Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:17 GMT
"sdef!" wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>I don't know if this agrees or disagrees, but It seems like work is
>irrelevant. The money you get is proportional to how important you are to the
>survival of the corporations who are now the most powerful things on the
>planet.
"The most powerful things on the planet"? Putting aside, for the
moment, earthquakes and such, I have to wonder if you have ever
bothered to look at the US government? It is a relatively rare
business with $1 billion in revenues, but a rare government agency
which has less than that to spend! The US government spends that much
every 3 or 4 hours. I remember reading, in a (UK) politican's
biography, about how they raised the price of prescription drugs 5%!
That's power unmatched by any corporation.
>For this reason nurses, for example, get about one tenth what the
>people who repair computers get.
The reason nurses get less than computer repair technicans has zero to
do with corporate power, and everything to do with the supply of
competent personnel in the two fields. I do not conceive of any
reason corporations would want to pay computer technicans more
necessarily than nurses.
Many women see nursing as a "caring" profession, and are taught they
should "care" about others, so many enter nursing. Far fewer people
are good computer techs. The same can be said for teaching, by the
way. The reason teachers are paid so little is simply because we have
so many of them.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 22:44:38 GMT
In article <32877057.69430444@agate>,
Craig Mohn wrote:
>I (Craig Mohn) wrote carelessly:
>>snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>>>> Finished Goods: 317%
>>>> Chicken: 178%
>>>> Fish: 528%
>>>Why is he mistaken? He's saying that the price of fish has gone up
>>>considerably more than chicken. I suspect that, in constant dollars,
>>>it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
>>The key number you would need to draw that conclusion is missing, but
>>a cursory examination of that table suggests that you are wrong.
>>Chicken has probably gotten cheaper, but unless more commodities in
>>the PPI and CPI have followed the pattern of Chicken than Finished
>>Goods, Fish is more expensive in constant dollars, which are current
>>dollars deflated by your choice of index from CPI, PPI or WPI. All of
>>these indices move more or less together...
>Sorry, I mangled that in editting, making the statement exactly wrong.
>Couldn't be any less correct. Unless most of the rest of the products
>used in calculating the relevant price index showed a much larger
>price increase than fish, a pattern which is very different from both
>chicken or finished goods, fish is more expensive in real terms than
>it was. I shouldbn't try to be coherent before my second cup of
>coffee.
I took your intent, rather than your words...Again, I meant that
chicken had gone down, not (necessarily) fish [in constant dollars].
>Craig
snark
Subject: Re: forests
From: Don Staples
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:08:49 -0800
Steve Shook wrote:
>
> Don Staples wrote:
> >
> > Marcus Agua wrote:
> > >
> > > karl1971@aol.com writes:
> > > :
> > > : ... when the subject of forestry comes
> > > : to mind it sees only lumber, paper products, and recreation....
> > > :
> > > : Forestry, in the truest sense of the word, means all human
> > > : interactions with trees and not some short sighted dualistic concept of
> > > : either a crop...or a lovely little place to go for a hike.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I've never really been able to interact with a tree. What should my
> > > first step be? Should I address it politely? Send it flowers and candy?
> > > Would a kiss on the first date be correct, or am I just asking for a
> > > mouthful of splinters?
> > >
> > > ==========================
> > > Marcus Agua magua@dbtech.net
> > > ==========================
> >
> > How about just giving respect to another life form on a very small space
> > craft.
>
> How trite!
You bet, thats why foresters are fighing to maintain what we have, rather
than having full support from the government, environmentalists,
eco-freaks and the like.
You depend on the vegetation of this planet for life, how trite is that?
Ruminations of an old forester.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:15 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
[deleted]
>: >If this is anything but wishful thinking, I'd like to see a pointer to a
>: >study with some serious mathematics, which takes into account the
>: >growing population as well.
>
>: You need to study demand and supply more carefully. The mathmatics
>: describing the situation can be found in most upper division economics
>: texts.
>
>I'm aware of this... and the phenomenon of overshoot and crash.
Really? In an Economics textbook? That would be interesting, which
one, may I ask?
>: Maybe it will help, if you remember that as a society's wealth grows,
>: the population increases slow down. Some demographers now are
>: wondering if the world population will ever double again.
>
>Thinking this is automatic all by itself is one of the greatest
>fallacies we could indulge.
Well, I am not sure why you would want to indulge in it, then, Though
I must admit I am fond of great fantasies, particularly Les Miserables
(the book, by the way).
The slowing of the world's population growth is not deniable, and
there have been some estimates noting that, with increasing world
wealth, population is unlikely to double again. Unlike some people's
expectation that humans increase in number until they run out of
resources, the evidence is that, for humans, as wealth increases,
reproduction decreases.
