Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 02:54:11 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
In article <5223ap$r2v@thrush.sover.net>, tooie@sover.net
(Tooie) wrote:
>Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
>: OK, I have spent enough time arguing with nuclear
industry goons.
>: I have separated my followups and responded in this group
as
>: appropriate, but now I will return to the sci.environment
group where
>: I got involved with this cross-posted thread in the first
place, and
>: my responses to threads appearing there, will appear
there.
>
>Read this as, "I got my ass spanked by knowledgable people
and am running
>back to Mommy."
>
>Name calling and baseless claims win an arguement every
time, right Bob.
>
>tooie
Name calling is *SO* typical in these circumstances. IMO,
you know you've won the argument when they call you a name
(e.g., goon, radical, extremist, etc.). Naturally, anyone
working for any kind of industry is going to be a
self-centered goon who is trying to destroy the world just to
get a nice fat paycheck every two weeks. Naturally, no
industry adds a damned thing to society, the economy, the tax
base, or any other thing that is considered "good". Gee, if
industry is so evil, I wonder why it has been allowed to
exist for so long? Oops! I apologize for making anyone
think.
Keep up the good work. I liked your posting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom. Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!
Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
From: dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu (Donald L. Libby)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:11:49
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
>Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 20:53:42 GMT
>
>In article <9157cc$7270.3d4@HERMES>,
> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>(BIG CUT)
>
>>Few industries can afford to waste energy in the
>>new global markets of today, and the harsh reality
>>for some US industries is that they haven't been
>>paying as much attention to energy conservation
>>as their Japanese and European counterparts - who
>>have to pay higher prices for energy. There is
>>huge scope for improvement - you've already
>>expressed surprise at the US CO2/person emissions.
>>
I think this statement is overly broad. In the US, energy
end-use can be broken down by sector: industry accounts for
about 1/3 of total consumption, residential and commercial
uses for another 1/3, and transportation for another third.
The greatest "waste" appears to be in the electrical power
industry, where 2/3 of primary energy is lost in generation,
transmission, and distribution. This industry is the
largest user of coal, and coal is the fossil fuel with the
greatest CO2 emmission per BTU (under current technology).
The "huge scope for improvement" in energy efficiency may be
confined to a fairly narrow segment of industry, with
greater scope for improvement in residential, commercial,
and transportation end-use than in the industrial sector.
However, if you're trying to reduce CO2 emissions, then coal
used in electric power production is the most obvious single
target. It looks like we could hit that target either
through end-use efficiency improvements or through fuel
substition. Bad news for the coal industry unless existing
coal technology can be modified to lower CO2 emissions.
>
snip
> The whole idea
>is totally ridiculous, and the implication that industry
>uses more energy than they need to is totally ridiculous.
>
This is overly narrow. It is true that oil refineries and
petrochemical plants are truly marvels of energy efficiency,
but that does not mean that their products are used
efficiently. It's possible to have a highly efficient
transportation fuel industry feeding a highly inefficient
transportation sector. If that's the case, it's not the
efficiency with which your industry produces that's at
stake, its the quantity of product.
More specifically, it is the quantity of CO2 (and SO2 and
NOx and NH4) emitted into the atmosphere by users of your
product: if you can find a way to re-formulate or utilize
the product that avoids these pollution problems, so much
the better. Re-designing gasoline engines to reduce
emissions per mile (e.g. using external combustion rather
than internal combustion) might be a solution that meets the
broader societal goal with less negative impact on the
gasoline industry.
snip
> The only way to change the economics in a way
>that will make this feasible appears to be to tax the hell
>out of oil such that energy costs become two or three times
>higher than they are now. Unfortunately, the U.S. will not
snip
>Thus, the only way to obtain carbon emission reductions,
>while keeping the cheap oil flowing, appears to be through
>regulation.
Again, too narrow. Increasing the cost of oil through
taxation and heavy-handed regulation are not the only way:
offering incentives is another way. It is the other side of
the tax equation if taxes (and profits) are re-invested in a
"carrot and stick" approach. This is the approach favored
by current policy. In fact one policy to improve end-use
efficiency is called the "Golden Carrot", whereby EPA and
DOE in partnership with corporate and non-profit NGOs pool
resources to offer capital for appliance manufacturers to
commercialize more efficient appliances.
snip
>In the final analysis, my
>industry has a very big constraint imposed on it: it must
>be efficient, but product specifications and quality cannot
>be allowed to suffer.
Too narrow. The efficiency of your industry is not the
problem. The inefficient use of your industry's product is
a problem, but not the whole problem. A much bigger problem
IMO is the utilization of coal under current technology.
Substitution of fuel oil or diesel for coal in electric
power generation is one partial solution to that problem
that would benefit your industry. There are winners and
losers in the free enterprise system.
In terms of the whole society, or the whole globe for that
matter, we want to maximize the winning and minimize the
losing while preventing "dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system". That places a new
very big constraint on your industry in the final analysis:
environmental quality cannot be allowed to suffer.
-dl
Subject: Sailfin lizards need your help and letters
From: asalzberg@aol.com (ASalzberg)
Date: 21 Sep 1996 11:03:27 -0400
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Action: Please write to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
support of listing the genus Hydrosaurus (H. Amboinensis=weberi and H.
pustalatus) on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Additionally, all
other species in the genus Hydrosaurus, the genus Hypsilurus
(incorporating eleven species) and the species Physignathus lesueurii
should be listed on Appendix II due to similarity of appearance. These
species are commonly known as sail lizards, sail-tail dragons and water
dragons. An Appendix II listing on CITES means that trade in would be
regulated and monitored in order to prevent over-utilization.
Points that you may wish to include in your letter:
Distribution: Hydrosaurus lizards are endemic to the Philippines
and eastern Indonesia, including western Irian Jaya.
Habitat: Habitat loss is a major threat facing sail lizard
species. The gallery forests that sail lizards occupy are being logged by
foreign lumber companies. In addition to commercial logging, in the
Philippines suitable habitat is lost to lowland flooding, which results
from upland logging. Due to a reduction in available habitat,
sail-lizards occupy sub-optimal habitat where it may be more easily
captured for the exotic pet trade.
