Newsgroup sci.environment 112783

Directory

rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) wrote:
>Greig Ebeling  wrote:
>>You have conveniently missed the 1988 observation which shows that
>>PSCs are critical (which is my point).
> In 1988 the hole had not fully formed.
Because of a lack of PSCs (high temperatures).
> (And even so, the 1988 hole is remarkable by pre-1985 standards.) 
Because there is more Cl due to CFCs.
> Your claim was that the
> "ozone hole has recently reduced in intensity." It has not (aside
> from the post-Pinatubo recovery.)
Let us just say that my observation is correct, but (because of the
effects of Pinatubo) no solid conclusion re effects of anthropogenic
Cl can be drawn from the observation.
[snip]
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, Robert, but aren't you saying here that polar
>>stratospheric ozone depletion has basically peaked, and will not
>>increase appreciably no matter how much CFC is placed in the
>>atmosphere. 
> Plateau'd, rather than peaked. 
OK then, plateau'd.  With no implication of a future trend (up or
down).
>_Incremental_ further increases in Cl will have little effect. 
Interesting.
>_Large_ increases, that could allow rapid
> depletion to occur in other altitude or latitude ranges, is another 
> story altogether.
Another story indeed.  Whether ozone depletion occurs significantly in
the absence of PSCs (ie at other latitudes and altitudes), remains
highly questionable.  A reasonable amount of observational data
demonstrating that this actually can/does occur would be necessary,
before a confident prediction can be made.
[snip]
> Consider the Arctic. Consider middle latitudes. The antarctic is
> simply the place where the stratosphere's 'buffer' is weakest.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, Robert.  My understanding is that
the antarctic is unique because stratospheric temperatures are  more
persistently low, resulting in more PSCs, hence more ClO is available.
> 2.5 ppbv stratospheric chlorine produced ~50% depletion over
> antarctica. 3.5 ppbv stratospheric chlorine has produced incipient
> ozone hole phenomena in the arctic. 
PSCs also occur to a lesser extent over the arctic, but they are less
persistent than in the south, so polar ozone depletion is much less
than in the south.  To suggest that it is incipient wrt Cl ppvs is not
consistent with the observation of "plateau'ing" in the south, which
is due (put simply) to exhaustion of the ClO generation process due to
PSCs.  The observation indicates that increased Cl concentration will
not increase polar ozone depletion, since PSC supply is the limiting
factor.
> And on top of this the stratosphere
> is cooling and is likely to continue doing so for many decades
Yes indeed, there appears to be a cooling trend, which I understand is
due partly to increased CO2, but mostly due to ozone depletion itself.
With the current "plateau'ing" of ozone depletion, we could perhaps
predict a corresponding plateau wrt to stratospheric temperature.
> Do you know what the third coldest place in the stratosphere is?
> No, not middle latitudes - it's the _tropical_ stratosphere.
Unless you are prepared to predict the appearance of PSCs, or a long
polar night, at the tropics, then I fail to see the relevance of this
observation to ozone depletion.
[snip]
>>* If evidence of bio harm is not forth-coming, it is possible that
>>developing countries can delay signing the MP, and thereby continue to
>>use CFCs indefinitely.
> They've already signed.
Of the 149 nations which have ratified the protocol, only 44 have so
far actually signed it.
> And the fact that tropospheric halocarbons
> are already beginning to decrease makes this a moot point.
Whether they continue to decrease depends on all nations observing a
ban on CFCs, which is yet to occur, and is not guaranteed.
But as I have been trying to point out, the amount of tropospheric
halocarbons is not important.  What concerns me is that there is an
economic and political imbalance between developed and developing
nations, and also between the developed nations which are already a
party to the protocol.
[snip]
>>Your references demonstrate that there is a trend in PEAK ozone loss,
>>but does not indicate a NET loss.  Each year, in summer, ozone levels
>>return to seasonal normal levels. 
> False. Mid-lat Ozone depletion is seen in _all seasons_. 
Well, yes, to varying degrees, and consistent with the mixing of ozone
poor polar air in the mid-latitudes.  But these drops are small
compared to seasonal variations.
> The following table, extracted from a much more detailed one in
>[Herman et al.], illustrates the seasonal and regional trends in
>_percent per decade_ for the period 1979-1990:
> Latitude      Jan     Apr     Jul     Oct      Example
>  65 N        -3.0    -6.6    -3.8    -5.6      Iceland
>  55 N        -4.6    -6.7    -3.1    -4.4      Moscow, Russia
>  45 N        -7.0    -6.8    -2.4    -3.1      Minneapolis, USA
>  35 N        -7.3    -4.7    -1.9    -1.6      Tokyo
>  25 N        -4.2    -2.9    -1.0    -0.8      Miami, FL, USA
>   5 N        -0.1    +1.0    -0.1    +1.3      Somalia
>   
>   5 S        +0.2    +1.0    -0.2    +1.3      New Guinea
>  25 S        -2.1    -1.6    -1.6    -1.1      Pretoria, S. Africa
>  35 S        -3.6    -3.2    -4.5    -2.6      Buenos Aires 
>  45 S        -4.8    -4.2    -7.7    -4.4      New Zealand
>  55 S        -6.1    -5.6    -9.8    -9.7      Tierra del Fuego
>  65 S        -6.0    -8.6   -13.1   -19.5      Palmer Peninsula 
>---------------------------------------------------------------
Bearing in mind that this table does not actually show seasonal
variations, but the variations for each season from year to year.  It
also does not show daily and global variations which are also very
large by comparison with the figures.
Since I have not seen the original table in Hermann et al., I am left
to wonder how these figures were extracted.  Are they a direct
comparison between 1979 and 1990, or perhaps between the peak values
during that period?  Since I presume you made the extraction, Robert,
perhaps you could satisify my curiosity.
> The fact is, the "saturation" of antarctic ozone depletion has had
> no observable effect on the downward trend in mid-latitude ozone.
I would have said that it is far too early to make that observation
considering the disturbing effects of Pinatubo on the data.
> BTW, the mid-latitude trend is more like 4.5% per decade. You get
> 3% when you average in the tropics as well.
Why is it not appropriate to include the tropics?  Surely the
mid-latitude process (action on the sulphate aerosol layer and gas
phase mechanism), should occur equally at the tropics.  I note that
the table extracted from Hermann et al. shows that this does not
occur.  Why is that?
>> Also, and by your own admission in your FAQ, the
>>current levels are very small compared to daily, seasonal and global
>>variations, 
> So what? That does not render them irrelevant.
Well, no, not irrelevant.  Just insignificant wrt terrestrial UV-B
levels and natural biological resistance to UV damage.  And at the end
of the day, that is what is important.
[snip}
> The lack of conclusive evidence of increased UV-B is primarily due
> to the fact that we do not have a "pre-ozone-depletion" baseline for it.
But we do have a sufficient "pre-ozone-depletion" baseline for
prediction of trends in ozone loss?  You can't have it both ways.
>>Interesting assumption on which to base a THEORETICAL analysis.  And
>>where is the data to back up this assumption?  D'oh!
> Why not pursue the subject and learn where the data is? Learn
> something about atmospheric radiative transfer and UV photobiology.
I have become quite used to individuals accusing me of ignorance, as a
cover for their own lack of ability to engage the questions I raise.
I had previously thought, Robert, that you are above that method of
obfuscation.
DeGruijl's paper predicts a correlation between ozone loss and cancer.
If the correlation was between UV-B exposure and cancer, I would
accept it.  But since the jury is out when it comes to correlating
ozone loss and increase UV-B exposure, DeGruijl has made an
inappropriate leap of faith in his conclusion.
> These are mature subjects with an extensive literature. Nonmelanoma
> skin cancer, particularly squamous cell carcinoma, is one of the
> best understood of all cancers - the mechanism is known in detail
> at the molecular level. The dose-response curve is well known.
> The UV trends themselves aren't well known, but that situation
> is finally changing.
I don't doubt any of this Robert.  But it's off the point.  The issue
is this: is there a correlation between ozone depletion and
significant increases in exposure to UV-B, and if/when this occurs is
the harm consistent with our efforts to prevent it.  If a correlation
or cost/benefit can't be shown, then all the knowledge in the world
about UV/cancer and CFC/ozone loss yields nothing of any relevance (ie
its a storm in a teacup).
[snip]
>>As I have already pointed out, mid-latitude UV-B measurements are not
>>relatively high, particularly when the measurements are made under a
>>photochemical haze.
> The latitude of San Diego is about the same as Casablanca, Morocco;
> Jerusalem, Israel; or Lahore, India. These are not exactly low-UVB
> environs. 
You ignore cloud cover, and the many other ways in which this curious
little statistic can be manipulated.
> As for "photochemical haze", San Diego is not Los Angeles.
Show me a North American city unaffected by car exhaust pollution.
> You claimed that "ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant
> UV increase." I submit that springtime UV on the Antarctic Peninsula
> that exceeds summertime UV in San Diego is hardly "insignificant."
I did not say that UV increase AT the poles was insignificant, only
that polar ozone depletion resulted in insignificant increases in UV
exposure (in populated areas ie mid latitudes).
>>You also know that the hole centres over the Antarctic continent.  
> Not always - it is often off-center.
But, nevertheless, centred over the Antarctic continent. 
[snip]
>> Significance to biological harm!?
> Smaller in magnitude, and a much longer time lag before the effects
> become important, but nevertheless significant in the long term.
Only if ozone depletion can be translated into increased UV-B
exposure.  If this correlation cannot be shown then ozone depletion,
and its presumed implications, is irrelevant and does not justify the 
expense of CFC abolition.
...Greig
PS I have snipped the issues, history of photospectrometric
measurement, and natural stratospheric chlorine budget.  For brevity
and the sake of others, I must concede, bowing to Robert Parsons
greater knowledge on these subjects.  They are also not very important
to my overall thesis regarding the state of the tea-leaves in my
morning cuppa.