The most wealthy populations in the world are those with the lowest
birth rates, and it was the wealth that came first.
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Nick Eyre
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:13:12 +0000
In article <560rll$l5h@lex.zippo.com>, "Paul F. Dietz"
writes
>Nick Eyre wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for pointing out this site. I use to work on accelerators so
>>I'll take a look. At first sight it's difficult to believe that
>>throwing extra neutrons at isotopes which are radioactive because they
>>already have too many can help much, but you never know.
>
>Sure, the isotopes in question have too many neutrons, but
>that's not the problem. The problem is that their halflives are
>too long. Most neutron-rich nuclei decay quickly. The idea here
>is to destroy the longlived ones by converting them to shortlived
>ones, which then decay. Examples:
>
> Cs135: halflife 3 Myr. Upon neutron capture, it becomes
> Cs136, halflife 13.1 days.
>
> Tc99: halflife 213 kyr. Tc100 has a halflife of 15.8 seconds.
>
> I129: halflife 16 Myr. I130 has a halflife of 12.36 hours.
>
Having read the web site, I see what they are trying to do. of course
transmuting long lived isotopes into short lived ones will increase the
short term activity many fold, but I agree that is a price worth paying
to reduce the long term activity.
Of course it is not that easy in practice as there will be other
reactions as well as capture and other isotopes will do the opposite of
what is wanted, e.g. any Xe-134 around could easily end up as Cs-135.
You just cannot control which reactions you get. (I recall my professor
as a graduate studebt comparing accelerator nuclear physics to trying to
play a mozart sonata by standing at the opposite end of a dark tunnel
from a piano and throwing bricks at it.)
>Excess neutrons are in short supply in reactors, though,
>which is why this incineration is not really practical in
>conventional reactors (especially since you want to use
>thermal neutrons for the transmutation, which depresses
>the neutron yield from fission vs. fast neutrons.)
Yes I can see why accelerators are a better option. Still as their site
readily admits there is a lot to do. Handing molten plutonium fluoride
fuel doesn't sound much fun and the post irradiation chemistry could be
much more complex than reprocessing. Good luck to them - I don't expect
commercial systems quickly. Still, as its a few ten of thousands of
years before most of the Pu-239 disappears of its own accord, time is on
their side I suppose.
--
Nick Eyre
Subject: Re: CFCs ...and the THEORY of Ozone Depletion
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:24:59 GMT
Leonard Evens (len@math.nwu.edu) wrote:
: Volcanic halides do not make it to the stratosphere because they
: are too reactive. CFCs do because they are very stable. In the
: stratosphere they are decomposed by ultraviolet radiation.
: The issue of volcanic sources of Chlorine is thoroughly explored in
: Robert Parson's FAQ. Mr. Bruhns ought to read that and stop
: repeating non-scientific propaganda he has been fed.
: ---
: Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
: Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
: Evanston Illinois
Leonard, I think you have me confused either with Dave
(wingnut@sprintmail.com) and his ridiculous claims, or with
Bob Scaringe, whose message is not visible on my newsreader
this evening.
The truth is that manmade pollution today equals or exceeds the
total emission of all natural sources, including volcanos. Oh,
yes, for a few months a volcano eruption will dominate the scene by
maybe two to one, but after that we are back to pollution as
usual. This can be seen, and its history can be examined back for
thousands of years, by examining Greenland ice borings. One can
clearly see the impact of the industrial age, and the automotive age,
in the residue frozen into the thick Greenland ice crust.
And it is also true that CFCs are very stable, so much so that they
do not decompose until they rise into the critical ozone layer, where
they encounter the high energy solar rays that the ozone layer filters
out. Chlorine, bromine, and nitric ice crystals work together there
to break the ozone down into monatomic and diatomic oxygen. But now
our CFCs are delivering so much extra chlorine to this chemical
action, that the destruction happens too fast, and the ozone is
thinning out too much.
I have misplaced my references on this subject, but if enough people
would be kind enough to attack me, I'll be glad to go regather them.
But, better that you all go and read up on the subject yourselves.
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:24 GMT
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote for all to see:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
>: > Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But things
>: > will have to get _much_ better before the price of fish falls to, say,
>: > its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two and a half times cheaper than
>: > it is today, relative to the CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish
>: > has gone up 40% faster than overall inflation. "We're running out
>: > of fish" doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
>
>: Ah, the price of _what_ fish, where?
>: Are you comparing sardines in the Bay
>: Area or salmon in London?
>
>These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
>of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
>of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
>
>Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
>From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
>rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
You might look at the season's Alaskan Salmon. There is so much some
fisherman are dumping it at the docks, since the price they are
getting won't support their families, due to the market glut.
It's so cheap partly due to salmon farming, BTW.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:21:13 -1000
John McCarthy wrote:
->
-> Scott Susin includes:
->
-> Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But
-> things will have to get _much_ better before the price of
-> fish falls to, say, its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two
-> and a half times cheaper than it is today, relative to the
-> CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish has gone up 40%
-> faster than overall inflation. "We're running out of fish"
-> doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
->
-> 1. "We're running out of fish" suggests that the absolute catch is
-> declining. It isn't. You can give it a different interpretation if
-> you like, but you will mislead people unless you include the
-> interpretation every time you make the statement.
Well John, if there is anyone who is an expert on misleading
people, it's you.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fishery Declines of more than 100,000 tons, Peak year to l992
Species Peak | Peak | 1992
Year | Catch | Catch | Decline | Change
|(. . . million tons . . )|(percent)
Pacific herring 1964 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.5 | -71
Atlantic herring 1966 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 2.6 | -63
Atlantic cod 1968 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 2.7 | -69
Southern African pilchard 1968 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 1.6 | -94
Haddock 1969 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | -80
Peruvian anchovy* 1970 | 13.1 | 5.5 | 7.6 | -58
Polar cod 1971 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.33 | -94
Cape hake 1972 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | -82
Silver hoke 1973 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.38 | -88
Greater yellow croaker 1974 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.16 | -80
Atlantic redfish 1976 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | -57
Cape horse mackerel 1977 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | -43
Chub mackerel 1978 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 2.5 | -74
Blue whiting 1980 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | -55
South American pilchard 1985 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 3.4 | -52
Alaska pollock 1986 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 1.8 | -26
North Pacific hake 1987 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.24 | -80
Japanese pilchard 1988 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 2.9 | -54
TOTALS: | 51.48 | 21.77 | 29.71 | -58
Source FAO.
* The catch of the Peruvian anchovy hit a low of 94,000 tons
in 1994, less than one percent of the 1970 level, before
climbing up to the 1992 level.
From NET LOSS, p.p. 14-15, 1994. (Worldwatch Paper # 120)
Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036 , Tel: 202/452-1999
Fax: 202/296-7365, E-mail: wwpub@igc.apc.org
Subject: Re: Southern Dependency
From: jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 22:44:24 GMT
jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <327EB473.5D69@easynet.co.uk> "sdef!" writes:
: >A. Whitworth wrote:
SNIP...
:
: To draw this conclusion, one must vastly exaggerate the
: importance of natural resources.
:
: The mineral resources of the third, or underdeveloped,
: or backward, or poor, world, were given to it by the
: advanced West - which found the minerals, found
: the proper ways of extracting them, and found
: profitable uses for them.
Disproof by counterexample: China, India, North Africa,
the Incan empire, the Aztec empire, Thialand, Indonesian,
most of the near east, the Turkish empire... (limited only
by my willingness to go to the library and learn more.)
In short, you are an ignoramous.
josh halpern
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:40:19 -1000
John McCarthy wrote:
> Only a few of the minerals mentioned had price hikes. The five
> involved in the Ehrlich-Simon 1980-1990 bet all had price decreases.
>
> The _Limits to Growth_ model was nonsense, and experience verified what
> analysis had shown.
Paul Ehrlich was not part of the Limits to Growth team.
This is what the book was about:
===============================================================
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.
THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL
One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study
published in 1972 under the title The Limits to Growth. Based on
a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by Professor Jay
Forrester at MIT, a large-scale computer model was constructed to
simulate likely future outcomes of the worldeconomy. The most
prominent feature of systems dynamics is the use of feedback
loops to explain behavior. The feedback loop is a closed path
that connects an action to its effect on the surrounding
conditions which, in turn, can influence furtheraction. As the
examples presented subsequently in this chapter demonstrate,
depending on how the relationships are described, a wide variety
of complex behavior can be described by thistechnique.
Conclusions of Pessimist Model
Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first
suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with no
major change in the physical, economic, or social relationships
that have traditionally governed world development, society will
run out of the nonrenewable resources on which the industrial
base depends. When the resources have been depleted, a
precipitous collapse of the economic system will result,
manifested in massive unemployment, decreased food production,
and a decline in population as the death rate soars. There is no
smooth transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather,
the economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the
depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic
behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse (see Figure
1.1).