Commercial Trade: Exploitation for the exotic pet trade is a
major threat for some sail lizard populations. FWS records indicate
imports of 2,732 H. pustulatus between September 1993 and February 1996.
One supplier in the United States has offered price breaks on sail lizards
when purchased in quantities of 50 or more, indicating the widespread
availability of these species for the U.S. pet trade. Most sail lizards
sold in the U.S. are sub-adults or hatchlings. Continued large-scale
harvesting of immature lizards can result in a reduction in population
size. Though a few small-scale captive breeding programs exist for the
species within the U.S., and possibly Europe, they do not provide a
significant portion of the individuals in the pet trade.
Need for Protection: Although sufficient data on the population
status, demography, life history, home range and movement patterns are
lacking, the use of precaution in the case of uncertainty would dictate
that the species should be included under CITES Appendix II, particularly
since sail lizards usually have a single clutch a year, with an average of
5-9 eggs.
Similar Species: Because the distinguishing characteristics of
the various species are in many cases subtle, all species included in this
genus must be placed on Appendix II, due to similarity of appearance.
Once removed from the wild, it would be extremely difficult for
non-experts to distinguish among the Hydrosaurus species. Furthermore,
because the members of the genus Hypsilurus(Occurring in New Guinea, Fiji,
Oceania and Australia) and the species of Physignathus leuseuri (probably
confined to eastern Australia) are very similar in appearance to
Hydrosaurus, they also should be listed in Appendix II under provisions of
Article II(2)(b).
Please send your letter in support of an Appendix II listing for
Hydrosaurus, Hypsilurus, and Physignathus to:
Chief, Office of Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 750
Arlington, Virginia 22203
FAX: 703/358-2276
Deadline: Letters must be received by OCTOBER 11, 1996!
Additional Information: To obtain a copy of the complete proposal for an
Appendix II listing of Hydrosaurus spp., which was prepared by Gregory
Watkins-Colwell, please check out the following website:
http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/fedreg1.htm or contact Allen
Salzberg at ASALZBERG@aol.com.
Subject: TIMBER AND DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKES NEED YOUR HELP
From: asalzberg@aol.com (ASalzberg)
Date: 21 Sep 1996 08:41:58 -0400
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Please Note:
Like some of the other CITES proposals, this one for rattlesnakes is aimed
TOTALLY at the international trade for food, herbal medcines and skins,
an unregulated AND GROWING trade which with CITES in place the US. Gov't
can try to finally get accurate numbers and base real action plans on. No
pet keeper should be against this listing since the legality of keeping
these snakes is totally up to local laws, state and federal AND WILL
REMAIN SO UNDER CITES II. If anything a CITES listing will keep more
snakes alive in the US.
Allen Salzberg
ACTION ALERT FOR TIMBER AND EASTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKES
Action: Please write to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
support of listing the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), the eastern
diamondback rattlesnake (C. adamanteus) and, for look-alike reasons the
western diamondback (C. atrox) on Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
International commercial trade in species on Appendix II of CITES is
regulated and monitored in order to prevent over-utilization.
Points that you may wish to include in your letter:
Distribution: The timber rattlesnake occurs in 27 states from New
Hampshire, south through the Appalachians to northern Florida, eastern
Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, southeastern Minnesota, eastern Wisconsin and
southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The eastern diamondback rattlesnake
ranges through lowlands from North Carolina to extreme eastern Louisiana,
including all of Florida.
Habitat: Habitat degradation resulting from agriculture, housing
development, and road construction, is the primary reason for declining
timber rattlesnake populations throughout much of the species range. For
the eastern diamondbacks, the loss of long-leaf pine habitat to
intensively managed loblolly plantations, development, both residential
and commercial, and agriculture have resulted in habitat loss for the
species. In many states only relict populations of these species remain
and large local populations are almost nonexistent. The timber
rattlesnake is listed as "endangered" in most northern U.S. states and the
eastern diamondback is listed as a "species of special concern" in
Florida, South Carolina and Alabama.
Demography: Because the reproductive potential of both species is
limited by delayed sexual maturity (2 to 3 years for eastern diamondback
rattlesnakes and up to 9 years in northern populations of timber
rattlesnakes and long inter-birth intervals (2 to 3 years for diamondback
rattlesnakes and 3 to 4 years for timber rattlesnake), the species have
limited biological resilience to heightened levels of mortality.
Additionally, the social behavior of gravid female timber rattlesnakes
increases their vulnerability to collection (which reduces recruitment of
young into the population). Gravid females tend to inhabit open areas on
basking rocks, and are more commonly found on roadsides than males and
nongravid females.
Threat: Both the timber and the eastern diamondback rattlesnakes
have historically been killed in large numbers because they are said to
represent a potential threat to human health and life. In Pennsylvania,
collection for rattlesnake round-ups and commercial sale, not habitat
destruction, is the primary threat for the timber rattlesnake.
Commercial Trade: Commercial utilization of both species for the
pet trade, and for meat, skins, and novelty jewelry is significant.
Records from Florida state dealers indicate that from 1992 to 1994, nearly
5,000 timber rattlesnakes were removed from the wild and from 1990 to
1994, nearly 43,000 eastern diamondbacks were removed from the wild
(mostly for other southeastern states). Most snakes are killed for the
trade in their skins, which is usually used to make cowboy boots. FWS
export data indicate that 753 and 450 timber rattlesnake leather pieces
were exported from the United States in 1992 and 1993, respectively.
Comparable figures for the diamondback were 1,510 and 1,475. Rattlesnake
meat is also traded internationally, with records for 1992, 1993 and 1994
indicating 26.7, 119.8 and 2,419.7 pounds of eastern diamondback meat were
exported.
