From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Geo wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in
> message news:446aba2e{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> We manage it & while we do have solid roads, we have about the same
>> population density (if not slightly more) etc.
>
> Yeah, and gas costs how much there? Government inflicted motivation to use
> alternative transportation.
>

Indeed. basically 1 UK pound per litre now.

> China is going to have to become the ecological country. They simply cannot
> afford (ecologically speaking) to go the route the US went. They can't do it
> with cars, they can't do it with trash, they can't do it with electricity,
> they can't do it with water because there are just too many people in too
> little area. If the US had 4X the number of people we have, this place would
> be a disaster zone.
>

They've got a long way to go with many empty areas.


> Why do you think they are building nuclear power plants and that giant
> hydroelectric dam? "Clean" is going to be very very
important to them. (as
> is non-disposable)
>

Oh indeed but that's as much about the chinese as anything as they prefer
big projects with high capital costs but then long lives & low running
costs (kinda the opposite of the west).

In part coz they'd prefer to put their money into chinese worker's pockets
than into the Saudi stockmarket.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5