The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches
to solving the individual problems will not be successful. To
demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily double their
estimates of the resource base and allow the model to trace out
an alternative vision based on this new higher level of
resources. In this alternative vision the collapse still occurs,
but this time it is caused by excessive pollution generated by
the increased pace of industrialization permitted by the greater
availability of resources. The authors then suggest that if the
depletable resource and pollution problems were somehow jointly
solved, population would grow unabated and the availability of
food would become the binding constraint. In this model the
removal of one limit merely causes the system to bump
subsequently into another one, usually with more dire
consequences.
As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that
overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate limit
on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of economic
growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible outcomes:
the termination of growth by self-restraint and conscious
policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the termination of
growth by a collision with the natural limits, resulting in
societal collapse. Thus, according to this study, one way or the
other, growth will cease. The only issue is whether the
conditions under which it will cease will be congenial or
hostile.
The Nature of the Model
Why were these conclusions reached? Clearly they depend on the
structure of the model. By identifying the characteristics that
yield these conclusions, we can examine the realism of those
characteristics.
The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth
coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable
(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases in
that variable will be greater and greater each year. Furthermore,
the higher the rate of growth in resource consumption, the faster
a fixed stock of it will be exhausted. Suppose, for example,
current reserves of a resource are 100 times current use and the
supply of reserves cannot be expanded. If consumption were not
growing, this stock would last 100 years. However, if consumption
were to grow at 2% per year, the reserves would be exhausted in
55 years; and at 10%, exhaustion would occur after only 24 years.
Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
include the amount of available land and the stock of depletable
resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed relative to
the supply of land. The combination of exponential growth in
demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply, necessarily implies
that, at some point, resource supplies must be exhausted. The
extent to which those resources are essential thus creates the
conditions for collapse.
This basic structure of the model is in some ways reinforced and
in some ways tempered by the presence of numerous positive and
negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are those in
which secondary effects tend to reinforce the basic trend. An
example of a positive feedback loop is the process of capital
accumulation. New investment generates greater output, which,
when sold, generates profits. These profits can be used to fund
additional new investments. This example suggests a manner in
which the growth process is self-reinforcing.
Positive feedback loops may also be involved in global warming.
Scientists believe, for example, that the relationship between
emissions of methane and global warming may be described as a
positive feedback loop. Since methane is a greenhouse gas,
increases in methane emissions contribute to global warming. As
the planetary temperature rises, however, it could release
extremely large quantities of additional methane, and so on.
Human responses can intensify environmental problems. When
shortages of a commodity are imminent, for example, consumers
typically begin to hoard the commodity. Hoarding intensifies the
shortage. Similarly, people faced with shortages of food commonly
eat the seed that is the key to more plentiful food in the
future. Situations giving rise to this kind of downward spiral
are particularly troublesome.
A negative feedback loop is self-limiting rather than
self-reinforcing, as illustrated by the role of death rates in
limiting population growth in the model. As growth occurs, it
causes larger increases in industrial output, which, in turn,
cause more pollution. The increase in pollution triggers a rise
in death rates, retarding population growth. From this example it
can be seen that negative feedback loops can provide a tempering
influence on the growth process, though not necessarily a
desirable one.
Perhaps the best-known planetary-scale example of a negative
feedback is provided in a theory advanced by James Lovelock, an
English scientist. Called the Gaia hypothesis after the Greek
concept for Mother Earth, this view of the world suggests that
the earth is a living organism with a complex feedback system
that seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment.
Deviations from this optimal environment trigger natural,
nonhuman response mechanisms which restore the balance. In
essence, according to the Gaia hypothesis the planetary
environment is a self-regulating process.
The model of the world envisioned by the Gaia hypothesis is
incompatible with that envisioned by the Limits to Growth team.
Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops, coupled with
fixed limits on essential resources, the structure of the Limits
to Growth model preordains its conclusion that human activity is
on a collision course with nature. While the values assumed for
various parameters (the size of the stock of depletable
resources, for example) affect the timing of the various effects,
they do not substantially affect the nature of the outcome.
The dynamics implied by the notion of a feedback loop is helpful
in a more general sense than the specific relationships embodied
in this model. As we proceed with our investigation, the degree
to which our economic and political institutions serve to
intensify or to limit emerging environmental problems will be a
key concern.
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:55:31 GMT
Bob Falkiner (falkiner@interlog.com) wrote:
: Harry - I think you've missed the point of these postings....
Actually, Bob... I believe you are actively trying to avoid addressing
the specific point of my post.
:
: New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
: controls.
This is a misconception. First, the overall design of a modern sensor/
computer equipped automobile requires maintenance skills, equipment,
and knowledge far exceeding capabilities of the average mechanic and
automobile repair establishment. Other than dealer service organizations,
which have priced their services out of the reach of a large segment of
the population, few organizations possess the technical diagnostic
capabilities required to service a modern car.