Need for Protection: Though it is difficult to determine the
extent to which international trade is impacting these species, the use of
precaution in the case of uncertainty would dictate that the timber
rattlesnake and the eastern diamondback rattlesnake should be included
under CITES Appendix II, particularly since their biological resilience is
limited (due to delayed first-year reproductive age, low frequency of
reproduction, high first-year mortality and low recruitment). The western
diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), which ranges from central
Arkansas, west to California and into Mexico, also should be listed in
Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b) (similarity of
appearance). Once removed from the wild, it would be extremely difficult
for non-experts to distinguish between the western and eastern
diamondbacks.
Send your letter in support of an Appendix II listing for eastern and
western diamondback rattlesnakes and timber rattlesnakes to:
Chief, Office of Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 750
Arlington, Virginia 22203
FAX: 703/358-2276
Deadline: Letters must be received by OCTOBER 11, 1996!
Additional Information: To obtain copies of the complete proposals for an
Appendix II listing of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake and the timber
rattlesnake, which were prepared by Ann Michels with the Environmental
Investigation Agency, please check out the following website:
http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/fedreg1.htm or contact Allen
Salzberg at ASALZBERG@aol.com.
Subject: PRESS: Inland Green Courtney/Nader
From: larry@salata.com (Larry Fletcher)
Date: 22 Sep 96 16:39:11
Copyright 1996 The Press Enterprise Co.
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE (RIVERSIDE, CA.)
September 8, 1996 Sunday ALL ZONES
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 1087 words
HEADLINE: Local view; It's time to think about turning Green
BYLINE: Phill Courtney, The Press-Enterprise
BODY:
This year, for the first time, the Green Party of the United
States will be running a candidate for president. Ralph Nader,
the long-time consumer advocate and champion of the environment,
has allowed his name to be entered on the ballots of at least 11
states so far, and his candidacy was ratified on August 19 in Los
Angeles at the national convention of the Green Party.
For environmentalists and other disaffected voters, Nader offers
a genuine alternative. The Green Party is trying a bold, innovative,
political strategy - we're running an honest man, a man who can't be
bought. Many environmentalists voted for Clinton and Gore in 1992,
hoping that Gore, the man who wrote the biggest selling environmental
book ever, "Earth in the Balance," would have a significant impact on
altering the disastrous environmental course this country is presently
on. We have watched as corporate interests and the corrupting and
coopting powers of Washington have compromised Gore to the point of
irrelevancy.
Many of us have decided that it's not only high time to change
that course, it's time to abandon the ship completely. The two
major parties are hopelessly and irredeemably corrupt and to
continue voting for their candidates is to function as an enabler
in a process that must end. The Green Party and Ralph Nader are
well on the way to beginning a new process and offering a
different course. I'm excited by the prospect of voting for a man
I've admired since high
school.
Many Americans are completely disgusted and turned-off by
politics in this country as it is presently conducted. For the
most part, it's degenerated into an annual charade in which the
candidates trade a series of short attack ads on television or in
the mail, the frequency and slickness of which are often
determined now by the candidate's willingness to pander to vested
interests, or by the amount of personal wealth they're willing to
invest.
These ads tar their opponents as creatures only slightly higher
on the evolutionary scale than pond scum, and basically contain no
useful information.
Is it any wonder many of us don't even bother voting anymore,
and when we do we end up with people like the two men presently
representing Riverside County in Congress, two men who take money
from tobacco companies and other corrupt corporations? We should
be embarrassed by these men, but, in an observation that tells us
even more about our current attitudes towards government, we're
not.
These men happen to be Republicans, but there doesn't seem to
be alternatives to corruption no matter which of the major parties
you vote for. They're just two sides on the same coin.
Nader has known this for many years. When he was a boy he once
told his father, "Dad, we need a third party. " His dad said, "I'd
settle for a second. " For too long the major parties have told
us snidely, in effect, "you've got no where else to go. " We
figured it was politics as usual.
Ralph Nader wants to avoid politics as usual. Although every
move he makes is charged with politics, Nader is not your usual
politician. To begin with he tells his listeners what he thinks
they should hear, not what he thinks they want to hear. This is a
radical position for any politician to take, and suicidal for many
of those who've damaged their careers by trying it in the past,
from Abraham Lincoln to Jimmy Carter. But Nader knows the hour is
much too late for us to continue being lulled into lethargy by the
comforting platitudes of politicians like Ronald Reagan, and he
refuses to make those sorts of speeches.
Neither will Nader be sidetracked by "wedge" issues that
separate Americans into warring camps, using the "divide and
conquer" strategy. Nader knows, for example, that the question of
same-sex marriage, although an important human right that should
certainly be granted, is this year's "flag burning" issue, and he
will not be drawn into a discussion of it. It's the politics of
distraction. A non-issue. When the world is burning up, it
doesn't matter if there's a law against burning flags. Nader
will let the Green Party values speak for themselves.
And what are those values? First of all, the Green Party
believes that the human race will continue into the future. We
believe that it is vital to leave a more livable planet for the
following generations because there will be following generations.
For too long human actions have been guided by a philosophy which
said that we, and we alone, owned the earth, its creatures, and
its resources, and it didn't really matter that much if we left
environmental chaos in our wake, because it was all going to end
soon anyway. The last 10,000 years of human civilization seem to
belie that position.
Granted, a sudden asteroid collision could end it all today,
but we would be wise to act as if there will be a tomorrow, and a
long-term future. People will follow us, and the choice is ours;
will we leave them a world that is devastated and bleak, or bright
and healthy?
The Green Party believes that the future can be bright if we
work together, through non-violent action that involves people of
all colors, lifestyles, and spiritual beliefs, gathering locally
to improve their communities along lines that are decentralized
and in harmony with ecological principles. The recent seven-state
power black-out showed us once again how dependent we are on
distantly generated electricity, gasoline, and machines. The
Greens don't want us to go back to living in caves, but rather
forward to a world of "ecological technology" like solar energy
and mass transit; technologies that make sense and can sustain the
world over the long haul.
Can Ralph Nader win? The answer to that question is not nearly
as important as whether or not mankind can continue to exist as a
viable species on this planet. Ralph Nader is running not to find
out if he can win or not, but rather because he knows a new
direction needs to be taken. If you vote for a person based on
whether or not they can win, then Nader is not your man. But if
you'd like to be part of that new direction, then the choice is
clear. You're not throwing your vote away.