In article <58oauk$l42@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
   tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
(BIG BIG CUT) 
>    You admit that we should study the emission "problem". But you are
>living in the past. The world has "seen that, done that". For decades,
>action in reducing emissions of all kinds has been implimented.        
>    Your type would advocate the removal of warning labels on
>cigerettes until there is more study on the health effects of smoking. 
Again, you are incorrect about my reasoning.  I would probably advocate the 
removal of warning labels on cigarettes, but for a different reason.  We 
already know that cigarettes are harmful.  We also know that 25% of the 
population is so stupid, that warning labels will not do them any good.  We 
may as well save the time and effort of trying to warn that population.  
It's just too bad that those stupid folks live long enough to reproduce!
The translation is: I, unlike you, do not intend to try to save everyone 
from themselves.  I have enough humility to realize that I cannot 
adequately run everyone else's life better than they can.  Too bad the 
enviros are not equally wise.

If you know what day Earth Day 97 is on, could you please post?
Thanks in advance

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> On 13 Dec 1996 03:12:01 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
> >
> >As I read more of the crap you write, you prove yourself to be more
> >and more ignorant. The most important resources needed to produce food
> >are: topsoil, water and sunlight. In fact these are the _only_
> >resources needed, so Rick's point that rural areas can survive without
> >the cities is quite true. The opposite is not true because there are
> >not sufficient quantities of these resources in cities to grow the
> >necessary food.
> 
> J,
> 
> We were not discussing whether the areas could survive.  The
> discussion was entirely focussed on whether the people there could
> survive.
> 
> People in cities can always get food.  If they had not had a lot of
> resouces at their fingertips they would not have built the city in
> their spare time.  People in the countryside, by contast, are usually
> dolts hired to pick rocks out of the horses' way, and suchlike.
> 
> The plants will grow with sunlight and water, with or without the
> human race.  Putting them to human use, however, is altogether the
> result of urbane intellectual activity.
> 
>                                                            -dlj.
If areas without buildings and asphalt were to disappear, the same would
not happen to rural areas. Rural economies would collpase, but I suspect
people currently living there would still survive. (After all, we did
this for quite awhile in Africa, and later, Europe.) On the other hand,
if all the earth were to disappear except for built-on areas, every
person in them would die of starvation, thirst, or suffocation before
long. I acknowlege that many things aren't considered valuable until
they are processed in a factory, but that doesn't change the fact that
non-urban areas do the producing, and thus are the essential element.

Can anyone point me to a site - or send me the tables - that has the
US/Metric conversion tables for common weather units?  (ie: inches of
mercury to it's metric equivalent, etc)
Mark
mark@tal.net

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:19:07 EDT, Toby Reiter 
> wrote:
> 
> >Here's why: all of your assumptions about the necessity of cities is
> >based upon a consumer-based view of agriculture. Fertilizer, trucks,
> >research, subsidies, and even bureaucratic education (the kind that comes
> >from cities) is required to produce healthy, productive harvests. Using
> >old-fashioned organic methods, solar-powered tractors (you know, the ones
> >that have babies), and intimate knowledge of the land and seasons it is
> >possible to create just as bountiful a harvest as using sick land with
> >artificial fertilizers, artificial seeds, and oil based tractors.  The
> >idea that agriculture needs the stock exchange in order to survive is
> >inherently inaccurate (what happened before there was a Chicago, for
> >instance).
> >
> >I'd like to see a city try and survive without any rural inputs. The
> >truth is that it can't.  Cities, because they are inhabited, cannot
> >provide their own raw materials, even if people are willing to conserve
> >every single waste product and turn it into something useful (which they
> >aren't.)  Even if this did occur, it would be impossible to insure clean
> >water and fuel supply unless rural resources were imported.
> 
> Toby,
> 
> The two paragraphs above are the most stunning combination of
> technical halfwittedness and moral offensiveness that I have seen in
> quite a while.
> 
> You should log off your computer when you leave it, to prevent people
> from posting stuff like that with your name on it.
> 
>                                                           -dlj.
Other than the comment about the tractors (I don't get it, anyway), I
found Toby's comments quite valid. It was a demonstration of how the
ground rules of ecology control our lives in more ways than you might
imagine.

