Subject: Give Them The World *
From: eric@spherical.com (Eric J Morris)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:35:37 -0800
FAIRHAVEN, WA USA Spherical Visions recently introduced the Nightglow
Earthball, putting a new spin on their popular Earthball reality globes,
the only inflatable globes with cloudforms, representing Earth's essential
atmosphere. Featuring glow-in-the-dark cities, the Nightglow Earthball
brings a new dimension of realism to the world of global imaging. Their
new website at http://www.spherical.com/earth/ features photos and video
clips of Earthballs around the world, and in orbit above it. * Through
December, customers may order these unique globes at a special holiday
introductory rate.
Inspired by the spectacular whole Earth photographs brought back from the
Moon by the Apollo astronauts, and designed with additional NASA and NOAA
satellite images, these colorful model worlds enable everyone to become a
virtual astronaut, viewing planet Earth from the breathtaking perspective
of outer space.
"Global imagery can be powerfully instrumental in developing our awareness
of the one biosphere that we all share" says Eric Morris, director of
Spherical Visions. "We need to give this precious Earth the respect and
care necessary to sustain the incredible diversity of life we enjoy here."
Of over one million Earthballs that have been distributed around the
world, one lucky Earthball was taken into orbit aboard the NASA Space
Shuttle Atlantis on mssion STS-42. It successfully flew nearly four
million miles during 134 Earth orbits with the seven member NASA crew
before returning safely to the planetary surface.
Each Earthball comes with the 18 page Global Handbook which details
educational activities, games to play, and the vital statistics of Earth.
Earthballs have been used as everything from educational tools in
classrooms to friendship gifts by international travelers. Spherical
Visions is also developing new forms of Earthfriendly globes from natural,
durable & biodegradable materials.
If unable to access the web, please e-mail eric@spherical.com or
call/fax/write for more info.
Spherical Visions
http://www.spherical.com/earth
tel: 360-671-8108
fax: 360-971-9668
snail: P.O. Box 4226 Bellingham WA 98227
\\\|/// \\\|///
\\ - - // \\ - - //
( @ @ ) ( @ @ )
+----oOOo----(_)----oOOo------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------+
// Eric James Morris @@@ Spherical Visions //
http://spherical.com/earth AND http://www.nas.com/~eric
// Tel: 360-671-8108 @@@ Fax: 360-671-9668 //
+-----------------Oooo----------------------------------------Oooo-------+
oooO ( ) oooO ( )
( ) ) / ( ) ) /
\ ( (_/ \ ( (_/
\_) \_)
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 06:53:16 -0600
M Simon wrote:
>
> I did read the Scientific American article.
>
> What I can deduce from your post is that we have no idea of the
> relative magnatudes of the various causes for the global warming
> that is observed. I think the final statement of the article
> concurs with this assesment.
>
You should remember that this article is written by those pushing the
solar correlation hypothesis and is certainly not the only thing which
has been written on the subject. The article should not be ignored,
but it should also not be taken as gospel. As usualy, one has to look
at a vareity of sources. For lay people, the best way to do this is to
look in the IPCC Reports. Of course they will also not be entirely
free of bias, but in my opinion they make an attempt to at least mention
all serious work done in an area related to climate change.
> It is folly to base policy on science that can not even give the
> relative magnatudes of the various causes.
>
Again, if you look in the IPCC reports you will find that they do give
relative magnitudes of the various causes. They could of course be
wrong, and in any case there are large uncertainties, but this is the
best information we have now. Just because the information is not as
good as we would like it is not to treat it as totally irrelevant.
As has often been said, `Just because we don't know everything, it
doesn't mean we don't know anything'.
> I do think we ought to get the majority of our fuels from
> biomass. I do not think we should treat the problem as if we had
> to solve it in two or five years.
I don't know any serious person commenting on these matters who has
suggested that. Also, you are being quite a bit more optimistic than I
if you think we will be able to get the majority of our energy from
biomass or any other form of renewable energy at any time in the near
future. For the present, the most sensible way to go, at least for
developed nations, is increased energy efficiency. Of course we should
also switch as much as possible to non-fossil fuels such as nuclear,
solar, wind, biomass, etc. But it may be a while before these can
replace fossil fuel use in significant amounts.
>
> A twenty or thirty year program is probably fine given the
> uncertainties.
>
If you convince everyone to adopt a program on such a time scale you
would be accomplishing something of a revolution in thought. You will
also find a lot of people opposing you on any kind of change whatsoever.
> And if the warming is temporary we might wish to enhance the
> greenhouse gases instead of reducing them.
>
I wish things were that simple. On a long term basis, if there were no
sudden transfer of fossilized Carbon to the atmosphere, we could presume
another glaciation since we are probably now in an intergracial phase in
what is generally a period of ice ages punctuated by interglacial
periods. Unfortunately there are time lags and non-linearities built
into the system. Perhaps some time we will have a precise enogh
understanding of such matters that we can by global engineering maintain
an equitable climate for a long period. But I don't see that happening
any time in the near future. It is more likely that we shall have to
learn means of coping, which is something our species and its
predecessor have been doing for at least a million years.
> I have a book from the 70's with 'proof' of a coming ice age.
> Winters had been colder than 'normal' for a while.
>
There is a common misconception here. Those who worry about enhanced
greenhouse warming base their arguments on the buildup of greenhouse
gases since the beginning of the industrial reovlution. The first such
predictions were made in the 19th century and most notably by Arrhenius
at about the turn of the century. Although there was talk of ice ages
at various points, theoretical climatologists have been aware of the
potential enhanced warming effect of buildup of greenhouse gases for
quite a long time. And they have generally been quite consistent
about that for quite a while, at least back to the 60s.
> ==========================================================
> In the end people get the government they deserve.
>
This also is an oversimplification. Often they get the government
their system of governing produces and sometimes they have little
control over it. Did African slaves in the pre Civil War South get the
government they deserved>
Also today one can make a strong argument that much of what is wrong
with our present government is the result of the voting system we use
rather than any faults in `the people'. If more people were aware of
this simple combinatorial fact, there might be some chance we could
change it. I recommend my colleague Donald Saari's book `The Geometry
of Voting' for more on this matter.
> Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
>
> Simon
I did. VanVogt had a knack for starting with complete nonsense and
making an interesting story out of it. His first novel for example was
based on the concept of the largest prime. But Euclid proved long ago
there is no such thing. In some of his later novels, VanVogt played
around with ideas from Alfred Korzybski's `General Semantics'. His
hero could teleport by making his current condition sufficiently
identical to the condition of where he wanted to be or something
nonsensiscal like that. If you play with language as if any
combination of symbols was meaningful, you can sometimes get some fun
out of it, but one shouldn't take things like that seriously.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: Atanu Dey's Funny Takes on Things.
From: atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey)
Date: 30 Nov 1996 16:59:53 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: On 30 Nov 1996 04:38:53 GMT, atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey) wrote:
: Atanu Dey's posts strike me as slightly twisted at every point.
: Clearly he comes from a culture different from mine, though in some
: cases it's only a matter of his being a culture where it is allowable
: to say things that are only thought in mine.
True, I do come from a different culture. However, why that should
matter in a debate about causes and effects, is not clear to me.
The natural laws are not any different there nor is my mentality
primitive just because I have a different cultural background. My
perception of what is the problem may be different from yours,
though.
I am not sure I follow your second sentence above. Do you mean that
I am guilty of a cultural gaffe?
: However we seem to agree on one thing: since the price of labour is
: rising throughout the world, it is clear that there is no surplus of
: people.
This is the crux of the disagreement then. I do not see how such a
broad generalization is justified. From casual observation of the
labor situation in India, I conclude that there is an overwhelming
surplus of labor. Tasks that can be done efficiently by one person
is often done inefficiently by 10 people - just so that we can
provide 10 with employment. The efficiency loss is staggering.
There is nothing I can say here which could possibly convince you of
the truth of what I believe in; so I shall let it pass.
: Let me add that while Dey's posts seem to be shot through with
: intelligence and sometimes wit, nevertheless they often show a broad
Intelligence? Wit? Surely, you jest.
: and deep ignorance, both of facts and of the way things work. Just to
True. Deep ignorance, factual and perceptual, is more near the
mark.
: give an example here, "restricting" birth rates neither lessens births
: nor population growth; both are reduced by unconstricted family life
: in the presence of hope.
: -dlj.
Why is reducing birth rates not going to reduce population growth?
And in what way have I implied that 'the presence of hope' is not a
major determinant of family size? It is precisely the hopelessness
of the situation that causes people to procreate mindlessly. There
is one sure fire way to break the cycle - forceable reduction in the
family size. The alternatives are horrible to contemplate - mass
starvation or at best, an existence devoid of any humanity.
dlj, I have seen poverty. Not as an abstract number in a learned
journal but in the form of a six year old girl rummaging through
garbage hoping to find something edible. I have asked myself the
reason for the sort of injustice that condemns a potential
bio-chemist, or a painter, or a dancer, or a loving mother, or an
engineer to rummaging through garbage heaps throughout childhood.
What would have been so terrible if that child had not been born?
True, humanity has a glorious future ahead in 50, 100, or whatever
number of years that your calculations indicate that rising global
prosperity will reduce global poverty and all alive then will live
in utopian bliss. But what about the real suffering of real humans
in the interim? Why don't you consider the alternative of reducing
human suffering by seeing that those whose future holds only going
through garbage dumps should not be born in the first place? I can
speak for myself and given the alternative of never existing against
having to spend a joyless miserable existence, I would choose not
being born. Where is the empathy, compassion and the sorrow?
Regards,
Atanu
Subject: Re: THE SUPPRESSION OF IDEAS/A Very Great Compliment
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:51:51 GMT
I wish you would not post such incorrect nonsense to sci.environment, please
keep then in your home groups. I've given some references at the bottom if you
really do want to learn facts. I've only corrected a few of the obvious errors.
Frankly your ignorance is your responsibility, and any person that puts Dr. in
front of their name while posting such junk to a sci.* group should substitute
the term "Quack".
"Dr. Richard X. Frager " wrote:
>Thank you. I am glad you have seen through the State-Paid
>Science "Debunkers" and other useful idiots such as Bosch,
>Twitch and Adams. The battle for truth is being waged and
>I have a feeling our side will win. Thanks again. Dr. R. X. F.
No chance, when you post such a heap of rubbish like the following..
>THE SUPPRESSION OF IDEAS BY THE OIL AND AUTO INDUSTRIES
> by Ed Schilling From the "Earth Island Journal" Spring of 1992
>There were 30,000 cars on US roads before 1900--all powered by batteries.
No. There was a mix of steam, electric and internal combustion
engines in cars at the turn of the century. In 1900, only 28% of
the cars produced were electric [1].
> By 1911 the number was half-a-million-- a fairly even mix of steam, gas and
>electric.
In 1909 the estimate was 10,000 - 20,000 electric vehicles on the
road, and the most ever produced in one year in the first decade
was 4,500 (1910). The most ever produced in one year was in
6,500 ( 1913). In 1903 Henry Ford sold 1,708 cars, and in 1912 he
sold 82,388 model Ts versus the total for electric vehicles of
6,000 for that year [1].
>Henry Ford, sympathetic to farmers, wanted his cars to run on alcohol. But
>John D. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil Trust had another plan--autos powered by a
>new product called gasoline, refined from crude oil. Through the 1920's and
>'30s, a battle raged between proponents of corn-based ethanol and
>hydrocarbon-based fuels.
No. The alcohol available in the 1920s was made from molasses, it was only
during the Second World War, when molasses was in short supply that
large scale 190 degree alcohol production was switched to corn. At no
stage in the 20s or 30s was alcohol cost competitive with gasoline in the
USA. In the 1930s, the cost of gasoline from the refinery was 5c/gallon,
and the cost of ethanol was 20c/gallon at the distillery. [2]
>In 1941, Henry Ford actually built a "biological" car. The body was made from
>soybean-derived "plastics" so dents could be pounded out. the car ran on
>ethanol---a "grain alcohol" derived from corn. Edison supplied some tires made
>from goldenrod. Henry Ford has indeed "grown a car."
Now that's interesting, and probably explains alt.alien.visitors in the
newsgroups line, AFAIK, Edison died in 1931.
>When it came to innovation, GM and Ford were more often followers than leaders.
>Front-wheel drive, four-wheel steering, independent suspension and electric
>starters were a few of the many ideas perfected by smaller companies and
>profitably taken over by GM.
Strange, Kettering set up Delco in 1909, and made the electric self starter for
the 1912 Cadillac, their major customer. Delco was brought by United Moters in
1916 for $9 million ( United already owned their major opposition Remy Electric
Co, and they were trying capture the whole market ), and United was
bought by GM in 1918 for $45 million, not an immediately profitable
takeover, but part of normal market processes. No different to the mergers
and acquisitions that continue to this day.
>The auto lobby's most profitable takeover, however, occurred in the '30s when
>GM conspired with Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Firestone
>Tire and Rubber and others to secretly dismantle the nation's energy-efficient
>electrified mass-rail system.
They were charged and finded for attempting to create a monopoly, it was not
illegal to replace electric with diesel [3]. The author of that reference, Mr
Fischler, is a strong proponent of mass transit, and is thus no friend of GM,
but he does present a lot of information from both sides concerning the
so-called conspiracy.
Although dated, this book extensively documents the subsequent claims
made by Bradford C.Snell in "American Ground Transport" before the
Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly in February 1974, and
the General Motors response to his claims. For anybody interested
in the debate, Mr Fischler provides considerable detail of the claims
and counterclaims, and it is the claims of Mr Snell that provide the
basic for much of the conspiracy theories about destruction of
viable urban transportation systems.
However, as another author [4], notes in in her book while discussing Snell's
claims..
" However, although these companies may have speeded the decline of
of Trolley systems, the same result would have occurred regardless
of the validity of the conspiracy arguement. Transit-system managers
wanted buses because they were less expensive to purchase and operate.
" It did not take illegal conspiracies by giant corporations to induce
private management to put profits before public service" ( Dunn 1981 )."
>THE STIRLING ENGINE
>The Stirling engine, a quiet, virtually pollution-free motor, was invented in
>Scotland by Reverend Robert Stirling in 1816. While this "external combustion"
>motor could run on a wide range of plant, animal or mineral oils, its potential
>was eclipsed by the internal combustion "otto cycle" engine invented by
>Nicholas Otto in 1878.
Stirling engines for transportation have been large, bulky, and with high
manufacturing cost. Durability of piston seals has been as much of a problem
as the effectiveness of seals preventing hydrogen or helium escaping from
the system. The reasons for the lack of success in transportation are detailed
in [5].
>What happened to the Stirling is what happened to rapid transit, to the
>independent automakers, and to innovation generally. As the '80s wound to a
>close, Stirling studies using jet fuels, natural gas, soybeans, sunflower oil,
>ethanol and methanol were all mysterious shelved.
No mystery, read the Stirling Chapter of [5], also note that they were not
all wound up, the Stirling Thermal Motors - Detroit Diesel Consortium
was formed in 1990 to develop and market the STM4-120.
>Early in 1990, prompted by strict new laws requiring "emission free" vehicles
>for the Los Angeles market by 1995, GM rushed to unveil its electric-powered
>Impact. Able to go 125 miles between two-hours charges, the 2000-pound Impact
>claims a top speed of 110 mph. This seems like quite an accomplishment until
>we look at past discoveries and wonder why we are still waiting for a viable
>electric vehicle.
The Impact III was governed to 80mph to obtain an EPA City range of 50-70mi.
If it went faster the range plummets ( due to increasing tyre rolling
resistance as well as the increasing aerodynamic resistance ) It could go 250
miles at 25mph, a bit better than using a bicycle, I suppose [6].
All in all, a rather ignorant post, and consequently followups have
been set to alt.conspiracy only, and I don't read that group..
Bruce Hamilton
[1] " Taking Charge. The electric automobile in America " M.B.Schiffer.
Smithsonian Institute Press ISBN 1-56098-355-8 (1994).
[2] " The Chemical Process Industries" R.Norris Shreve
First Edition McGraw Hill (1945)
[3] " Moving Millions - An inside look at mass transit" S.I.Fischler.
Harper and Row. ISBN 0-06-011272-7 (1979).
[4] " Steering a New Course" D.Gordon ( Union of Concerned Scientists).
Island Press ISBN 1-55963-135-X (1991).
[5] " Alternative Engines for Road Vehicles " M.L.Poulton
Computational Mechanics Publications ISBN 1-85312-300-5 (1994)
Especially the " Stirling " chapter p117-124.
[6] " Driving General Motors' Electric Car. K.Zino
Road & Track January 1994 p.42.
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 19:06:54 GMT
In article <19961130121300.HAA23796@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mnestheus@aol.com wrote:
(Jim Scanlon-I am not sure who wrote what to whom in what follows)
> My previous post should have refered to the second item in his string, in
> which Madison wrote, a propos of anthropogenic Cl:
> ''The scientific method
> requires that all hypotheses be tested.
>
> Just remember what happened to the last politically-correct catastrophe
> theory of "nuclear-winter". It created a whole generation of disturbed
> children until it was found to be based on totally ridiculous assumptions,
> such as a billard-ball-smooth, non-rotating earth. When that theory was
> discredited, it created a demand for a new catastrophe theory. Hence
> global warming (which used to be trendy in the late 1960's as well) and
> most recently, ozone depletion.''
It strikes me as intellectually bizarre for someone to call "nuclear
winter" ridiculous. "Nuclear Winter" presupposes a nuclear war. Having
lived through World War II, I can't regard a Third World War as somehow
tolerable because catastrophic climatic after effects might be based on
unsound assumptions. A lightening bolt strikes a transformer in upstate
New York and 40 million people are blacked out. Just last year, a power
line went down on a hot day in California and practically the whole west
coast was blacked out. A couple of barrels of fuel oil and fertilizer
explode under the World Trade Center and N.Y. is terrorized.
It is no consolation to know that a multi-megaton nuclear war might not
produce a Permian type extinction.
Jim Scanlon
> Hence my reply to Madison's assertion that the past hyperbole in adjacent
> fields of research effects the present contraversy- he brought to bear in
> this case what I wrote about another a decade ago , and I protested thus:
>
> As the author of the critique of''nuclear winter '' that you have
> paraphrased( Q.V. In From The Cold_ The National Interest_ ,fall 1986,
> reprinted in part as a WSJ OP-Ed and complete in the April 20 1987
> _Congressional Record_, I have a duty to advise you that although I regard
> 'nuclear winter as an abhorrent example of what happens when advertising
> and physics collide on the policy front, I consider the conduct of the
> ozone wars within the peer-reviewed literature to have been honorably
> conducted and conclusively persued- on the strength of of the chemical
> evidence ,anthropogenic chlorine has been found guilty as charged. A
> present danger exists in the temptation of the victors to use their newly
> won authority in lieu of data as evidence in the climate change debate at
> large .
> Russell Seitz
--
Subject: Re: Does treating sludge kill cryptosporidium
From: jp10@calvanet.calvacom.fr (J.R. Pelmont)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 21:23:54 +0100
denisg wrote:
> I am looking for any scientific articles that examine the viability of
> cryptosporidium after wastewater/sludge treatment. What are the
> environmental factors which limit cryptosporidium? .......
I think you should use a better news group. This one is flooded by posts
that have nothing to do with real science and sound discussion about the
environment, from a few contributors who pretend they are scientists and
prefer spit on the Pope, third-world leaders, or mankind in general,
with short-sighted views. Usually with no offering of sound facts,
references, true statistics, and so on. Certainly you have to look for
someone knowing about your precise problem.
You may find an answer to a question like yours by subscribing to a
mailing list, such as the Biogroup for remediation. Although it is not
moderated, it seems to work properly so far, because scientists,
engineers, technicians and students contribute to the discussions and
try to help each other. You can help them and as a counterpount ask for
help. This is the copy of the ordinary announcement from the
administrator :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and other administrative information on the BioGroup,
please send a message to rschaffner@gzea.com or webmaster@gzea.com, or
visit the BioGroup Home Page at http://biogroup.gzea.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was just a hint. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide valid
information about Cryptosporidium. Cheers, good luck .
Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 30 Nov 1996 21:30:30 GMT
John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: America has spent enormous amounts of money on "cleaning up the
: environment", including direct Government expenditures at all levels,
: making all activities morre expensive with delays and impact
: statements, and costs imposed on companies and the public. Doubtless
: Lester Thurow, MIT liberal economist, favored these measures.
: Thurow's comments on the standard of living going down doesn't mention
: these benefits and whether they were worth what they cost in spendable
: income for the public. My own opinion is that many of these measures
: are worth less than what they cost.
: Primitive liberals value regulations if they can regard them as
: imposing costs on bad guys, e.g. companies, or as making the public
: shape up, e.g. walk more, smoke less or sort trash. The primitive
: liberal point of view is probably incapable of admitting that favored
: measuers have imposed costs on society.
I plead innocent on this count. Nevertheless, I remain utterly
confused on how to measure such costs. The primitive conservative
method of simply treating the public expenditure as equivalent
to the cost seems to neglect any economic activity that is generated
by the relevant public expenditure.
Microeconomic costs and benefits seem to me to make a lot more sense
than macroeconomic ones. Wealth transferred to the public sector which
then accomplishes useful work and transfers wealth back to the private
sector for doing the work doesn't seem to me to be a total cost. There
may be a cost due to whatever inefficiencies are created by the cumbersome
workings of the public sector, but to treat these as so dominant that
the other economic activity is valueless strikes me as just stupid.
Is all work done by medical doctors in socialized medicine countries
valueless because paid for by tax moneys?
What's the right metric for what things cost society, anyway?
I think McCarthy grossly overestimates the economic drag of environmental
regulations, even in California where they are indeed occasionally
excessive.
mt
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: JMH
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 15:46:56 -0800
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> Evan O'Hara Kane (eokane@eos.ncsu.edu) wrote:
> >
> > You said it yourself - that this is not the ultimate emphasis on people
> > - the ultimate emphasis here is on THINGS. I think I speak for many
> > people when I say that the ultimate measure of standard of living is not
> > numbers of material objects, which is all that money represents.
> > Capitalism's measure of standard of living is like measuring temperature
> > with a yardstick. (It can, in a very convoluted manner, be done, but
> > you'll always be wishing you had a thermometer.)
>
> I think an emphasis on things is very important. If you don't believe
> it, try living in the wilderness without tools. All the emphasis on
> people is not going to feed you and your family. Our current level of
> safety, health, longevity, and all the other good stuff we experience
> is due to emphasis on the *things* which improve our lives. And
> improving our lives is really the ultimate goal. "Caring", in and of
> itself, doesn't feed the kids without "things".
But I think the point, an legitimately at that, was that
"feeding the kids" without caring is not much better, and
the nutritional content of the kid's meals is hardly a good
measure of the standard of living they enjoy. (I think
you'll have to add a certerus paribus condition to make
it work.)
JMH
Subject: Re: Bad Forest Fires Look Like Clearcuts
From: martin steitz
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 11:00:22 -0700
Todd Andrews wrote:
> > On the contrary, the loss of virgin forestlands (among other > > (habitats)
> > and the associated loss of biodiversity has been well documented. A
> > recent study by the National Biological Survey found that 30 types of
> > natural communities
>
> Please do tell what types of "natural communities" these are and what
> benefit they have to human beings.
>
> > have lost over 98% of their land area to human
> > encroachment. 58 communities have declined 85 to 98%, and 38 by 70 to
> > 84%. The main causes are agriculture, logging, and (especially now)
> > sprawling suburban development that consumes the American landscape day
> > after day.
>
> Yes, those horrible capitalist pigs!
>
> > Although forest area in the east has increased the last
> > half-century (mainly though regeneration of abandoned farms and
> > pastures, none is uncut. This is not to say they have no value. In fact,
> > except for the absence of the American Chestnut and the large animals,
> > many eastern forests are very similar in species composition and
> > structure to their presettlement counterpart. But as mentioned, the
> > depressingly vibrant home-building industry is chipping and fragmenting
> > away at a rapid pace. If we desire to conserve the biological richness
> > of the American landscape, we must take action to protect our natural
> > areas from irresponsible logging, real estate development, overgrazing,
> > agricultural expansion, overgrazing, dam-building and diversions, and
> > other such nature-destroying practices, even if it means sacrificing
> > short-term economic gain.
>
> Read: Any development of land, which benefits capitalists.
>
> >If we don't take immediate action, there will
> > soon be little left.
>
> And what effect will this have on mankind? And on the price of beer?
Perhaps I can clear some things up for you. A natural community is a
group a plant and animal species that can always be found together in
association. Thousands of different natural communities can be found on
the Earth. Among the major U.S. endangered types are tallgrass prairies
and oak savammahs that formerly covered the midwest, old-growth
forests along the Pacific coast, longleaf pine forests in the
southeastern plain, and various hardwood forests east of the
Mississippi River.
As for their benefit to mankind, they run the world and make possible
our existence. They maintain a atmospheric composition our bodies
(and our crops and livestock) find tolerable. They heavily influence the
climate, and the production and distribution of rainfall. They cycle the
Earth's chemical substances, breaking down waste products and producing
new biomass. Without these processes, human life would end in a couple
months. They produce most of any seafood you eat, the forage for any
cattle you eat as beef, and heavily influence hydological cycles. The
importance of this cannot be overstated. One merely needs to look at a
map to see how finely civilization is configured to the availability of
water. This is why we are so vulnerable to the changes in weather
patterns that will accompany global warming. A great deal of the west's
political structure has to do with water rights. Try to imagine water
availability being drastically altered, with some rivers drying up and
others flooding. You seem really hung up on the ideas of the "how is it
relevant to me?" self-centered worldview. I believe that nature
possesses an inherent value that we are ethically obligated not to
destroy. Something that evolves over billions of years, defeating the
chaotic tendencies of the world, to produce a rich and varied biosphere,
can only be acknowledged as remarkable at least. There is also no
factual reason to believe in human seperation from or superiority to
nature. But if it must be relevant to you, then so be it.
Environmentalism is fully justified on those grounds as well.
As for "any development of land" being the activities responsible for
nature's decline the last few decades, it is true that the land-use
practices favored by modern capitalism are very destructive. Most
businesses simply don't care about nature, and usually exercise no
concern for the welfare of other species. Hence, vast areas are lost,
and many species are extingiushed. (Scientific estimates put the
casualties at aroud 100 per day.) This is precisely why swift action
is needed to reverse these trends. Secondly, although such practices
may appear economically favorable in the short term, nothing that
results in the loss of biodiversity can be deemed as beneficial to
mankind in the long run. Our survival is dependent on a healthy and
productive biosphere. Without it, we will not survive. It may seem like
"doomsday hysteria", but numbers don't lie, and we cannot escape the
laws of biology. Current trends do not bode well for the survival of
civilization as we know it.
It is apparent that your knowledge of human-environment interaction, and
of how the Earth works, is limited at best. To remedy the situation, I
would recommend to you such resources as the Sep. 89' issue of
Scientific American "Managing Planet Earth" or the book "How many people
can the Earth support?" by Joel E. Cohen. I find a biological meltdown
of my home planet a rather disturbing idea, and so should you.
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 11:15:17 +1100
Jay Hanson (jhanson@ilhawaii.net) wrote:
>Solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface has
>increased over large regions of the planet during the past 15
>years, as the amount of total ozone in the atmosphere has
>decreased, according to a scientific paper published in the
>August 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
Misleading. This does not imply a net loss in ozone.
>Scientists and others have a keen interest in ozone depletion,
>given that the increased amounts of ultraviolet radiation that
>reach the Earth's surface because of the ozone loss, have the
>potential to increase the incidence of skin cancer and cataracts
>in humans, cause harm to some food crops, and interfere with
>marine life.
Yes, but where is the proof?
>"The increases are largest in the middle and high latitudes,
>where most people live, and where the majority of the world's
>agricultural activity occurs," said Dr. Jay R. Herman, an
>atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
>Greenbelt, MD, and the lead author of the paper, "UV-B increases
>(1979-1992) from decreases in total ozone."
Misleading to the point of being criminal! Which "increases are
largest"? Certainly not UV-B as a result of ozone depletion
which only occurs significantly at the poles (where noone lives).
>In the paper, Herman finds that annual average UV-B exposure has
>increased by 6.8 percent per decade
You mean 0.68% annual increase.
This figure is miniscule compared to daily, seasonal and global variations.
By comparison, the decision to spend a day 100 miles closer to the poles,
whether to spend an extra 30 seconds in outside in the sun, or whether to
wear a wide-brimmed hat have far more influence on human health than ozone
depletion.
>Greig Ebeling wrote:
>
>> I have not seen one single experiment yielding data which suggests that
>> ozone depletion results in bio harm. If there is any such data, then
>> please post the reference.
>
> CDC Media Advisory - May 3, 1996
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>CDC Office of Public Affairs (404) 639-3286; or Louise Galaska,
>Deputy Director Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (770)
>488-4226
>
>CDC's National Skin Cancer Prevention Education Program
[...]
Still waiting...
...Greig