While the automobile is relatively new, the computer controls effectively
control engine operating paramater to optimize pollution minimization
while still achieving some approximation of acceptable performance.
However, as the car ages (lets say 3 years for openers), both sensor
degradation and engine operation exceed the range of correction that
the computer can achieve. (Even if it had meaningful sensor input,
which it usually doesn't at this point.)
It is a given that most mechanics cannot diagnose, yet alone correct
the above condition with any meaningful degree of accuracy. As a
result, in order to achieve an acceptable level of performance,
malfunctions sensors are much more likely to be disabled rather
than being replaced (since the mechanic likely doesn't know which
one -- of many -- is at fault...plus, likely more than one has
degraded to the point of producing erronious is not meaningless
input to the computer.)
Of course, in many instances, nothing at all will be done, and
once computer correction thresholds have been exceeded, the car
will continue in a downward spiral of declining performance and
increasing emissions until that point at which time it will either
no longer run or pass emission testing. Of course, disabling
some of the sensors and computer adjustments may prolong this
stage, but this is scarcely a scenario to be either admired or
taken as a laudable legislative goal.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have done. When we
legislate requirements that force the sale of unmaintainable
(because of their complexity) vehicles, we shoot ourselfs and
our neighbors in the foot, while magnifying profit of the auto
manufacturers.
:
: Old cars are dirty, and tend to get dirtier with age without computer
: controls.
No. Today, old cars today are primarily computer controlled cars where
the sensor and computer system is no longer maintainable and has, more
likely than not, had these components essentially disabled.
:
: 2 cycle engines are very dirty and tend to get very very dirty
:
: so.... if you own a brand new car and an old lawn mower, they are now
: about equivalent in the overall pollution equation.
Citation please. This sounds like a claim from someone that is either
incapable of or unwilling to make meaningful comparisons.
:
: or ... if you own an old van delivering things 10 hours per day, it is
: the equivalent of about 5000 new cars in a typical commuter driving
: cycle.
You're either dreaming, or confusing an old van with a typical city
operated diesel bus! :-)
:
: This is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
: as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
: the urban pollution equation. The consumer and government demand has
: been for reduced tailpipe emissions. Now that 20 years of government
: bureaucracy has been built around this, how do we declare success, even
: after that we've achieved it??
Are you joking? (If LA is the laboratory, the experiment was a decided
failure.
: This is going to be a case study in government rivalling the US space
: program!
Perhaps it's time to return to both the NASA and the automobile that
existed in 1969. Now that would be progress!
Harry C.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:26:33 GMT
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Examples of this form of coercion are to be seen everywhere.
> Automobiles designed to rust, exhaust systems designed to corrode
> away, product life cycles that are several months long that make
> replacement parts impossible to find or more expensive than
> purchasing a new unit.
> There is undoubtedly a huge market for an inexpensive car that has a
> standard and unchanging design that is intended for long life and
> simple repair. No such automobile is currently in production, and
> none is planned. The reason is not that it is impossible. The reason
> is simply because the automotive industry knows that a standard
> design for an automobile will destroy the profitable marketplace
> they have created for themselves.
Scott, why dont you design such a car?
It could be a cooperation between you, retired and young designers,
the "pirate" car spare parts industry and lots of small and medium
sized industries.
> And at the rate at which Yucca is going, it should just about be
> ready to receive waste in 3,000 to 5,000 years.
Political problems are more annoying then technical ones, its hard to
apply logical problem solving on them.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:17:46 -1000
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
-> >-> > Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
-> >-> > include the amount of available land and the stock of
depletable
-> >-> > resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed relative to
-> >-> > the supply of land. The combination of exponential growth in
-> >-> > demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply, necessarily
implies
-> >-> > that, at some point, resource supplies must be exhausted. The
-> >-> > extent to which those resources are essential thus creates the
-> >-> > conditions for collapse.
-> >->
-> >-> Sound conclusion, based on false premises.
>
> >Please elaborate (cite sources).
>
> "the supply of food is fixed relative to the supply of land"
>
> In other words, no allowance for higher yields: the whole world's
> agricultural productivity is frozen at the level prevailing when the
> paper was written (late 1960s, early 1970s perhaps).
>
> This has been proven a very stupid assumption. Indeed, it was then.
> For sources you could start with the FAO Statistical Yearbooks.
(Since the supply of land suitable for agriculture is
decreasing, perhaps their assumption of fixed yield is
wasn't such a bad one.)
In any event, they updated and reran the model 20 years
after the first run and came up with more-or-less the
same results.