As Ralph Nader says, "First of all, if we know our history, we
know that almost all things we love about this country started
with just one or two people - whether is was the women's right to
vote, the trade union movement, the environmental movement -
everything thing starts with one or two. " Change starts with you
and me.
NOTES:
Phil Courtney is a high school teacher in Perris and a member
of the Inland Greens, a local chapter of the Green Party
Draft Nader for President Clearinghouse 1-888-NADER-96
nader96@vais.net - http://www.vais.net/~nader96
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 03:16:49 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
In article ,
dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu (Donald L. Libby) wrote:
>In article <51n7e5$6r0_002@pm7-119.hal-pc.org>
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>>From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
>>Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
>>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 96 22:07:01 GMT
>snip
>>So, which is it? Inject CO2 and prevent emissions, or tax
>>CO2 and allow emissions? If you are really worried about
>>global warming, it would seem that you want to inject CO2.
>>However, if you are looking for more government taxes and
>>programs (you already implied that you do), then you tax
>>carbon and emit CO2.
>
>>Michael, Michael, Michael. I really wish you would keep
your
>>"story" consistent regarding CO2. It is getting very
>>difficult to determine what the hell you are wanting
industry
>>and its employees to do concerning environmental issues.
>
>Using a carbon tax sends a market signal to industry, which
then responds as
>a rational economic actor to substitute low carbon fuels and
energy
>sources. The tax method avoids "micro-management" solutions
which are
>clearly the kind of intervention most hated by industry.
Mandating CO2
>sequestration technologies is an example of
micro-management, whereas with
>the tax, industry is free to respond with its most
cost-effective
>options. The tax could be revenue neutral, or even
positive, depending on
>how it is reinvested.
>
>Since sequestering CO2 by injection is a short-term fix with
limited
>capacity, it might make a good emergency measure - but there
isn't really
>that much of an emergency. Over the next 50 to 100 years we
can probably
>emit less CO2 by substituting methane for coal, by
increasing use of
>renewables, by end-use efficiency improvements, by solving
problems of
>nuclear waste handling and storage, etc. These kind of
slow-paced
>structural changes are expected to follow from a policy that
signals markets
>to avoid coal. Without such a signal, Charlie, why would
industry act in
>any way to avoid CO2 emissions (or to sequester CO2)?
>
>Incidentally, current policy advocates making efficiency
>improvements for their own sake (cost savings) rather than
for the purpose
>of avoiding CO2 emissions. The electric power industry has
begun to use gas
>turbines in new installations to handle peak-load problems,
and recent de-
>regulation of power transmission and distribution may offer
more flexibility
>to install smaller scale, less capital intensive gas powered
generating
>facilities.
>
>-dl
Don,
with all due respect, this is all well and good. However,
most of the big energy users at my employer's refinery (e.g.,
furnaces) are already using natural gas for fuel. I don't
know of any lower carbon fuel than that, without going to
hydrogen.
Incidentally, any fuel gas that we burn would have to be
flared if it didn't go to a furnace. While this stuff is not
strictly natural gas (methane), I don't see an advantage in
flaring it just so all furnaces can burn "clean fuel" (e.g.,
natural gas). In other words, we are consciously aware on a
daily basis that we need to keep things as clean as possible.
The big question that I have is: where is the feedback in
this situation? In other words, how should the regulatory
agencies be given a clue that we don't know how to do any
better with the existing equipment and technology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no freedom without economic freedom. Remember that the next time
a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: Rod Adams
Date: 21 Sep 1996 17:40:08 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Dan Evens wrote:
>DaveHatunen wrote:
>> Consider for instance, that the drinking water piping was classified as
>> non-safety related. Sure. But what if the drinking water pipe runs
>> directly above the main electrical panels?
>
>I can't speak to the U.S. situation (this was w.r.t. TMI) but I can
>speak to the Canadian situation.
>
>On my first trip to the Chalk River Laboratory (that's an AECL site)
>I noticed that one of the drinking fountains had some kind of extra
>little pipe thing comming out of it and going into the drain. I asked
>what it was.
>
>Oh, that's an emergency pressure relief valve. See, that water is
>under pressure, so it's considered a pressure vessel, so it has to
>have a relief valve because this is a nuclear site.
>
>Yeah, but the reactor is like 400 meters away in another building.
>You need pressure relief valves on your water fountains in this
>building?
>
>Yep. In fact their's a group of guys that spend their entire
>time going around looking for potential safety problems and
>stamping on them. They take their job very seriously.
>
This little story tells a great deal about why the nuclear industry
is rapidly dying.
The people in the industry have, to a large degree, lost touch with
reality. They do not seem to understand that in order to survive
as a business, you have to make sensible decisions, not "politically
correct" decisions.
There is no doubt that a pressure vessel containing fluid under
high pressure and temperature requires a safety relief valve. Knowing
relief valves like I do, it might even make sense to have several
redundant relief valves in certain high value systems.
However, it is patently absurd to put a relief valve on a water
fountain!!
It is also absurd to believe that potable water piping is "safety
related", that a small leak in a seawater cooling system should
cause a plant to be shut down for a week (currently in progress in
New England) or to believe that it is logical to shut down three
functional plants during the height of the cooling season because
of procedural issues related to refueling.
Unfortunately, most "nukes" refuse to publically criticize stupidity.
Perhaps that is because most have the contractor mentality that they
will accept any job, no matter how ridiculous as long as the customer
is willing to pay the appropriat hourly fees.
People state over and over again that new nuclear plants cannot
compete because "the capital costs are too high." The fact of the
matter is that capital costs (and most other costs) are controlable!
We have to sharpen our pencils, infuse ourselves with the knowledge of
what measures really enhance safety, and eliminate excess costs
wherever possible.