Off topic newsgroups snipped.
On 14 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> In article <32B1E896.551D@xmission.com> Jim  writes:
>   
>  > John McCarthy wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > The main error of this post is that Reiter's teacher (Could he tell us
>  > > the name, so we could argue with the ventriloquist rather than with
>  > > the dummy?) is to neglect labor costs.  Labor costs dominate any kind
>  > > of recycling.  People will do a certain amount of separating trash for
>  > > a while when pumped up by a cause, but they will slack off when the
>  > > next excitement comes along.
>  > > 
>  > The part about labor costs is quite true, and it demonstrates precisely
>  > why government intervention is required to get recycling going. As for
>  > the part about people just not wanting to cooperate, most people would
>  > cooperate with curbside pickup, but some people won't, and I suggest
>  > that a law is not a terrible infringement on personal liberties, since
>  > they are having their garbage hauled away and disposed of for them.
> 
> If you make an absolute of recycling, you will indeed require
> coercion.  My own opinion, and I have references to a CMU study by
> Lester Lave with the same conclusion, is that recycling, except as
> done for profit, is a bad idea.  We are not running out of anything
> that isn't substitutable at reasonable cost.  If you think we are, say
> what and why.
Biological diversity. Using more and more resources tends to impact
ecosystems, and reduces biological diversity, whether one is talking about
coal, oil, timber, or fish. There is also no replacement for it, unless
you agree with the late Michael fern (gone from the 'net for some time),
that biological diversity is all being "saved", or alternately, can be
"recreated" via "technology". 
Dave Braun
> 
> Any Government that makes recycling very coercive deserves to be voted
> out, and will be voted out - just as prohibition was voted out.
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> 

Not long ago, I read an article about Disney's plan to capture and 
import several exotic species from Africa.  If anyone knows where I can 
find this complete text, please let me know, or re-post here.
Thanks.
--
Tom Mueller
a014293t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Student BCC           Major=
Computer Information Systems

Dave Newton wrote:
>    What do you do with the nuclear waste?
Isolate it from the environment by using natural and engineered
barriers.
John Hughes
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own and not from my employer.

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> On 12 Dec 1996 14:54:44 GMT, cs2@newton.npl.co.uk (Clive Scoggins)
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <58endv$fg3@news.inforamp.net>, dlj@inforamp.net says...
> >>
> >>If it were true that we threw away useable material in any large
> >>quantity, then it would certainly follow that were were wasteful.
> >>What useable material do you see being thrown away where?
> >
> >Have you ever SEEN a landfill?
> 
> Yes.  When I was a kid you used to see old car bodies at the dump:
> stripped of every ounce of copper and lead, the tires, the dials, and
> everything of any use at all, but the rusted out bodies would still be
> here and there.  Now you can't even find a $50 car body at the dump:
> they go straight to the shredder.
> 
> The last time I walkd across a landfill was a couple of years ago: in
> the Royal York Road area in western Toronto.  All the homes are in the
> million dollar plus range because they back onto the sewage plant,
> which means there's lots of open space and fresh air.
> 
> The last time I walked over an _open_ landfill, i.e. one that had not
> yet been filled, was a few years before that, outside Tokyo.  I didn't
> see anything that could have been sold for a yen -- though the great
> separation plants to pull out the burnables for district heating had
> not yet been built.
> 
>                                                           -dlj.
> 
I see very many things of use being thrown away, namely paper, plastic,
metal, glass, etc. These can easily be reprocessed into new product.
Unfortunatly, it is currently more profitable to simply discard these
things, do more mining/logging/drilling, and make new product from
virgin material. Hence, recycling is currently making few market
inroads. It's an ideal example of why free-market economics is not
perfect.

> ... But on Jan 20 1991 Sagan did indeed tell _Nightline_'s viewers that
> the transport ofsmoke from the Kuwait  oil fires would lead to a failure
> of the monsoon and precipitate a famine in south Asia. 
`Would' or `might'?
-- 
Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve
Some years previously , after Sagan  had given a vivid description of the
~100,000,000 megaton  K-T impact event and its consequences, his host on
_Nightline_ , Ted Koppel ,asked:
''Like nuclear winter?''
Sagan instantly replied:
''Exactly.''
as to 'would' versus 'could',
in the case of the Jan 20 1991 broadcast, a transcript can resolve the
question- my recollection is that even if the tense were subjunctive, the
emphasis was hortatory .

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> The main error of this post is that Reiter's teacher (Could he tell us
> the name, so we could argue with the ventriloquist rather than with
> the dummy?) is to neglect labor costs.  Labor costs dominate any kind
> of recycling.  People will do a certain amount of separating trash for
> a while when pumped up by a cause, but they will slack off when the
> next excitement comes along.
> 
The part about labor costs is quite true, and it demonstrates precisely
why government intervention is required to get recycling going. As for
the part about people just not wanting to cooperate, most people would
cooperate with curbside pickup, but some people won't, and I suggest
that a law is not a terrible infringement on personal liberties, since
they are having their garbage hauled away and disposed of for them.

If you are really interested in this asteroid phenomenon, you might look up
a book by Immanuel Velikovsky by the title of Worlds in Collision.  It was
written in 1950.  I have been reading it and it brings up many histories of
the world and cultures where the natives describe some of the things that
happened when "the skies were at war".  He brings up the hypothesis that a
comet may very well have been the cause for many of the so called plagues
during the time of Moses in the Bible.  His studies show that many
traditions correspond quite well with what was happening in Egypt at the
time and shows that it happened all over the world.  
Check it out.
brad

Mark (mark@tetherless.net) wrote:
: Can anyone point me to a site - or send me the tables - that has the
: US/Metric conversion tables for common weather units?  (ie: inches of
: mercury to it's metric equivalent, etc)
:
  I say, the heck with conversion.  Just USE the metric system, and you'll
know what the measurements mean.  The simplest is probably temperature.
Let's see, water freezes at 0 so "below 0" is below freezing.  And 37 is
"normal" body temp, so temps in the mid-30's and up are pretty darn hot.
Temps in the low 20's are comfortable room temps for U.S.-ers.

>As I read more of the crap you write, you prove yourself to be more
>and more ignorant. The most important resources needed to produce food
>are: topsoil, water and sunlight. In fact these are the _only_
>resources needed, so Rick's point that rural areas can survive without
>the cities is quite true. The opposite is not true because there are
>not sufficient quantities of these resources in cities to grow the
>necessary food. 
Does anyone else think this argument is silly?
Of course, if the ocean rose up and swallowed every city on Earth, the
rural areas could still produce enough food and other goods to enable their
inhabitants to eke out a meager existence.
Of course, if aliens dropped huge walls around any city and prevented any
commerce between the city and its surroundings, there would be mass
starvation within the city.
So what?  Production of food is where rural areas have a comparative
advantage; urban areas have a comparative advantage in the production of
manufactured goods, information services and whatever else you'd like to
add.  Trade benefits both; neither is a parasite on the "host" of the
other.
Don

In article <58s8au$c68@xanadu.cs.ubc.ca>,
	spears@cs.ubc.ca (Matthew Spears) writes:
>    Both nuclear power and fossil fuels have done and can do extreme damage to
>the environment.  What I question is why there hasn't been much attention
>focused on alternative energy sources.  Solar power, wind power, tide power,
>storage of power, etc.  There's lots of energy out there, and a few scientists
>here and there have pointed out that all the above are feasible.
As I recall, more money has been and is spent on the development of alternative
energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) by the U.S. government than on the
entire U.S. nuclear program (nuclear power-- not including weapons).  It would
seem that quite a bit of attention has been focused on "alternative" power
sources.
The problem with most "green" sources of energy is that they are usually too
diffuse to be practical for large scale power generation.  Solar is way too
diffuse for just about anything except powering low-power electronic and
computer devices.  Wind is intermittant.  Tide power might be as good as
hydroelectric (I don't know much about it), but it would only be available in
coastal areas.  Storage of power is difficult without losing a lot of it.  And
so on...
I do think that biomass, if properly developed, could have a future for the
generation of "medium" amounts of energy-- for suburban residential areas and
rural areas.  For example, unused areas of land such as lawns on industrial
property, freeway medians, vacant lots, etc. could be allowed to grow wild and
then harvested for the local biomass energy substation.  This way, all these
unused lands could act as one large solar collector.
>    My line of thought is another question: who gets rich?  Oil companies get
>rich if we continue with fossil fuels.  Other companies get rich with nuclear
>power.  I don't see any large existing company getting rich with alternative
>energy sources.  Since the government of the US is directed largely by the
>rich elites and large corporations, this gives a good reason why there hasn't
>been much incentive.
-
If biomass, for example, is developed into something practical then I can
easily see companies getting rich off of it.  The reason nobody is getting
rich off of alternative energy is because most alternative energy sources are
not practical.. so nobody but the government is willing to try to invest in
them.  If someone discovers a practical alternative energy source (cold
fusion???) then you'll see people getting rich off of it.
>>"If we run into such [government] debts, as that we must be taxed in our
>>meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors
>>and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of
>>England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in
>>twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the govbernment for
>>their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to
>>afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes,
>>have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but
>>be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on
>>the necks of our fellow-suffers."
>>--Thomas Jefferson
>
>   Nice quote, look deeper into it.
>
>   It's good evidence on how the media propaganda system works.  Look how 
>easily people identify with large corporations.  If I'm to prosper, they have
>to.  If Shell and Exxon go bankrupt, the third world will take over!
>    
>   The environmental issues are very real.  There will always be people like
>Rush Limbaugh who say it's all shit, giving "facts" normally inadmissable in
>any scientific inquiry. (Check out http://www.fair.org/fair/ for a number
>of reports on him)
>
>   I don't care if the GNP is healthy and keeps growing and inflation is under
>control if the environment goes to hell.  That's where we live, and much of 
>good health comes from living in a good environment.
I suggest you take a look at "green libertarianism."

In article <58s8au$c68@xanadu.cs.ubc.ca>,
	spears@cs.ubc.ca (Matthew Spears) writes:
>    Both nuclear power and fossil fuels have done and can do extreme damage to
>the environment.  What I question is why there hasn't been much attention
>focused on alternative energy sources.  Solar power, wind power, tide power,
>storage of power, etc.  There's lots of energy out there, and a few scientists
>here and there have pointed out that all the above are feasible.
As I recall, more money has been and is spent on the development of alternative
energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) by the U.S. government than on the
entire U.S. nuclear program (nuclear power-- not including weapons).  It would
seem that quite a bit of attention has been focused on "alternative" power
sources.
The problem with most "green" sources of energy is that they are usually too
diffuse to be practical for large scale power generation.  Solar is way too
diffuse for just about anything except powering low-power electronic and
computer devices.  Wind is intermittant.  Tide power might be as good as
hydroelectric (I don't know much about it), but it would only be available in
coastal areas.  Storage of power is difficult without losing a lot of it.  And
so on...
I do think that biomass, if properly developed, could have a future for the
generation of "medium" amounts of energy-- for suburban residential areas and
rural areas.  For example, unused areas of land such as lawns on industrial
property, freeway medians, vacant lots, etc. could be allowed to grow wild and
then harvested for the local biomass energy substation.  This way, all these
unused lands could act as one large solar collector.
>    My line of thought is another question: who gets rich?  Oil companies get
>rich if we continue with fossil fuels.  Other companies get rich with nuclear
>power.  I don't see any large existing company getting rich with alternative
>energy sources.  Since the government of the US is directed largely by the
>rich elites and large corporations, this gives a good reason why there hasn't
>been much incentive.
-
If biomass, for example, is developed into something practical then I can
easily see companies getting rich off of it.  The reason nobody is getting
rich off of alternative energy is because most alternative energy sources are
not practical.. so nobody but the government is willing to try to invest in
them.  If someone discovers a practical alternative energy source (cold
fusion???) then you'll see people getting rich off of it.
>>"If we run into such [government] debts, as that we must be taxed in our
>>meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors
>>and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of
>>England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in
>>twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the govbernment for
>>their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to
>>afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes,
>>have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but
>>be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on
>>the necks of our fellow-suffers."
>>--Thomas Jefferson
>
>   Nice quote, look deeper into it.
>
>   It's good evidence on how the media propaganda system works.  Look how 
>easily people identify with large corporations.  If I'm to prosper, they have
>to.  If Shell and Exxon go bankrupt, the third world will take over!
>    
>   The environmental issues are very real.  There will always be people like
>Rush Limbaugh who say it's all shit, giving "facts" normally inadmissable in
>any scientific inquiry. (Check out http://www.fair.org/fair/ for a number
>of reports on him)
>
>   I don't care if the GNP is healthy and keeps growing and inflation is under
>control if the environment goes to hell.  That's where we live, and much of 
>good health comes from living in a good environment.
I suggest you take a look at "green libertarianism."

I have deleted newsgroups for which a reader request ttheir deletion.
Reiter takes as authorities people who are far out of the mainstream
and whom I do not accept as authorities.  Is it intentional that
Reiter pretends that I take my views from Limbaugh, counting on people
not knowing that I have never taken Limbaugh as an authority, although
a long time ago I did defend Limbaugh against a particular unwarranted
attack.
Lovins has received substantial support for many years and has never
been able to make good on his cost claims for the energy sources he
favors.
The collective intelligence of the ant hill in Goedel, Escher, Bach is
a fantasy of Hofstadter's.  He would not have wanted Reiter to take it
as evidence of anything.
How do you know Orr is "one of the best environmental studies
teachers" if he has been your only teacher?  Some day you will take a
course from someone who disagrees with him.
Creating more jobs in the economy is not in itself a virtue.
Basically it means reducing pay if more people produce the same
output.  As productivity has multiplied in the last two centuries, the
economy has created jobs so that the percentage unemployed has not
increased.  100 years ago the economy was 50 percent farm workers; now
it is two percent.  Almost all the farmers' sons had to get other jobs
producing other things people want.
I don't know Young and Sachs, but an article isn't proof.  Have you
read any reviews of their article by people who disagree.
You aren't saving the earth and are wasting your time.
You have invented me to suit your image of a person who disagrees with
you.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:06:24 GMT, wf3h@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>The fact is the Roman Catholic view of family life, including sex,
>>leaves plenty of room for birth control.
>
>"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or
>in its accomplishment....proposes, whether as an end or as a means to
>render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" "the Catechism of
>the Catholic church", paragraph 2370. doesnt sound like plenty of room
>for birth control to me.
I'm pleased to see that somebody knows where to look up Catholic
doctrines.  For those of you who don't know, the Catechism of the
Catholic Church is a useful reference work.  RC teachings are usually
presented as a series of separate documents on individual topics.  The
CCC summarizes and collects all this information in one place.  You
can look up your topic of interest in the index and see what the RC
Church teaches on it.  If you are interested in more detail, the
footnotes can direct you to the original documents.
While I am pleased that Bob has quoted this source, he does not appear
to have understood what the CCC said on this topic.  He left
out the first half of paragraph 2370 which says,
"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based
on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity
with the objective criteria of morallity.  These methods respect the
bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favour
the education of an authentic freedom.  In contrast. . ."
Then follows the part of the paragraph that Bob quoted and a brief 
explanation of why there is a distinction made between artifical and
natural methods.  It concludes, 
"The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception
and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final
analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human
sexuality."
In my observation, this distinction between kinds of methods is based
on abstract, philosophical considerations that do do not seem
meaningful to many people.  I suspect this is why the majority of RCs
in Western countries do not follow this teaching.  Personally, I agree
with it, but then I constantly have abstract, philosophical
considerations that are not meaningful to many people.  :-)
It is quite clear in the CCC that there is no RC prohibition against
birth control, in itself, but against certain methods of achieving it.
Paragraph 2399 even contains the statement that "the regulation of
births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and
motherhood."
>you know, it's funny...at the cairo and beijing conferences when
>discussions took place about family planning, the holy see allied
>itself with Iran and Iraq in opposing wider distribution of family
>planning information.
Are you sure that it was the distribution of information that the Holy
See was opposing?  Just down the page from your quote is paragraph
2372 which says:
"The state has a responsibility for its citizens well-being.  In this
capacity it is legitmate for it to intervene to orient the demography
of the population.  This can be done by means of objective and
respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive
measures.  The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of
spouses, who have the primary responsiblity for the procreation and
education of their children.  It is not authorized to promote
demographic regulation by means contrary to the moral law."
The RC Church is strongly opposed to forced sterilization and
contraception.  I suspect this is behind the stand taken at the Cairo
and Bejing conferences. It promotes, however, the spread of family
planning methods that it finds acceptable.  Mother Teresa's nuns, for
example, learn how to be Ovulation Method instructors as part of their
novitiate training.
> We have recently fought a war against an
>imperialist iraq, and iran is presumed to be behind the recent bombing
>in Saudi Arabi which killed a number of US service personnel. the
>vatican routinely allies itself with terrorists and killers merely to
>ensure that women remain pregnant.
This is just like the kind of argument that people used to make
against atheists.  They would say that the Soviet Union was an
atheistic country therefore atheists were allying themselves with the
enemies of their country who were evil killers.
There are two (at least) fallacies in this kind of argument.  This
kind of extreme demonizing of an enemy is usually more propoganda than
fact.  I treat it with suspicion.  Even if these claims were true,
sharing a characteristic with an evil group does not necessarily prove
another is evil.  What you have been trying to establish, Bob, is
guilt by association.  Most people do not accept this principle.
Personally, I find this kind of statement unacceptable, whether it is
applied to atheists or to the Vatican. 
Jayne

This is quite true -- the existance of unemployment results from a poorly
functioning labour market interacting with insufficient aggregate demand. 
In the long run, any set of policies (except arguably those which disrupt
the functioning of the labour market) will not "cost jobs".
That is not to say that environmental regulations do not impose costs.  If
compliance and enforcement use real resources (e.g. labour and/or capital)
then these resources will not be available for other uses.  These costs
must be weighed against the benefits (e.g. clean water, better air quality
etc.) .  In this respect, decisions about environmental matters do not
differ fundamentally from any cost/benefit decision.
A key issue is assessing environmental regulations is whether the
de-centralized market outcome is truly suboptimal.  One reason why it may
be so is the existance of externalities.  However, the existance of
externalities should not be assumed, but must be considered on a
case-by-case basis. 
John Flanery  wrote in article
...
> 
> There is no conflict between employment and the environment.  Oh, certain
> jobs should be eliminated, but the overall employment level is controlled
> by the Federal Reserve, not by the amount of economic regulation.
> 

I wrote:
> If you make an absolute of recycling, you will indeed require
> coercion.  My own opinion, and I have references to a CMU study by
> Lester Lave with the same conclusion, is that recycling, except as
> done for profit, is a bad idea.  We are not running out of anything
> that isn't substitutable at reasonable cost.  If you think we are, say
> what and why.
Dave Braun replied:
Biological diversity. Using more and more resources tends to impact
ecosystems, and reduces biological diversity, whether one is talking about
coal, oil, timber, or fish.
This is a rather vague justification for a demand for a major
reorientation of American society.  Timber and fish grow all the time;
it is just a question of adjusting the harvesting and planting more so
as to restore the system to balance when it gets out of balance.  Coal
and oil won't be in short supply for some time, and then they will be
replacable by nuclear energy.
If you impoverish society, you will get a lot less money for promoting
biological diversity.  Saving the California condor is costing a lot
of money, but an efficient economy can afford it.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

charliew wrote:
> 
> In article ,
>    Toby Reiter  wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >> >>If it were true that we threw away useable material in any large
> >> >>quantity, then it would certainly follow that were were wasteful.
> >> >>What useable material do you see being thrown away where?
> >> >
> >> >Have you ever SEEN a landfill?
> >>
> >> Yes.  When I was a kid you used to see old car bodies at the dump:
> >> stripped of every ounce of copper and lead, the tires, the dials, and
> >> everything of any use at all, but the rusted out bodies would still be
> >> here and there.  Now you can't even find a $50 car body at the dump:
> >> they go straight to the shredder.
> >>
> >> The last time I walked over an _open_ landfill, i.e. one that had not
> >> yet been filled, was a few years before that, outside Tokyo.  I didn't
> >> see anything that could have been sold for a yen -- though the great
> >> separation plants to pull out the burnables for district heating had
> >> not yet been built.
> >
> >You don't seem to know your statistics too well. About half of most
> >landfills is recyclable or compostable paper and paper products. Another
> >20% glass, plastic, and metals, about 25% food and yard waste, and then
> >about 5% toxic substances. In other words, about 95% of the material that
> >goes into a landfill is recyclable. Any plastics or toxins that cannot be
> >recycled probably shouldn't have been created in the first place.
> >
> >Toby Reiter (the Green Avenger)
> 
> That 95% *is* being recycled.  It's just taking somewhat longer to get the
> constituents from this stuff back into the environment.
> 
> A lot of comments point to the fact that people seem to forget that matter
> is conserved.
First off, in the anaerobic conditions of landfills, the decomposition
of even things like food scraps proceeds at a tormentingly slow pace. Of
course, if it is inorganic like glass or metal, it doesn't decompose at
at. It just sits there. When I speak of recycling, I'm talking about
humans using it over and over. There's nothing cyclic about mining or
logging an area, using the materials once, then putting it in a landfill
for all time. Recovery of materials from landfills is, of course,
unfeasible. The purpose of recycling is to reduce the need for raw
materials at one end and landfills at the other. Simply throwing it away
achieves neither.