------------------------------------------------------------
"In Scenario 1 the world society proceeds along its historical
path as long as possible without major policy change. Technology
advances in agriculture, industry, and social services according
to established patterns. There is no extraordinary effort to
abate pollution or conserve resources. The simulated world tries
to bring all people through the demographic transition and into
an industrial and then post-industrial economy. This world
acquires widespread health care and birth control as the service
sector grows; it applies more agricultural inputs and gets
higher yields as the agricultural sector grows; it emits more
pollutants and demands more nonrenewable resources as the
industrial sector grows.
"The global population in Scenario 1 rises from 1.6 billion in
the simulated year 1900 to over 5 billion in the simulated
year 1990 and over 6 billion in the year 2000. Total
industrial output expands by a factor of 20 between 1900 and
1990. Between 1900 and 1990 only 20% of the earth's total
stock of nonrenewable resources is used; 80% of these
resources remain in 1990. Pollution in that simulated year has
just begun to rise noticeably. Average consumer goods per
capita in 1990 is at a value of 1968-$260 per person per year
-- a useful number to remember for comparison in future runs.
Life expectancy is increasing, services and goods per capita
are increasing, food production is increasing. But major
changes are just ahead.
"In this scenario the growth of the economy stops and reverses
because of a combination of limits. Just after the simulated
year 2000 pollution rises high enough to begin to affect
seriously the fertility of the land. (This could happen in
the 'real world' through contamination by heavy metals or
persistent chemicals, through climate change, or through
increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished
ozone layer.) Land fertility has declined a total of only 5%
between 1970 and 2000, but it is degrading at 4.5% per year in
2010 and 12% per year in 2040. At the same time land erosion
increases. Total food production begins to fall after 2015.
That causes the economy to shift more investment into the
agriculture sector to maintain output. But agriculture has to
compete for investment with a resource sector that is also
beginning to sense some limits.
"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would
have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No
serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the
remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did
this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth
increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and
2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by
85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the
first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the
rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as
many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the
entire century before. So many resources are used that much
more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and
refine what remains.
"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain
in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more
of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic
capital growth.
"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is
physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The
economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture
and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food,
materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So
the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it
the service and agricultural sectors, which have become
dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the
situation is especially serious, because the population keeps
rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in
the process of social adjustment. Finally population too
begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack
of food and health services." [p.p.132-134]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11
You are here----------------+ |10
| _ |9
| _ -|~~-_ |8
V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7
_-~ | ~ _ |6
_- ~ | ~_|5
_-~ | |4
_-~ | |3
____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2
-- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
[P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS;
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8]
BEYOND THE LIMITS is an update to the Club of Rome's 1972
LIMITS TO GROWTH and is endorsed by Jan Tinbergen.
Tinbergen shared the first Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969.
[For a good history of this issue, see:
Neurath, FROM MALTHUS TO THE CLUB OF ROME AND BACK;
M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1994; ISBN 1-56324-408-X
For a detailed book about the Club of Rome itself, see:
Moll: FROM SCARCITY TO SUSTAINABILITY; Peter Lang, 1995.]
For more, see:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page5.htm
Subject: The Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:16:08 -1000
For Immediate Release
Contact: Lisa Magnino at press@islandpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betrayal of Science and Reason
Paul and Anne Ehrlich Chronicle Anti-Environmental Efforts of the
"Brownlash" in Betrayal of Science and Reason
World-renowned scientists and writers Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H.
Ehrlich have long been dedicated to educating the public and
policymakers about environmental issues. Their efforts have
greatly improved our understanding of the impact of humans on the
earth's resources and aided in the passage of environmental
protection measures. Yet, as the Ehrlichs explain in their new
book, "we and other environmental scientists find ourselves once
again struggling to preserve those gains and to keep global
environmental deterioration from escalating beyond repair."
In Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental
Rhetoric Threatens Our Future ($24.95, hardcover), the Ehrlichs
have written a hard-hitting, timely account of the backlash
against environmental policies that they label the "brownlash."
The brownlash distorts and denies mainstream scientific thinking
in an effort to roll back environmental policies in favor of
immediate economic interests. Its message is given voice most
often by individuals aligned with right-wing organizations or
private interests and is propagated in the mainstream media,
which lends it an unfortunate aura of credibility.
As the Ehrlichs explain, the brownlash succeeds in large part
because the public and policymakers alike have a limited
understanding of science and scientific procedure: "To the
average person the scientific process is a sort of black hole, an
alien world of arcane experiments, unintelligible or confusing
results, and peculiar people." Ironically, point out the
Ehrlichs, the very principles that create sound science--such as
peer review, an adversarial framework that subjects accepted
scientific knowledge to continual challenge while ensuring that
any new hypothesis is vigorously tested--create fodder for
opponents' attacks.