This might even eliminate some nuclear jobs in the short term, but
at least there will be a future for those of us who are far too young
to retire, far to stubborn to leave the industry, and far too aware
of the limitations of our competitors to think that nuclear power
cannot compete.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE
Subject: Re: ELECTRIC VEHICLES
From: ulysses1@ix.netcom.com (ulysses1@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 05:04:30 GMT
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:41:09 -0400, Dodge Boy
wrote:
>I agree that water will dilute the acid, but I hardly want the heavy
>metals from the batteries washed into the water system.
>
How will the heavy metals be washed away? The lead is on the plates.
There may be some lead partially dissolved in the electrolyte, but not
that much. The point is, with a contained battery pack, none of this
will happen anyway unless it's a catastrophic crash.
>About 2 quarts per battery and about 30 to 40 batteries per car, so in
>total quanity around 15 to 20 gallons.
>
It depends on how many batteries you have in the pack. The car I
built in school only had 10 batteries. Many conversion cars only have
this many. The EV-1 will have 26 which are contained in a sealed pack
that is located down the central spine of the car. The likelihood of
something happening to the pack is remote. And to address someone
elses concern, Yes they'd have to be crash tested by the DOT just like
any other car on the road.
>> You make it
>> sound like gallons of acid are going to flood the street and firemen
>> and bystanders will melt like the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz.
>> If they were using Gel Cells, there wouldn't be much leakage at all
>> (semi-solid).
>
>Plan for the worst case, not the best case, and you can deal with a
>problem better.
>
That was my point above, plan for the worst by having everything
contained in a pack of some kind. Then you shouldn't have to worry
about leakage or anything related.
>> Battery acid is easily neutralized with plain water or
>> any of various low-cost base agents.
>
>I agree with this baking soda is a base and can neutralize the acid. But
>what about before the fire dept gets there? Say a wreck happens on a
>bridge made of concrete (CaCO2) and battery acid (H2SO4) leaks out onto
>the bridge. Bridge damage will occur I agree a small amount, but it will
>happen, and those problems have to be address, otherwise the bridges will
>be turned into water (H20) and Calcium Sulfate (CaSO4). Go pour some
>acid on a piece of concreate and watch. Hell the highway maintaince in
>this country is bad at best and these small problems will muliply. Also
>what if a person had acid get on them, because the car is upside down and
>it is running out the vents in the batteries. Gasoline will cause skin
>and eye damage, but it takes a long exposer time, acid reacts very
>quickly, within minutes or seconds depending on the area of exposure.
>Gasoline takes hours.
>>
Agreed, but you're telling me that the minimal amount of acid is going
to wash a bridge away that is made of concrete a foot thick, give me a
break man. I'm more concerned right now about losing traction in a
rain storm due to all the oil and other crap leaked onto the highways
by millions of cars. I agree, highway maintenance in this country
sucks. We seem to put more money in the short term instead of
building roads that last.
>> It's probably there to reduce the volatility so an errant spark doesn't
>> ignite anything. Battery acid is corrosive, but it's not going to melt
>> your skin off in a matter of seconds. Besides, how many firemen
>> have you seen NOT wearing heavy gloves and NOT having
>> water nearby?
>
>What of the passengers are you going to require them to protective
>clothing in case of a crash, acid in the eyes only takes seconds to take
>your sight.
>>
Yeah, if you're driving with a battery on your dash. Again, think
"sealed battery pack".
>> And who do you think is forcing EV's into existence?
>
>The government of California was requiring car manufactures to have them
>to sell, if they wanted to sell cars in California. That is pretty close
>to a gun. And the high cost of development will be passed on to everybody,
>not just the people of California, because if the do, and there are no
>government subsidies, knowone but the richest of Californians could afford
>them.
>
I was totally for this, not because I believe in "big government" or
anything, but because the L.A. basin has a big smog problem. As I've
stated in previous posts, I'm not in love with some of the things they
do. The "Smog Check" program has made things cleaner and there are
fewer smog alerts than there were in the past. But they are now going
too far (in my opinion) with the whole "gross polluter" thing which
personally affects me and other vintage car owners. It is true that
cars are cleaner today due to many of these "government" programs.
But you don't seem to have a problem with government's decree of
removing lead from fuel or requiring the addition of emissions
equipment back in the early 70's. The auto makers had to comply then
and of course the buck was passed on to us. No matter what the
improvement or new technology is, the auto makers will always pass the
buck onto the consumer.
What the California government did (and remember it was probably
California that first instituted unleaded fuel and smog devices) was
to say to the auto companies, you will provide a certain number of
non-polluting cars within a certain time frame. They gave them a
certain number of years to phase things in. What did the Big 3 do,
they whined like they always do when they are told to do something
that will hurt their profits. Unfortunately, the powers that be (most
notably our wonderful governor) caved in to the demands of corporate
suits and the requirement were watered down. I however, applaud GM
for going forward anyway with their EV-1 program.
>> Is someone holding a gun to your head saying, "You must convert!
>> Submit! Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!
>
>At least your a Trek fan.
Long live and prosper...
>
>
>I agree that is how it would be in a perfect world, but we don't live in a
>perfect world, so we must plan accordingly. This how the real EV world,
>"Got to go to work, shit! I forgot to plug in the car last night. I'll
>plug it in now (Peak use time), and take the regular car to work. It can
>charge while I'm at work." Unfortunatly the well meaning person will do
>this, so new power plants will be a reality.
>
Well, the same happens if you don't fill or top off the tank the night
before, you aren't going to get very far. But as I've described
before, you wouldn't have this concern if your EV was a hybrid. My
neighbor who works for Edison (the local utility) has shown me the
power projections and new plants will not be necessary here.
>> Given many of your statements, you don't know a lot about EV's or
>> battery technology yourself, so you shouldn't be passing judgement.
>
>I know enough that a person would need to own two cars instead of one, if
>one is an EV, because you can't take an EV on a trip. So unless you don't
>do anything besides go to work and go home you need two cars with an EV.
>And don't forget the environmental impact of the disposile of the dead
>batteries. The alcohol fueled cars don't create a serious amount of
>hazardous waste, like EV's do.
