Subject: Re: Pure habitat.
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:16:28 -0700
Marc VanHeyningen wrote:
>
> Thus said Mike Vandeman :
> >Marc VanHeyningen wrote:
> >> Several of Washington State's San Juan Islands already have this status
> >> and have for a while.
> >
> >You mean NO HUMANS ARE ALLOWED? I doubt it. Usually scientists are allowed to go
> >there. Can you please check that out?
>
> No thanks, though I suspect it is the case that US Fish & Wildlife
> Service employees occasionally go there to check things out, and they
> probably occasionally allow scientists to go in and study the wildlife.
> If you don't allow that, how can you find out whether the habitat is
> working well and gather evidence to support designating new areas as
> such?
Wildlife did just fine without us for millions of years! What more evidence
do you need? We have proven pretty well that we have no idea how to create
effective habitat.
> For that matter, since funds for enforcement are limited, I expect there
> are also humans who illegally enter the area from time to time. Hard to
> avoid that.
Yes, that requires creating a new (?) ethic toward wildlife. But we can
probably keep human visits to a minimum with social pressure. That will still
be better than what we do now, allowing people to go anywhere in the world,
and allowing our population pressure to drive more and more species to
extinction.
> >I know of not one single area in the world that is exclusively for wildlife.
> >Do you???
>
> Depends what your threshold of "exclusively" is. Most of the world is
> water, and a lot of it is deep enough that it's impractical for humans
> to go there.
Exclusive means that we choose not to go there, not that it is impractical
to go there.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:24:20 -0500
charliew@hal-pc.org sent the following response to me by email, but I
thought it might interest the newsgroup:
(I wrote)
>>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.
>
>With all due respect, this is a TOTALLY stupid idea. American
>farmers already play this game. The government pays them to do
>nothing (they don't plant; thus they ensure higher crop prices).
>There is nothing stopping a developing country from saying that they
>intend to do a given thing that would maximize the amount of money
>we are required to pay them to prevent them from doing it. It's beyond
>me to understand the thinking pattern of the main players in the
>environmental movement.
>
>Let's say that I get to play the same game. I intend to buy
>1,000,000 acres of land and chop down all of the trees on it,
>effectively destroying the ability of this land's ability to absorb
>atmospheric CO2. How much is the government willing to pay me every
>year to keep me from doing this?
I think you're totally off the mark here, although there is a small
element of truth to your concern. The problem, which people have given
some thought to but not really resolved, is how to determine that claimed
emissions reductions actually take place. Compared to what? To projected
emissions (which is what theorists use)? To threatened emissions (your
unrealistic scenario)? To current-year emissions (at least this is an
objective criterion)?
The emissions trading program for sulfur dioxide pollution provides a
useful model here. Suppose it costs Company A $200/ton to reduce
emissions, but it only costs Company B $20/ton. Rather than require each
company to reduce its emissions to the same level, current law allows
Company A to pay Company B for emissions rights, which are traded on the
Mercantile Exchange. If the going rate for emissions rights is $40/ton,
this benefits both companies. Company A saves $160/ton of avoided
emissions reductions, and Company B earns $20/ton for additional emissions
reductions. Furthermore, the economy as a whole gains by reducing the
overall cost of limiting emissions. If the health and environmental cost
of sulfur dioxide pollution exceeds $40/ton, there is a net economic
benefit from these reductions.
Joint Implementation under the Climate Convention is predicated on the
same sort of arrangement. Countries have greenhouse gas emissions
targets, which they can meet either by their own actions or by paying
other countries to reduce emissions. The economic benefits are the same.
The catch is that many proposed JI projects involve Annex 1 countries
(developed countries that have emissions reductions targets) and Annex 2
countries (developing countries that do not yet have such targets). This
raises the accounting problem of how to determine whether emissions are
actually reduced. For this reason, people are particularly careful to
choose projects for which the baseline of projected emissions is
relatively straightforward to estimate. In one project an inefficient
coal-fired combined electric/district heat plant is being replaced by a
modern natural gas-fired plant, reducing emissions by something like two
thirds.
While your greenhouse blackmail scenario may be a theoretical possibility,
any proposal to grant one country a credit for emissions reductions in
another will be treated with close scrutiny by the international
community. My sense is that they will err on the conservative side,
granting fewer credits than might actually be warranted.
>Incidentally, I have an alternate proposal. How much money is the
>American environmental movement willing to pay developing countries
>to reduce emissions? If they are so committed to this cause, there
>shouldn't be a problem with this idea.
