THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly

In article >,
Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water
>heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than
>twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated
>when used.

Tankless water heaters are not clearly an energy saving device.

>no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other
>people in the world

Most people in the world are living at a subsistence level. I refuse
to accept guilt because I am not.

>while complaining about the consequences of such
>prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty
>hypocritical. Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in
>mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such
>levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish?

What's the matter with mountain-top removal? Do rocks have rights?
Mercury is another matter, but just because I object to mercury
pollution does not mean I have to buy the environmentalist line.

>Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it
>being a "sin" to use _any_ ?
What I _need_, as in to survive, is very little. It is no sin to
exceed that. I refuse to stop using my computers, dishwasher, water
heater, refrigerator, automobile, or air conditioner, and I further
refuse to feel guilty about any of those things.


--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Jul 20, 8:26*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
> >they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water
> >heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than
> >twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated
> >when used.
>
> Tankless water heaters are not clearly an energy saving device.
>
> >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other
> >people in the world
>
> Most people in the world are living at a subsistence level. *I refuse
> to accept guilt because I am not.
>
> >while complaining about the consequences of such
> >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty
> >hypocritical. Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in
> >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such
> >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish?
>
> What's the matter with mountain-top removal? *Do rocks have rights?
> Mercury is another matter, but just because I object to mercury
> pollution does not mean I have to buy the environmentalist line.
>
> >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it
> >being a "sin" to use _any_ ?
>
> What I _need_, as in to survive, is very little. *It is no sin to
> exceed that. *I refuse to stop using my computers, dishwasher, water
> heater, refrigerator, automobile, or air conditioner, and I further
> refuse to feel guilty about any of those things.
>
> --
> The problem with socialism is there's always
> someone with less ability and more need.

All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have
comparable standards of living - if less consumptive AND ...the ALL
live longer.


The Europeans and Japanese do MUCH MORE than "survive".

I do not think it is a "sin" to exceed average per capita usage (for
the industrialized world).. but it clearly refutes the excuse that it
cannot be done.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:54:37 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>On Jul 20, 8:26*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water
>> >heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than
>> >twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated
>> >when used.
>>
>> Tankless water heaters are not clearly an energy saving device.
>>
>> >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other
>> >people in the world
>>
>> Most people in the world are living at a subsistence level. *I refuse
>> to accept guilt because I am not.
>>
>> >while complaining about the consequences of such
>> >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty
>> >hypocritical. Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in
>> >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such
>> >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish?
>>
>> What's the matter with mountain-top removal? *Do rocks have rights?
>> Mercury is another matter, but just because I object to mercury
>> pollution does not mean I have to buy the environmentalist line.
>>
>> >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it
>> >being a "sin" to use _any_ ?
>>
>> What I _need_, as in to survive, is very little. *It is no sin to
>> exceed that. *I refuse to stop using my computers, dishwasher, water
>> heater, refrigerator, automobile, or air conditioner, and I further
>> refuse to feel guilty about any of those things.
>>
>> --
>> The problem with socialism is there's always
>> someone with less ability and more need.
>
>All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have
>comparable standards of living - if less consumptive AND ...the ALL
>live longer.

Ha! I came across the fact on the internet, while searching for the
French health care system info last year when we decided to socialize
(derstroy) our good medical care, that French doctors, on average,
make about $55K / yr.

Suuuururrrrrreeeee the Europeans live well. I expect maybe about 1 -
2 percent of them.

>The Europeans and Japanese do MUCH MORE than "survive".

Skeptical.

>I do not think it is a "sin" to exceed average per capita usage (for
>the industrialized world).. but it clearly refutes the excuse that it
>cannot be done.

We don't have the same infrastructure, we don't have the same size
country, etc. etc. Just because they can do it with X BTUs overall
doesn't mean WE can do it with the same BTUs.