>
And as I've stated before, an EV would not be for everyone and is
ideally suited as a second car for short trips and such. Again, if
you're worried about range, get a hybrid. By the way, the hybrid
would use a small IC engine running at a constant speed (thus more
efficient) and possibly on Ethanol or Methanol (the contest my school
participated in allowed the use of Gasoline as well as these two
fuels). Our car had an estimated MPG of 75. I'm all for alcohol
fueled cars. As stated in previous posts, batteries are 90%
recyclable so the arguments that there will be mountains of dead
batteries is kinda lame. We don't seem to think about the mountains
of old tires we have accumulating in landfills and dumps all over the
world. It's only in recent times that we've started chopping them up
for use as road-fill material (which makes for better roads).
>> Get back in your crappy Dodge bud and head to the library....
>
>Hey, I didn't cut on your cars. Besides I have actualy run my Dodge on
>straight Methanol, have owned an EV. And your 69 Ghia is exactly
>emissions friendly.
>
I'm surprised that you've owned an EV. Your car must not have had a
sealed battery pack and you must have been leaking acid all over
yourself to have such a bad perception of them. :-)
As for my Ghia, no it's not emissions friendly at all, and I know
this. I have thought of converting it myself but I don't have that
kind of cash right now. If I did, I'd do it.
What I'm simply stating, and what I've been saying all along since
this thread started, is that EV's are not for everyone. They will
never "take over the world" as some people here seem to think.
Should the price of gasoline go through the roof (a very scary
possibility should there be a really big conflict in the middle east
in the future), I bet EV's are going to look mighty good. Yes, you
sometimes need fuel to generate the power, but not all of it comes
from fuel-burning plants. Unfortunately, this country has always had
an affinity for large cars and we don't seem to be getting any better
at it. If we paid the kind of cash they do in other parts of the
world, there would be a bigger demand for smaller, fuel-efficient
cars. Our auto companies have never been able to build good, reliable
small cars and now have other countries do it for them (GEO's, etc.)
and so be it (to paraphrase... if you can't BUILD them, join them).
Regarding safety, EV's can be just as safe as any other car on the
road if built right. The concerns about range and such are a valid
issue and that's why I think hybrids would make an ideal interim
solution until battery technology improves. The small gasoline (or
other fuel) engine could be designed to run at optimum efficiency to
constantly charge the battery pack or supplement the vehicle power.
As studies have shown, many people in large urban centers never drive
their cars more than 30-35 miles a day. This is usually for things
like dropping off the kids at school, buying groceries, going to the
local mall, etc. For this, an EV is an ideal car. If you commute
relatively close to work, you could conceivably use it as your daily
commuter car. No, not everyone will, but that's not the point. The
point is that every little bit helps. All those cars that do short
trips and never really get warmed up do pollute more.
It's true that the majority of power generation is supplied by
coal-fired plants in this country. But as I've stated before, EV's
aren't necessarily a good thing in all parts of the country.
Obviously if you're living in an area which requires long distance
travel, an EV is not a good choice for you. But in large cities where
you have a large number of cars and people are choking on each other's
tailpipes, a non-polluting car is a nice idea. My slant is obviously
biased towards the Los Angeles area as I have lived here my whole
life. I am very familiar with gridlock and sitting in traffic
breathing the stuff puffing out of the car in front of me. I welcome
the idea of having a few less tailpipes out there. The power
generated in the Southern California area is sourced from natural gas
burning generators (clean burning), hydroelectric (clean), nuclear
(let's not go there again :-) ), and then the minor sources of wind
and solar (also clean). I've been told that new plants would not be
necessary here.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's not such a big deal people.
They're not for everyone and no one is making you buy one. Give
something a chance and learn a little more about EV's from people who
have built them or know what they're talking about, as opposed to
those who spout stories of doom ("what if this happens..." kinda
stuff) when they have no first-hand knowledge of the subject.
---------------------
ulysses1@ix.netcom.com
'69 Ghia coupe
'86 Golf GTI
---------------------
Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinion anyone?
From: perpcorn@dca.net (Timothy Perper)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:54:54 -0500
In article <5205fp$pau@nntp1.best.com>, dking@amphissa.com (David N. King)
wrote:
> In article <51kk84$a0c@news.esrin.esa.it>, Nick Kew
wrote:
>
> >My original suggestion is to hold *abstracts* online, with the provision
> >to hold full papers where appropriate. Keeping abstracts in an easily-
> >searchable website would surely be a valuable service to researchers,
> >while referring them to the traditional publishing media for full papers.
>
> This is a terrific idea. It was first implemented three decades ago with the
> MEDLINE system. There are currently several thousand bibliographic databases
> that provide citations and abstracts "pointing" to the printed publications.
> A few hundred are widely available through "vendors" like Dialog. Some of
> them are already migrating to the web. MEDLINE is available on the web thru
> several sites, the best public access being via the National Library of
> Medicine's GratefulMed web-based system. Others are getting there.
>
> >
> >My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts,
>
> There are already many systems that do this, but the fact is, 20+ years of
> R&D; has not yet resulted in a machine indexing system that is satisfying.
> Mechanically, you can do it pretty easily; in practical terms, it produces
> marginal intellectual access to conceptual content. But maybe your
> parsing, weighting, and automated Boolean algorithms are better than anyone
> else has conceived yet, and I'd really like to see it, if it is. Have you
> published it? If you have, I'm sure you are aware of the large research
> literature on the problem of machine indexing of scholarly/technical
> literature. If all you are planning to do is parse words from abstracts into
> a database searchable with a typical web search engine query mechanism,
> thanks but I'll pass.
>
> Of course, that all assumes you have legal right to use the abstracts to
> create a publicly accessible, searchable database and serve up the
> abstracts. Have you discussed this idea with publishers and agreed upon an
> acceptable framework for putting their copyrighted material up on your web
> site? Or were you planning to simply download the abstracts from existing
> databases, capitalizing on the work of those who create and maintain those
> databases? Have you negotiated the legal aspects of that? Or were you
> planning to write and keyboard your own abstracts? That's an option with
> fewer legal hurdles, but it sounds like a lot of work.
>
> >and has the option
> >to hold any or all of the full papers online according to publisher choice.
>
> Ah, now we are getting to the present. You are interested in creating a
> digital library! Comparable to a traditional library, only in electronic
> form. Tools for bibliographic control and access (electronic indexes with
> abstracts) to a collection of literature in electronic form, all accessible
> from one electronic "location." Great idea! There is a substantial
> literature on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. ACM devoted a
> special issue to it last year. There is an electronic journal on the subject
> and of course there is a wealth of literature in traditional paper format.
> You can find a bit on the web too. Digital libraries. Great idea!
>
> There are some notable R&D; projects under way. National Science Foundation
> has funded, I think, 9 major R&D; projects to the tune of $25 million at
> major institutions: U of Michigan, Berkeley, Illinois, Stanford, etc. Those
> projects are getting under way. But a couple of projects got an
> earlier start. Perhaps the most impressive to date is the Red Sage project
> at UCSF which is now in its 3rd year. A collaboration between the UCSF
> Library & Center for Knowledge Management, AT&T; Bell Labs, and 20 publishers
> of the biomedical literature. It is pretty small-scale: 70 medical and
> biomedical research journals, including the major titles in clinical
> medicine -- bitmapped images of every printed content page including
> graphics, tables, photos, etc. The electronic journal collection is linked
> to the MEDLINE database with a top-notch forms-based web search interface
> called Medsage. Every UCSF doctor, nurse, researcher, student, etc, with a
> network link or web access has access to the electronic library from their
> office desktop. Pretty slick! Yes, it is fully operational. (Access is
> restricted to UCSF of course. If you are interested, you can find out more
> at http://www.library.ucsf.edu)
>
> Make a wild guesstimate of the size of the database. 70 journals, maybe 1000
> pages per year in each, abstracts and citations, one per article. 3 years in
> the collection. That's, let's see, only 210,000 pages of articles. Not all
> that small when you think about it, but manageable. But of course, there are
> 3500 journals in medicine alone. There are around 6 million records in the
> MEDLINE database, most with abstracts. Consider the kind of system required
> to manage and serve that up. How about if we just limit the system to the
> top 500 journals? Maybe 50,000 articles per year. That's only 50,000
> abstracts. Then throw in all the journal pages for those articles. Better
> limit the collection to just the last couple of years, I guess. That's,
> let's see, maybe around 1,000,000 pages of content, plus 100,000 abstracts
> plus a database for searching. But to be a major digital library (a Harvard
> or Illinois or Berkeley), expand that to include all of the quality journals
> in all areas published; a minimum collection would be 50,000 titles out of
> the 200,000+ published worldwide. And they can't limit it to the last year
> or two; the have to meet the research and academic needs of their
> university. I can't add that high.
>
> Consider the mess of irrelevant junk you get trying to search using current
> web-based search engines, and that the web at present has relatively little
> meaningful content. Multiply that by millions of content-rich pages
> annually. This is not something one just does overnight and serves up on
> a little Indy. One needs equipment and technical staff to deal with the
> technology (easy to come by if you can afford it) and needs people
> knowledgeable about conceptual design and construction of complex
> knowledge-based systems (harder to come by) and needs economic models and
> evolutionary development strategies (virtually non-existant).
>
> But the current, more serious obstacles are economic and legal. You might
> want to consider those aspects in developing your system. Do you have any
> publishers signed up yet to participate in your project? Have you figured
> out how you will pay them for the right to provide access to their
> copyrighted publications? And how to cover the costs you incur from them?
> There are very thorny problems involved in this, and the publishers don't
> really know what economic models to work with, what the "marketplace" of
> electronic publishing looks like, or how to price their electronic product
> yet. But you can bet for sure that they are not going to give away their
> product or sit by and watch others distribute it without reimbursing them.
> The long tradition of libraries providing free access to the literature
> disguises the truth: information is not free, it is very expensive.
>
> >
> >As others have pointed out, the peer-review process is an important element
> >of academic publishing. I believe web-based collaboration software can
> >be used to facilitate this process, providing a forum ("workgroup") whose
> >members are a paper's authors together with recognised referees in a
> >subject area. Such papers may have readonly access to the general public
> >(or subscribers-only if a publisher prefers) while in the review process,
> >thus accelerating the publication cycle.
>
> This idea has been floated by a few people. To date, there has not been a
> mad rush by authors to abandon the established schorlarly publishing
> channels. The realm of print publishing is too closely intertwined with
> academic and professional recognition, grants and funding, careers and
> livelihood. If you give a researcher the choice of publishing in a major
> print journal like "Science" or an IEEE journal, or just tossing their paper
> (their ideas and work -- their intellectual property) out there on the web
> for others to "contribute to" using collaboration software, I don't think
> you'd have a hard time guessing which he would choose. This is a nifty idea
> conceptually and an attractive one technologically. It will be interesting
> to see if it ever catches on. I'd say that chances are very slim in the
> short run, but may be marginally better down the road in a very few
> specialized areas like law and engineering.
>
> >
> >The technology is ready: we need only apply it!
>
> I'd say current technology is not yet ready on the scale that is needed,
> although it is getting there. I'd say the current crop of typical web search
> engines and indexing systems are inadequate for current web content and
> completely worthless for anything more substantive. But the web is a very
> solid foundation for growth and improvement, and there will be real progress
> made over the next 5 years.
>
> I think it likely, in the short term, that we'll see print publications
> migrating to the web via digital libraries -- first, university libraries
> subscribing to electronic versions of print journals with access limited to
> their campus (this is already happening per the Red Sage example), then,
> professional societies providing access to the journals they publish to
> their members free and to non-members for a fee (this is beginning now too;
> IEEE journals are going up now for example), and a few publishers testing
> marketing models for publishing on the web (Journal of Biological Chemistry
> and a few others are doing that now). Then we'll see commercial sites run by
> "vendors" of the literature with professional indexing/abstracting linked to
> electronic collections (still a year or two away).
>
> Of course, all of the above is just my personal opinion, and I'd be just as
> glad to be wrong about any of my predictions. :-)
>
> David N. King
Look at sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy (p s y c o l o Q U Y in case
it's hard to read). They have such a system up and running. I don't know
how well they or its readers and authors think it works, but it's there.
It's run by the American Psychological Association.
And second... as the net expands, and links join up (each of which is a
straight line in net-space), we get a Peano space-filling curve. I guess
that explains the connection to fractals. ;-).
Tim Perper perpcorn@dca.net
--
Timothy Perper
perpcorn@dca.net
Subject: Re: health hazards of dog faeces
From: egbert@htre.edu (Mrs Eva Egbert)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:35:52 +0100
In message <3246f6b1.1107025@news.worldaccess.nl> you wrote:
> no@flames.com wrote:
>
> >If I did not have anywhere proper to "walk" a dog, I would not have
> >one. Few people see things this way, however, which is why every piece
> >of green ground in a town area is covered with dogshit so much you can
>
> Somehow, the most anti-social part of the dog owners seem to think that
> they have a RIGHT to own a dog, no matter what (which, unfortunately, is
> *legally* true), and because they have this right, they think they also
> have a RIGHT to harass their neighbors with dog shit, dangerous biting
> animals, or dogs barking continuously for hours, preferably at night.
> "Because that's the dog's nature."
>
> Don't get me wrong:
> I have nothing against dogs. I think most of them are really adorable.
> I'm sure most people enjoy their pet, and probably a lot of people can
> hardly do without it (children, old people, people living alone).
> And watchdogs can do a great job (in the right environment, that is!).
>
> But I DO have something against those 'wrong' dog-owners. They just do
> as they like, until someone with enough power (or courage) stops them.
OK, but it hardly seems fair to criticise some people for having
dogs when you say they are unfit to have them.
What about all those dim-witted, brain-dead, smeg-heads who
generate kids as if they were shelling peas?
You think it's bad living next to someone whose dog barks
all night? Try living next to someone whose idea of fun
is to produce a litter of juvenile delinquents.
You can put down rat poison to kill the neigbour's dog (or put
it out of its misery) but try doing that to your neighbour's
kids. It doesn't work.
Put contraceptives in the drinking water, I say, and charge
people a minimum of $10,000 to buy some antidote pills.
Alternatively, sterilise all women at 15 and then they can
have the op reversed if they so wish in later life.
Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:41:04 -0500
>In article ,
> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman) wrote:
>>In article <51hh8e$7js_001@pm7-110.hal-pc.org>,
>charliew@hal-pc.org
>>(charliew) wrote:
>>
>><countries makes
>>stabilization of CO2 emissions at 1990 levels unlikely>>
>>
>>> Conclusions:
>>>
>>> It is very unlikely that we can achieve the 1990 cap on
>CO2
>>> emissions on a world wide scale if third world countries
>do
>>> actually modernize their economies. Based on this, it is
>>> reasonable to conclude that CO2 emissions will rise
>>> substantially from their current levels. I, for one, hope
>>> that we do develop good climate models which have
>predictive
>>> capability, for the simple reason that there will
>apparently
>>> be some very difficult choices to be made in the future.
>To
>>> minimize the impact of these choices, it would seem best
>to
>>> implement a plan that accounts for economic effectiveness,
>>> along with "climatological" effectiveness. Unfortunately,
>>> when evaluating a lot of different "what if" cases, the
>model
>>> must necessarily have predictive capabilities to allow an
>>> economic choice to be made. I realize that if we ignore
>>> economics, and implement draconian measures regarding
>energy
>>> consumption, we can surely achieve some pre-established
>goal.
>>> However, I don't find this sort of solution particularly
>>> palatable for the economies that are already using more
>per
>>> capita energy than they "should" be.
>>
>>This analysis is pretty obvious, and though the conclusion
>is not
>>inevitable, it is compelling. I have a few comments:
>>
>>(1) The commitments in the Climate Convention to cap
>emissions at 1990
>>levels by the year 2000 applies only to developed countries,
>and is
>>unlikely to be met except in Central and Eastern Europe, as
>a consequence
>>of shutting down inefficient Communist-era industries.
>There is no cap on
>>developing country emissions. Thus the status quo situation
>is if
>>anything worse than your analysis suggests.
>>
>>(2) It is harder to reduce emissions when the energy
>infrastructure is
>>already in place. The expected expansion of energy demand
>in developing
>>countries therefore represents an opportunity to establish a
>more
>>efficient and less carbon intensive energy infrastructure in
>the first
>>place. This is the basis of the technology transfer
>provisions of the
>>Climate Convention.
>>
>>My conclusion, therefore, is that there is no time to waste
>in attempting
>>to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. The economic
>analyses
>>suggesting that we can afford to wait ignore point (2)
>above.
>>
>
>I'm glad you agree with the analysis. Since the restrictions
>will not be on developing countries, if one assumes that
>their economies will be carbon-fuel based, it should be
>fairly obvious that there is far less to be gained from
>restricting the developed countries than expected, because of
>the relatively small populations of those countries. Thus,
>while everyone seems to be worried about an exponential
>growth of carbon based fuels, the actions being taken will
>not prevent or solve this problem. I am getting to the point
>of wondering what problem we are really trying to solve here.
I disagree with this last twist in your conclusion. There is much to be
gained by reducing emissions in developed countries, especially on a per
capita basis. It is also the sine qua non for future reductions
commitments by developing countries, as Michael Tobis pointed out. In the
long run, of course, developing countries will have to accept their share
of the burden.
One approach that addresses the question of efficiency is known as joint
implementation, whereby one country may pay to reduce emissions in
another, if it finds that that is the cheaper way to go. This has been
very controversial, but developing countries appear to be moving away from
their initial view -- that JI is just a way for developed countries to
shirk their responsibilities -- to a more pragmatic acceptance that JI may
be an avenue for environmentally friendly investment in their countries
from abroad.
--
Mark W. Goodman
mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg