" in energy conservation.  We consume energy per
> > capita than any other country, but we also produce more per capita and
> > have a higher standard of living.
> Excuse me?  That we produce and consume more is not justification that
> we have good energy conservation.  This statement is just weird.

Weird to those who can't comprehend English.  It is clear from your original
statement, you do not understand "conservation", but confused it with
energy consumption.  I merely pointed out your evident confusion (which
by the fact that you did not understand this sentence indicates you are
still confused).  I will make it as plain as I can - per capita energy
use has little to do with energy conservation.  Having the highest per
capita energy use in this case is an indication of production and standard
of living, not lack of conservation.

> > Energy consumption says nothing about conservation.
> > We may be using the most efficient
> > equipment and processes in the world to do what we do - but we just do more.
> 
> In fact that is not the case.  Japan produces more that the USA per
> energy unit.

I'm talking per capita.  And this still does not address that we have a higher
standard of living.  Shall we turn the human race into nothing but a bunch
of purely production-oriented automatons?  So that no energy will be expended
unless it is directed toward production?

> > You should really read about the US environmental record (as a whole) and
> > compare it to that of other countries - you might learn a lot.  Hearing
> > about a few isolated cases of this or that really does not give you a
> > picture of reality.
> I offer you the same suggestion.

"You too, you too"  Such fine debating style.  I thought most people left
that attitude in elementary school.
I already have checked into these subjects, so your suggestion is pointless.
Now, when are you going to start looking into these things more thoroughly,
rather than making vague, dataless and blatantly wrong statements like
"The US is dead last..."


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy