I'm not going to try and defend China's human rights record. That's got
nothing to do with air pollution. No one is interested in living in polluted
environment, and the Chinese, including the leaders, are not stupid. They
know that the long term consequences are bad, and if nothing else, the
Chinese are into long term.

If you're going to play semantic games, such as lack of vs. minimize, then
there's not much point in going any further with the discussion. It's stupid
and doesn't contribute anything substantive.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
?? I drive a Jeep, and I have three other cars. I'm willing to pay more
or pick smaller cars if that's what it takes. I don't often agree with
Bushco, and even though he's just pandering, I agree that America is
addicted to oil produced by countries who are hostile to us. We should
let them eat their oil by reducing our dependency.

What we don't buy, China will. The Arabs couldn't care less if we all
buy solar-powered electric cars.

I don't care what China buys, but actually the Arabs would care, since we
would be setting the precedent for non-polluting transport and China would
likely follow our lead.

You mean like how they emulate us w/r/t human rights and the rights of
female infants?

We can even sell them the technology.

Why bother? They'll steal it and produce it for half the cost and sell it
to us.

The point is that we won't be dependent upon Arab states.

That's a laudable goal.

Lack of air/water/ground pollution would be a second benefit.

Reduction, perhaps, but never a "lack."

Even China and India don't want pollution.

No one does, but no one, including us, really makes any effort to curtail
it.

Max