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
* natural resources are superabundant, if not infinite
* risks posed by toxic substances are vastly exaggerated
* stratospheric ozone depletion is a hoax
* global warming and acid rain are not serious threats to
humanity
* there is no extinction crisis
* humanity is on the verge of abolishing hunger; food scarcity
is a local or regional problem and is not indicative of
overpopulation
* population growth does not cause environmental damage, and
may even be beneficial.
The Ehrlichs explain clearly and with scientific objectivity the
empirical findings behind these issues, presenting information
that can be used to evaluate and respond to the erroneous
information and misrepresentation put forth by the brownlash.
Betrayal of Science and Reason also examines how brownlash
rhetoric finds its way into the media, citing competition,
deadline pressures, and the emphasis upon trends and controversy
in reporting. The Ehrlichs give numerous examples in which
national news organizations were duped by brownlash rhetoric and
in which journalists sympathetic to the message of the brownlash
almost single-handedly affected public opinion.
In closing, the Ehrlichs encourage scientists to get involved in
educating the public- "if something is worth discovering, it is
worth communicating" - and the public to "get acquainted with the
issues."
Perhaps no other scientist has been the target of brownlash
rhetoric more consistently than Paul Ehrlich, who is routinely
attacked as an alarmist or doomsayer for his work on human
population issues. He is Bing Professor of Population Studies and
professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, and the
author of 30 books, including The Population Bomb. Anne H.
Ehrlich is senior research associate in biological sciences at
Stanford University and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences.
Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric
Threatens Our Future
By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
Shearwater Books/Island Press
Publication Date: October 21, 1996
320 pages, Appendices, index
Hardcover: $24.95 ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
Members of the press: please send two tearsheets of any mention of this
title to our Washington address: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 300. Washington, DC 20009. When providing ordering information,
please use the following: Island Press, Box 7, Dept. 2PR, Covelo, CA
95428;
800/828-1302.
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:30:22 GMT
TL ADAMS (coltom@west.darkside.com) wrote:
: Bob Falkiner wrote:
:
: OK, lets finish this foolishness once and for all:
:
: 1980 emissions ~25 Million tons VOC
:
: Power generation and 0.8 MTons
: comfort heating
:
: Highway sources 5.8 Mtons
: Off-highway sources. 3.8 Mtons
: (Tractors, lawnmowers, chainsaws,
: personal generators)
: Industrial generation 8.7 Mtons
: (Petrol refinery, etc)
:
Nice figures, but do they mean anything. How and by whom were they
obtained? (These figures tend to call the mind the old quote: "There
are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.")
The largest problem that I have with these particular figures is that
they do no seem to corrolate with personal observations made by
experienced, technically literate travelers, or by order of magnitude
with fuel consumption.
First, visit any heavily populated area featuring automobile usage
as a disproportionate component of the lifestyle and (when combined
with poor atmospheric freshening) the poor air quality will be
immediately obvious. LA was a stinkhole when I first began to visit
there over 30-years ago, and in spite of the billions of dollars spent
to combat air pollution, remains an unlivable stinkhole today. (I
don't mean to single out LA, because it has much company in this
(mostly in the Western United States and Mexico), but it is perhaps
the best known example.
Second, fly over and then visit any area withing 300-miles downwind
of the large mid-Western fossil fuel generating stations. By air
you can visually see the plume of pollution as it extends for
hundreds of miles degrading both air quality and poisoning the
soil.
Now, for contrast, visit any part of the country where automobiles
and coal/oil burning power plants are more at parity with other
components of life, including homes, gardens, parks, and other
green spaces. (The land of the power mower, chain saw, fireplace,
and barbaque pit! :-) )
Based upon air quality, in which of these areas would you prefer
to breathe?
:
: Power plants add almost none of the VOC burden to Ozone production.
: Not only are they a small source, most are located far enough away from
: urban sources to not take part in the VOC ozone equation. (NOx is another
: matter)
What you're really saying is that since these are not near you, you
really don't care that they pollute someone else...someone far away from
the populated urban areas.
:
: Small commercial engines are another matter. They are run in peak ozone
: forming season, they are run in the ozone formation area. If you've
: ever lived in an ozone non-attainment area you would know that one of
: the pleads that is issued is for citizens to avoid lawn equipment usuage
: during ozone action days.
On the other hand, I would argue that such areas are so densely populated,
few residents really need a power mower.
(Snip...)
:
: Whats been required for new lawnmowers is pretty low tech stuff. I've
: heard that the estimate is $25-50 dollars for a new system. About
: the cost of the chainbreak on my stihl chainsaw. A basic lawnmower
: cost about $125,
Funny, I can remember when the same thing was said about automobiles.