On Jul 21, 6:25*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:54:37 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 8:26*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water
> >> >heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than
> >> >twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated
> >> >when used.
>
> >> Tankless water heaters are not clearly an energy saving device.
>
> >> >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other
> >> >people in the world
>
> >> Most people in the world are living at a subsistence level. *I refuse
> >> to accept guilt because I am not.
>
> >> >while complaining about the consequences of such
> >> >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty
> >> >hypocritical. Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in
> >> >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such
> >> >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish?
>
> >> What's the matter with mountain-top removal? *Do rocks have rights?
> >> Mercury is another matter, but just because I object to mercury
> >> pollution does not mean I have to buy the environmentalist line.
>
> >> >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it
> >> >being a "sin" to use _any_ ?
>
> >> What I _need_, as in to survive, is very little. *It is no sin to
> >> exceed that. *I refuse to stop using my computers, dishwasher, water
> >> heater, refrigerator, automobile, or air conditioner, and I further
> >> refuse to feel guilty about any of those things.
>
> >> --
> >> The problem with socialism is there's always
> >> someone with less ability and more need.
>
> >All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have
> >comparable standards of living - if less consumptive AND ...the ALL
> >live longer.
>
> Ha! *I came across the fact on the internet, while searching for the
> French health care system info last year when we decided to socialize
> (derstroy) our good medical care, that French doctors, on average,
> make about $55K / yr.
>
> Suuuururrrrrreeeee the Europeans live well. *I expect maybe about 1 -
> 2 percent of them.
>
> >The Europeans and Japanese do MUCH MORE than "survive".
>
> Skeptical.
>
> >I do not think it is a "sin" to exceed average per capita usage (for
> >the industrialized world).. but it clearly refutes the excuse that it
> >cannot be done.
>
> We don't have the same infrastructure, we don't have the same size
> country, etc. etc. *Just because they can do it with X BTUs overall
> doesn't mean WE can do it with the same BTUs.

doesn't mean we can't either.

the bottom line is that we are 30th in the world on life expectancy so
the idea that their energy use contributes to a "subsistence"
lifestyle is ... well.. it's foolish.

Most folks who live in most modern industrialized countries - live
well .. maybe not as "well" as the US but how could is "well" when the
US is dead last in life expectancy of industrialized countries?

It sure can't be because we suffer in the heat and cold, eh?

In article >,
Larry G > wrote:
>
>Most folks who live in most modern industrialized countries - live
>well .. maybe not as "well" as the US but how could is "well" when the
>US is dead last in life expectancy of industrialized countries?

We're not, we beat Taiwan.

>It sure can't be because we suffer in the heat and cold, eh?

It's most likely largely because we eat like pigs.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

In article >,
Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>On Jul 21, 10:13pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article =
>.com>,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 20, 8:26=3DA0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have
>> >comparable standards of living -
>>
>> They have comparable standards of living, but they come up on the
>> short end of the comparison. Reducing energy usage has costs, and
>> reducing it drastically has high costs. The big one is less living
>> space; smaller and fewer cars (with all that implies) probably comes
>> next, though the mere availability of HVAC is likely in there.
>> --
>
>it's not that drastic of a difference in many respects. They live a
>life not that different than we did 30 or 40 years ago when we lived
>in smaller houses closer to work - and were not near as
>obese ....though we did smoke more.

Excuse me if I don't want to go back 30 or 40 years in terms of
standard of living.

>The most apparent is how much oil we have to import and because we use
>so much - we cannot afford for the middle east to be taken away as a
>source.

The sainted Europeans (and Japan) import a greater percentage of their
energy from the Middle East than we do.


--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:
>> We don't have the same infrastructure, we don't have the same size
>> country, etc. etc. *Just because they can do it with X BTUs overall
>> doesn't mean WE can do it with the same BTUs.
>
>doesn't mean we can't either.

Does. Our fuel goes up a truck's diesel smokestack, when they roll
100's of miles on 1 gallon of fuel per 1000 lbs of cargo, on rails.

>the bottom line is that we are 30th in the world on life expectancy so
>the idea that their energy use contributes to a "subsistence"
>lifestyle is ... well.. it's foolish.

Sedentary lifestyes, lack of walking to places 'cuz of our suburban
layouts, smoking, fatty food preference, etc. etc. Its the lifestyle
people choose, that's all.

>Most folks who live in most modern industrialized countries - live
>well .. maybe not as "well" as the US but how could is "well" when the
>US is dead last in life expectancy of industrialized countries?

People are relatively poor compared to us. Once again, French doctors
- that's doctors who have to study about a decade to do that job just
like American doctors - net about $55K/yr on average. Read it:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm

_I_ net just about that much with 4 yrs of computer college work.
Geeezzz... I mean, a DOCTOR makes $55K clear. C'mon... overall,
they're poor.

>It sure can't be because we suffer in the heat and cold, eh?

Nope, but they might. Or maybe they all run around the house in heavy
sweaters and long johns, and dial the heat down to 55, and just "get
used to it." Dunno. But... we make a lot more $$$$ than they do, so
far, and that's 'cuz of capitalism, and 'cuz their socialism is
bleeding them dry.

On Jul 22, 6:55*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 21, 10:13pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article =
> >.com>,
> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 20, 8:26=3DA0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have
> >> >comparable standards of living -
>
> >> They have comparable standards of living, but they come up on the
> >> short end of the comparison. Reducing energy usage has costs, and
> >> reducing it drastically has high costs. The big one is less living
> >> space; smaller and fewer cars (with all that implies) probably comes
> >> next, though the mere availability of HVAC is likely in there.
> >> --
>
> >it's not that drastic of a difference in many respects. They live a
> >life not that different than we did 30 or 40 years ago when we lived
> >in smaller houses closer to work - and were not near as
> >obese ....though we did smoke more.
>
> Excuse me if I don't want to go back 30 or 40 years in terms of
> standard of living.
>
> >The most apparent is how much oil we have to import and because we use
> >so much - we cannot afford for the middle east to be taken away as a
> >source.
>
> The sainted Europeans (and Japan) import a greater percentage of their
> energy from the Middle East than we do.

and they are much better able to weather restrictions in the middle
east and don't need big Army's to "protect" their oil supplies, eh?

On Jul 22, 9:48*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> > wrote:
> >> We don't have the same infrastructure, we don't have the same size
> >> country, etc. etc. *Just because they can do it with X BTUs overall
> >> doesn't mean WE can do it with the same BTUs.
>
> >doesn't mean we can't either.
>
> Does. *Our fuel goes up a truck's diesel smokestack, when they roll
> 100's of miles on 1 gallon of fuel per 1000 lbs of cargo, on rails.
>
> >the bottom line is that we are 30th in the world on life expectancy so
> >the idea that their energy use contributes to a "subsistence"
> >lifestyle is ... *well.. it's foolish.
>
> Sedentary lifestyes, lack of walking to places 'cuz of our suburban
> layouts, smoking, fatty food preference, etc. etc. *Its the lifestyle
> people choose, that's all.
>
> >Most folks who live in most modern industrialized countries - live
> >well .. maybe not as "well" as the US but how could is "well" when the
> >US is dead last in life expectancy of industrialized countries?
>
> People are relatively poor compared to us. *Once again, French doctors
> - that's doctors who have to study about a decade to do that job just
> like American doctors - net about $55K/yr on average. *Read it:
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm
>
> * _I_ net just about that much with 4 yrs of computer college work.
> Geeezzz... I mean, a DOCTOR makes $55K clear. *C'mon... overall,
> they're poor.
>
> >It sure can't be because we suffer in the heat and cold, eh?
>
> Nope, but they might. *Or maybe they all run around the house in heavy
> sweaters and long johns, and dial the heat down to 55, and just "get
> used to it." *Dunno. But... we make a lot more $$$$ than they do, so
> far, and that's 'cuz of capitalism, and 'cuz their socialism is
> bleeding them dry.

" Its the lifestyle
people choose, that's all. "

but you're saying the others are worse off cuz they use 1/2 the energy

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>On Jul 22, 9:48*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> We don't have the same infrastructure, we don't have the same size
>> >> country, etc. etc. *Just because they can do it with X BTUs overall
>> >> doesn't mean WE can do it with the same BTUs.
>>
>> >doesn't mean we can't either.
>>
>> Does. *Our fuel goes up a truck's diesel smokestack, when they roll
>> 100's of miles on 1 gallon of fuel per 1000 lbs of cargo, on rails.
>>
>> >the bottom line is that we are 30th in the world on life expectancy so
>> >the idea that their energy use contributes to a "subsistence"
>> >lifestyle is ... *well.. it's foolish.
>>
>> Sedentary lifestyes, lack of walking to places 'cuz of our suburban
>> layouts, smoking, fatty food preference, etc. etc. *Its the lifestyle
>> people choose, that's all.
>>
>> >Most folks who live in most modern industrialized countries - live
>> >well .. maybe not as "well" as the US but how could is "well" when the
>> >US is dead last in life expectancy of industrialized countries?
>>
>> People are relatively poor compared to us. *Once again, French doctors
>> - that's doctors who have to study about a decade to do that job just
>> like American doctors - net about $55K/yr on average. *Read it:
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm
>>
>> * _I_ net just about that much with 4 yrs of computer college work.
>> Geeezzz... I mean, a DOCTOR makes $55K clear. *C'mon... overall,
>> they're poor.
>>
>> >It sure can't be because we suffer in the heat and cold, eh?
>>
>> Nope, but they might. *Or maybe they all run around the house in heavy
>> sweaters and long johns, and dial the heat down to 55, and just "get
>> used to it." *Dunno. But... we make a lot more $$$$ than they do, so
>> far, and that's 'cuz of capitalism, and 'cuz their socialism is
>> bleeding them dry.
>
>" Its the lifestyle
>people choose, that's all. "
>
>but you're saying the others are worse off cuz they use 1/2 the energy

Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us.