In fact, some environmental organizations are funding this type of
project. These tend to be demonstration projects, designed to prove the
feasibility of the approach. The money available to these organizations
is insufficient to make a significant dent in greenyouse emissions.
The potential of JI lies in the possibility that private companies in
developed countries will find it profitable to obtain some of their
greenhouse emissions credits by funding projects in developing countries.
--
Mark W. Goodman
mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Arrested in Grand Canyon
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:30:05 -0700
Todd O. wrote: If, as you
> have stated, there is no reason to differentiate between hikers and
> mountain bikers when discussing threats to wildlife,
This is a lie. I have never said that, which you well know. But we have
come to expect lies from you. I guess you can't defend your actions any
other way.
and if, as you seem
> to believe, there is no distinction between the impacts of mountain
> bikers and bulldozers with respect to wildlife,
Where is the evidence for this nonsense? Oh, I forgot -- you don't use
evidence.
> Todd Ourston
I guess it's really true: once you have been caught lying, nothing else you
say can be trusted.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Subject: Re: Pure habitat.
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:42:07 -0700
Todd O. wrote:
> > I know of not one single area in the world that is exclusively for wildlife.
> > Do you???
>
> I've answered this before, Mikey, but you keep ignoring it.
I never saw it.
There is a
> place near the southern most Condor Sanctuary in the Los Padres National
> Forest called "Bear Heaven." It is completely off-limits to humans,
> including scientists.
By regulation? Or by being difficult to reach? I am talking about the former.
Sure, the inside of a vocano is off-limits, but not by the desire to leave it
for wildlife, only because it is dangerous.
There are no trails there, and it is on the side
> of a steep, rugged, thickly vegetated mountain. Because it is so hard
> to reach, it isn't worthwhile for scientists or others to visit, so it
> is likely to remain off-limits for the foreseeable future.
So it is not really off-limits, just hard to reach! You just contradicted
yourself within the space of one paragraph. I am talking about areas that
we have deliberately decided to leave to wildlife.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 03:58:36 GMT
Jeremy Whitlock (cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Are you aware that everything in your list of alternatives, except
: hydro, has been shown (Inhaber, 1982; Holdren, 1983) to place a
: higher health risk on the public than nuclear power? Do you favour
: the flooding of the wilderness and subsequent leaching of toxic
: chemicals caused by large-scale hydro projects over the risks of
: nuclear power? Do you appreciate that the reserves of natural gas
: are measured in decades at our current rate of usage?
Jeremy, it's pointless for me to argue against nuclear power
at this point, because it supplies about 1/4 of the US electrical
demand, and it's not likely to go away soon. I know we really can't
keep creating gas and oil by naturally processing giant reptiles for
a hundred million years or so. I know that reserves are finite. And
I know that there is an environmental price for every approach.
But I strenuously object to the juxtaposition of "extremely safe"
and "nuclear power", on the grounds that it is untrue, and that it
represents a complacent attitude which has caused the very horrors
that I'm sure neither of us want. Nuclear power should never be
smugly termed "safe". It must be treated with the utmost respect
and care. We get TMI and Chernobyl incidents when it is not.
But I am interested in the environmental problems of the
alternatives. I'll never find Inhaber or Holdren; briefly, what
leaching and toxic chemical problems come from hydro-power?. I have
not heard of this.
As for flooding problems (which someone else mentioned), I
understand that dams can not stop heavy long-term flows, and that
poor management of overflow can result in a pseudo tidal-wave if an
inappropriate attempt to restrain natural flow overloads the dam,
and the water is then suddenly released. But, that's real bad
management, the sort of thing that brought us the TMI and Chernobyl
disasters. And it can happen whether the dams are equipped with
electrical generators or not.
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:31:55 GMT
In article <324f3877.6675731@news.idt.net>,
John Theofanopoulos wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:44:47 GMT, hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>wrote:
>>You have a 350 amp service entrance? Was it there before you got the
>>charger?
>>
>Uh...yeah. It's actually a 600Amp (350HP) service entrance, but we're
>not using it to it's full capacity. BTW, I'm at the Chrysler Tech
>Center (I don't assume you're too familiar with it), but we do have
>our own substation. Our 150KW charger is insignificant when you
>compare it to the EMI rooms which radiate frequencies up to 250v/m and
>the 3000hp (electric) fan used for the wind tunnel.
All very fascinating. But what has this to do with Joe Sixpack's EV?
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************