Anti-pollution adders for a car were estimated by their proponents as
costing roughly $125 (catalytic converter and blower). As it turns
out, pollution control devices on a modern car cost roughly the price
of an engine.
What can one conclude from estimates of this quality? I conclude
that the proponents of such systems, by putting forth estimates of
such poor quality, label themselves as either technically incompetent
or simply liars. Your choice.
: > >
: > > Then too, consider maintenance. We already have a generation of
: > > cars on the road in poor maintenance, since few mechanics are
: > > capable of fixing them properly. Why not add an entire fleet of
: > > poorly functioning lawn mowers as well?
: > >
:
: With Inspection and maintainence program for non-attainment areas,
: I don't think we have fleets of poorly running cars. Maybe you should
: cross post over to one of the automobile groups and get their opinion
: about their competancy.
We could, but would the opinions of admitted car buffs, who likely have
their 'baby' in the shop every month or so for preventative 'tweeking,'
really tell us very much about the maintenance practices of joe average?
Opinions of course vary.
Harry C.
Subject: Re: Environmentalists for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with Re: Environmentalists for human deaths (was Re: Major problem responsibility
From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:33:18 GMT
In article <32829B1B.77EE@easynet.co.uk>,
"sdef!" writes:
>> I suggest that those who oppose the industrial revolution study history. Pay
>> particular attention to the continuous inter-tribal warfare of most native
>> american and other primitive tribes, and the Orwellian-type religious
>> dictatorship that existed in the "civilized" world.
>
>
>There is a problem here.
>
>When your opinions support or go along with the commonly held view of things,
>that which is reiterated time and time again in the mass media, you can make
>short statements full of assumptions, which won't be questioned, as the
>assumptions are shared by the majority of people. All that is debated are minor
>offshoots. The underlying assumptions are not challenged, they are
>unquestioningly accepted as 'facts'.
>
>But when your view is _radically_ different, you do not have the luxury of the
>sound bite. Every sentence needs to be backed up with an explanation, every
>concept has behind it dozens of other concepts which, if not included, will
>only make sense to others who have looked into those concepts, You will not be
>understood.
>
>This may be a solution.
Believe me, I understand this. My views in many areas are radically different
from the predominant "liberal vs. conservative" dichotomy being pushed by
the mass media.
Maybe answering a few of these questions would help:
Are EF'ers "luddites"? (still a bit of a vague term)
Do you necessarily oppose high-technology in all cases, or do you just want
a change in how it's used?
Do you support individual rights/libertarianism?
What's your approach to "value"; where does it come from? Revelation? Logic?
Utilitarian evaluation? Also... who is the relative observer? Man? God?
Who do you think is responsible for more evil: government or private
individuals/businesses? (Government controlled and funded contractors are
basically part of government.)
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:16 GMT
"Mike Asher" wrote for all to see:
>Linda Quinn wrote:
>>
>> When I hear people criticize Reagan for the debt (and both parties
>> were at fault in the 80's) I always want to remind people that the
>> inflation of the 70's was the alternative. It is "Pay me now or pay
>> me later". Either way, we have promised more than we can deliver. I
>> am surprised that inflation has not returned yet. I think it will as
>> it gets harder to pay down the debt.
>>
>
>Several times a year, I hear certain economists wonder why we haven't seen
>massive GNP increases from the use of computers and information technology.
Several problems have a bearing on this. Government spending on
gathering economic data has not increased since the late 70's, despite
an increase in the economy of 30%.
Government statisticans are frequently slow to incorporate the effects
of new technology and better products. Until recently, for example, a
Pentium 166 counted about the same as an IBM 8086. Now the
statisticians have caught up to this, and computer prices adjusted for
differences in quality are plunging at double digit yearly rates. In
most other areas, though, adjusting price changes for improvements in
quality is still inadequate.
Recent studies have pointed out that service sector productivity
increases in the US have far outstripped (by as much as 50%) Europe
and Japan. This is due to US banks installing computer technology.
The service sector has produced most of the new jobs over the last few
decades, and productivity measurements are difficult in this sector.
Last, the consumer price and producer price index are incorrect, and
every measurement is "adjusted" by this to normalize it. Sen.
Moynihan, among others, has pointed out that the CPI could be off 1% a
year (too high). An example of the problem here is that, while there
are hundreds of values for bouts and nut, they are still working on
measurements for semiconductors and communications, a $58 billion
dollar sector of the economy.
> Then I hear other economists wonder why stifling government policies
>aren't dragging the GNP down. Perhaps they should pool their data.
Regards, Harold
-------
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
-----Aneurin Bevan (1962).