> charliew wrote:
......
> >
> > Why is the speed of light constant in all reference frames?
My lower jaw drops open in amazement:
Tell me!  Anyone!  Why is the speed of light constant in all reference 
frames?    Pleasepleasepleaseplease.......--->>>
??????????

Trying to keep to the subject . . .
Greig Ebeling  wrote:
> I am not at any stage suggesting that we should do without the ozone
> layer.  
But the SAME??? Greig Ebeling wrote:
>How do you know that ozone depletion causes harm? 
and later said:
>correlation between increased UV-B and some form of
significant "damage" would be required
etc. etc.
So we have two radically different viewpoints.  Now are you the Greig
Ebeling that says ozone depletion doesn't harm us, or the one that says
we can't do without the ozone layer?
I think you are getting too much sun . . . :<)
Sam McClintock
scmcclintock@ipass.net
. . . In order to CRITIQUE the research, you must READ the research.

biff (biffnix@lightspeed.net) wrote:
: 
: What sorts of costs are associated with such deep-hole disposal?  I know
: I've heard of various projects here in the U.S., and the costs are
: pretty ungodly.  Mayhaps you canucks are a lot better at managing costs
: for disposal sites.  Or prehaps have fewer regulatory agencies demanding
: compliance with construction policies that are nearly impossible to
: meet...  At least, that's the kinds of stories I hear on the papers. 
: There's a site here in California that's now running into the many
: millions of dollars, and still won't be completed for quite some time. 
: If that cost were calculated into the original kWh price, I'm afraid it
: wouldn't look very attractive compared to other forms of generation.
Aaargh, the cost for spent fuel fuel disposal and decommissioning is 
calculated into the cost of the power.  Ratepayers have put something 
like 12 billion dollars into the disposal fund of which the gov't has 
squandered, IMHO, about 4 billion.  Current estimates for decommissioning 
are from 200 - 400 million per plant.  Utilities are mandated to set aside 
adequate funds to cover said decommissing costs.  O&M; costs for nuclear 
run about 5 - 10X higher for nuke plants than coal, some of which is the 
increased regulation.
: Is that cost (as well as construction costs of the plant in the first
: place) carried entirely by the utility, or is it borne by the customers,
: (as the 'stranded assets' language has illustrated here in the U.S.)?
Bill Toman understands the financial mumbo jumbo better than most, 
perhaps he can explain (again).
tooie

In <32ce163d.79294939@nntp.net-link.net> briand@net-link.net (Brian
Carnell) writes: 
>As a method of reducing poverty, negative income taxes are certainly
>preferable to U.S.-style welfare systems. Unfortunately saying
>something is better than current welfare systems is not saying a whole
>lot.
>
>The problem with negative income taxes, though, is they are either set
>so low they really do little good, or they are set so high they
>provide a disincentive to work just as welfare programs tend to do.
They provide some disincentive at any level;
any interference distorts market mechanisms.
Other fundamental problems (which they share with positive
income taxes) are loss of privacy, growth of deception
on one side, of controls on the other. State paternalism
generates infantilism in citizens - or rather, 
in subjects.
The healthy way to reduce poverty is to have an
acute shortage of labor - and this can be achieved by 
accelerated economic growth - and this can be achieved by
deregulation and tax cuts. 
Advanced economies are not mature 
industrial economies any more, condemned to slow growth,
- they are novice post-industrial economies, beginning
a new growth cycle. Why can't we, then, have East Asian 
GDP growth rates? 
Labor shortage? Bad education, lack of training,
of child care, of incentives? This is the good part:
once labor shortage becomes severe -
employers themselves will promote education, training, 
child care, affirmative recruiting in pockets of poverty. They
will also lobby for freer immigration - which will
help much poorer people than our local poor.

		* Environmental Quotes * Daily...
	"During our first decade here a morning like today's would have found
me with little leisure.  If I passed this way at all, it would have
been with five-gallon jug in hand on a trip to the spring to fetch
water for coffee and oatmeal; and as much as I enjoyed those trips,
they rarely afforded me this quality of time to so thoroughly enjoy my
surroundings."
		- Ken Carey, Flat Rock Journal: A Day in the Ozark Mountains
	Thank you for reading.
	Love to get feedback.  Please email to my mailbox only...Thank you...
Jonathan Layburn
Founder - * Environmental Quotes * Daily...

On 13 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
>  
> I see Mr. Reiter has learned quite a few slogans in his freshman
> environmental studies class.  Do you suppose they chant them in
> unison?  My son's 5th grade class was made to chant environmental
> slogans.
Why not? Atheists were forced to chant allegiance to a God they didn't 
believe in when I was a 5th grader, i.e. the pledge of allegiance.  If 
you have extreme idealogical difficulties with having yur son live in a 
cleaner and healthier world, then bring it up with the principal, not us.
> Let's see we have
> 
> 1. "Anyone who refuses to see himself or herself as
> part of nature is not truly living".
Hmmm...this is one I came up with. Not much of an amazing sentence. I 
mostly created it so that the next sentence (see below) could follow
> 2. "Get a life". > 
I don't think I ever heard my environmental studies teacher say that, 
although he might if he had to read your senseless blather.
> 3. "Green avenger".
I cam up with this one too. Pretty catchy, huh?
> 4. the concept of an ecosystem with intelligence
Lo and behold, I came up with this one too! Granted he probably would 
agree with me, but my observation comes after reading "Goder, Escher, 
Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". In it, their is a brief section about an 
ant colony having collective intelligence and having a conversation with 
one of the main characters. Since an ant colony represents the 
collectivism of an ecosystem on a smaller scale, this was a rather 
rational inductive step.
> 5. "... people without a clue tend  not to get it.", i.e. people who
> disagree with Reiter's teacher disagree with Reiter's teacher.
My teacher wouldn't care a rat's butt if someone disagreed with him, as 
long as that person had some valid point.  However, if your talking to a 
person holding a loaded gun at their head and insisting that they'll 
survive pulling the trigger, then it might make sense to point out how 
much they are mistaken. (if you can't figure it out, you're the one holding 
the gun).
> The main error of this post is that Reiter's teacher (Could he tell us
> the name, so we could argue with the ventriloquist rather than with
> the dummy?) is to neglect labor costs.  Labor costs dominate any kind
> of recycling.  People will do a certain amount of separating trash for
> a while when pumped up by a cause, but they will slack off when the
> next excitement comes along.
The main error of your post is that you cannot comprehend that anyone 
could care about the environment without being brainwashed by some sort 
of master.  My teacher is Professor David Orr, who happens to be one of 
the best environmental studies teachers in the country and an expert on 
ecological design and ecology.  However, as I have stated in my post, all 
these ideas are mine or concepts which I have gained from reading highly 
respected and accurate environmental writers, such as Wendel Berry, 
Herman Daly, Sim van DeRyn, and others. Your claim to know everything 
about the environment through "Why Nature Sucks" by Rush Limbaugh just 
won't hold water.
> A sufficiently coercive regime can make people waste their time for
> ideological reasons, but then an ideological police force is required.
> I see Reiter as an ideological drill sergeant.  "Pick up all the
> styrofoam in this landfill.  Bend down there!  All I want to see are
> elbows and assholes!"
In Young and Sach's article "The Next Efficiency Revolution", they have 
shown that by shifting the economy away from the extracting and refining 
of virgin materials towards recycling and reusing more jobs will be 
created in the economy.  Resource recycling and reusing will not require 
totalitarian methods but rather will simply entail the creation of new 
jobs to fill these needs.  These jobs could all be paid for by investing 
in negawatts, that is negative amounts of energy, by buying energy 
efficient technologies and using them in an efficient manner.  Amory 
Lovins has estimated the cost of negawatts as about 2.5 cents per kilowatt 
hour, which is roughly 2 cents below the nearest competitor, coal (and 
coal is heavily subsidized to keep this cost low). Multiply this times 
the amount of energy used by this country and you've got a lot of wasted 
capital that could be invested in waste reclamation services.
For some rather weird reason, I don't see saving the earth for 
myself and future generations as a waste of time.  I have had rather 
harsh conversations with people in the past who just don't care and it 
infuriates me. Here's why:  people complain about too much crime, dirty 
streets and highways, and failing educations.  Funny thing is, often the 
people who complain the most are those who aren't willing to get off 
their butts and get anything done!  I plan to dedicate my life to 
improving the way society lives--through urban planning and developing 
for sustainable economic practices, as well as through community service. 
People like you think that your own time and money is worth too much to 
bother helping anyone else or caring for anything other than your own 
self-interests. Well, you can chase dollars for as long as you want, but 
until you realize that all you want is happiness and that money is 
inherently useless for creating happiness, then you will still be the 
miserable sack of garbage that you have always been.  True happiness 
comes from peace of mind, from health of body, mind, and environment, and 
from connections to family, friends, and society.  These considerations 
are at the forefront of the drive for a sustainable economy.  The 
forefront of the current economy is worship of growth for growth's sake. 
Since our current economy does not include a scale for happiness anywhere in 
it, how can you possible expect it to make anyone truly happy?

Kenneth T. Cornelius wrote:
>  Further, today windpower can work with the
> existing technology without provision for energy storage until it forms
> a far larger proportion of generating capacity.  That means a tremendous
> amount of windpower capital can right now be added to the mix and used
> profitably, and we've got a long way to go to reach that point.
I enjoyed your post and I agree with the above statement. I propose the
goal of building enough wind machines to produce 20% of the
kilowatt-hours used annually in the U.S. within 20 years. I call this
the "20/20 Plan". 
John Hughes
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own and not my employer's

Long reply ->
John Moore  wrote
> >>>Sam McClintock  wrote:
> >Which one(s)? Unless you force a few parameters away from current
> >understanding/research, they all point to the same thing (at least
the ones
> >rehashed over the last five years or so).  Of course I may be overly
> >selective - but I haven't seen one.
> > 
> 
> You said I admitted that they did. I didn't.
Agreed, still which ones?
> >> That particular argument says that IF the models which I am
suspicious
> >> of are taken at face value (as global warming proponents are wont
to
> >> do, then it won't be as bad as many people have said. You
> >> mischaracterize my arguments.
> >I don't think so; you are not debating the theory of greenhouse
gases, nor
> >that we are sending copious amounts into our atmosphere, or that
MOST :<)
> >models agree that the earth will warm up.  Yet you wish to continue
the
> >global experiment.  What am I missing?
> The rest of my argument which I am not going to repost again.
Thank the lord. :<)
> >Which models? Again, from the material I have seen to date is that
once the
> >temperature rise occurs, it will take from several decades to a
century
> >plus to reverse the problem.  So if we wait to confirm the theory,
then we
> >shoot ourselves in the foot.
> But that isn't what I am talking about. The incremental effect on the
> problem of waiting a while is very small, while the effect of not
> waiting may be very large on our economy. This has nothing to do with
> how long it takes to reverse the "problem."
You don't know that. If the impact on our climate is large (not warming
- climate), we are going to spend a lot more money trying to recover
from our idiocy that we would have spent to prevent it.  And this is
not to say what impact it will have on ecosystems already strained by
human expansion into natural habitat.  You seem to hold a lot of faith
in not knowing.
> >Many industries actually saved HUGE amounts of money in changing
from CFCs
> >to different chemicals. 
> 
> Fine, and do you really think this is anything more than an
accidental
> side effect?
Of course it was an accidental side effect, just like the ETO
sterilizers figuring out they could use a different propellent, just
like a lot of new things that we come up with.  The point is that a
change does not have to be disasterous and humans are only limited by
how unimaginative they are and how little they try to change.
> Many spend a lot. It wouldn't be a hot smuggling item (#2 after drugs
> here in Arizona) if it wasn't more cost effective than the
> alternative. Also, it is less toxic (as in zero toxicity), than many
> replacements. Up until the time that CFC's came along, refrigerators
> routinely killed people in their homes.
And CFCs react with ozone in the stratosphere so it is a little stupid
to even think we should try to make them again.  Especially in light of
the latest studies which suggest that only the strictist compliance
with the Montreal protocols will get the ozone hole and layer back to
where it was.
> Sorry, but you are showing again some rather poor logic. Yes, we put
a
> man on the moon. OTOH we have made almost no difference in cancer
> survival, in spite of an intensive effort lasting over 20 years.
> Batteries have been around for a long time, but we still have nothing
> that compares to the old lead acid cells if we factor in cost, energy
> density, and safety - and batteries are the key technology for
solving
> emissions from automobiles (or fuel cells, which have been under
> development for over 30 years and are still not practical or cost
> effective for most battery applications).
Yet, we are now unraveling the human gene structure and can "see" an
atom.  You are sounding like an environmental extremist, pointing to
all the negatives instead of the positives.  And there you go with
batteries - what happens if we figure out how to get a flywheel to
work?  What happens if we halve solar cell effective costs?  My logic
is poor?  Yours is the type the Romans had just before the fall.
> Just because we have made great advances does not mean we can solve
> every problem. You say that solving CO2 emissions is child's play
> (except for the canonical evil corporations and politics - what a
> joke). But you fail to mention how that will be accomplished. I
> suppose we are just around the corner from faster than light travel,
> immortality or colonizing other solar systems - hey, it's just a
bunch
> of technology and computers, right?
First corporations are not evil (despite the current mantras of
extremists), they just are.  Our own construct.  And in this country at
least, we elect our leaders see we can only blame ourselves if we
cannot figure out how to get better people in charge.  So I don't
consider politics evil either (and government does a lot of good if we
actually bother to look).
As to reducing CO2 emissions being child's play, yes.  Keep in mind
that I work for industry, out there every day doing something to solve
a process or improve air pollution control technology, whatever.  My
perspective on industry is very healthy (I get to see a new type of
plant at least once every other month).  Yes, we have a lot of inertia
to overcome, but it is by no means helpless nor impossible.  We are
still woefully inefficient in the use of electricity using CURRENT
technology, whether it is better lighting, natural lighting, better
constructed, insulated buildings, solar hot water heaters, etc. etc.
etc.  And we are driving vehicles way overpowered for the majority of
transporation applications (in the US/Canada/Europe).  We continue to
practice a consumerist/waste economy in which a substantial amount of
energy is lost (e.g. packaging pitched, plus trans of packaging, etc.
etc.).  
And I haven't even started on renewable energy, solar cells, wind
power, tidal power (Danes are breaking some ground there), etc. etc.
> >In the process of making the necessary adjustments we reduce overall
air
> >pollution, reduce consumption of non-renewable energy reserves
(leave the
> >oil for other uses), decrease our dependence on large
infrastructures of
> >energy (and their cost)
> 
> HOW? Are you suggesting that we just don't use energy any more? Good
> luck and happy dreaming.
I am not dreaming; this is all current technology over existing
systems.  Will it make ALL of the adjustments necessary to halt our
emissions of greenhouse gases, no.  But it will make a huge dent in
them.  And everytime you reduce your energy consumption, you reduce
standard classifications of pollution (NOx, VOCs, PICs, PM10, name it).
> > and decrease our GNP contribution for
> >transportation 
> No evidence is offered.
Am I just talking to the brain dead?  If you reduce your reliance on
external fuel source and reduce the amount of money you use for gas and
energy (efficiency, mass trans, higher milage, whatever), the money
stays at home.  Now you and I know the equation is not that simple,
because if I am not spending the money on a fuel-central source, those
in business of supplying that need - cars, gas, gas appliances,
whatever - these corporations and their employees will be the
short-term losers.
> > - all because of reducing
> >our CO2 emissions.  
> 
> If there are such great economic savings to be had, why aren't people
> running out to do it on economic grounds? Where are the corporations
> that will reap all the profits of this easy new technology? Where are
> the millions of consumers who have decided they don't want to live in
> the suburbs but would rather go into the rat warrens where they can
> walk everywhere?
> 
> You offer no evidence of economic savings.
I said nothing about OVERALL economic savings.  For some, there will be
no transition, for others reducing energy consumption will be painful. 
I am not suggesting that some fantasy land is out there in the land of
reduced energy consumption.  But a LOT of our current waste in energy
is just sheer inertia and lack of will power.  I don't think the first
steps in transition will cost didly (relative to the overall savings). 
The second steps, investing in the renewables, etc., changing process
habits, etc.  -> yes it is going to cost.  But even then in the ultra
long run (which current business practices don't support too well), we
should actually see a savings TIED ONLY to the energy consumption (NOT
counting at all what would be saved by not heating up the globe).
> OTOH, whenever environmentalists start arguing that what they are
> doing is good for the economy, it is time to step back and ask just
> why it takes environmentalists to do that? It is either a coincidence
> or it is a false savings. Rarely do attempts to preserve the
> environment really provide a net gain to the economy.
This environmentalist is an industrial consultant (most of the time). 
Sometimes YOU have to ask yourself just WHOSE economy are you
supporting?  No, efforts to preserve the environment have no monetary
basis, and it is generally not a profit-side event to deal with
environmental rules (it can be sometimes, just not usually).  And not
sugar coating the perspective of costs, but your perspective of net
gain is only short-term (which is relevant to a corporation).  How much
do we save on health care because of clean air regs?  How much do we
preserve our fishing industry by not killing all the wetlands and
controlling runoff, etc. etc. etc.
> Environmental protection must be argued from other grounds than how
> good it will supposedly do the economy.
I disagree, but in only in long-term views.  Short-term, it depends. 
Lot of companies saved money by reducing hazardous waste, lot of
companies saved considerable amounts in electric bills by switching
lighting systems, etc. etc.  But the protection of the environment
should not be HELD to those instances when it will benefit anybody
short term.  
Sam McClintock
scmcclintock@ipass.net

In article <58qg2h$7l0@lace.colorado.edu>, rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) writes...
>In article <58l6jt$spd$3@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
>Greig Ebeling  wrote:
> 
>>>>IMO the evidence of a scientist using comparatively primitive techniques
>>>>is not strong evidence. 
>>>
>>> "Primitive techniques"? Dobson spectrophotomers are still in use today.
>>> The ozone hole was discovered with one. 
>>
>>COMPARATIVELY primitive.  Compared to TOMS.  Admit it Robert, before
>>TOMS there was considerable doubt the accuracy of spectrophotomers.
> 
> Precisely the opposite is the case. TOMS is actually calibrated against
> Dobson (or used to be). Errors in the early TOMS estimates were 
> identified by comparison with the Dobson measurements. It took a 
> long time for all the bugs in TOMS to be worked out. 
> 
> TOMS complements Dobson in that it provides global coverage. It is
> not intrinsically more accurate. (Perhaps Barry Schlesinger can
> comment on this - he knows this aspect much better than I)
> 
Yes. Concisely put.  Some extracts from the full Ozone Trends Panel 
report, NASA Reference Publication 1208:
(page 33, first paragraph) "As a consequence, time series of 
measurements are now available covering various segments of the past 
30 years from more than 100 ground stations, with continual data over 
the past 24 years from almost half of them."
(page 33) "Taken together, the combination of satellite instruments 
for daily global coverage and ground-based instruments for regular 
long-term calibration of the satellite systems has provided detailed 
long-term ozone coverage since 1978."
(page 34, second paragraph, under the heading "Total Ozone Changes
Since 1960 Derived from Ground-Based Observations") "The ozone data can
only be retroactively evaluated through the availability of systematic
calibrations.  The precision of the evaluated data from a `good'
station is estimated to be better than 0.7% per decade." 
The measured changes in ozone, on the order of a factor of 2, are not 
the result of instrumental uncertainty.
TOMS has a World Wide Web page at http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov.  From 
it, there are links to other instrument pages and to fact sheets.
				Barry

scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> The Russian mafia first of all gives you no choice -- you pay or you get 
> killed, or your business destroyed.
Same deal the government offers, but the price is cheaper.
> Is that pure capitalism as you wish to see it, James?
A damn sight nearer to capitalism than what the Russian government has
been trying to practice, fortunately with only limited success.
Russian government taxes on business, if anybody paid them, which
mostly they do not, typically come close to a hundred percent, and the
Russian government generally fails to protect property rights and
fails to ensure that justice is seen to be done.
It no longer actively does as much harm as it used to when it was
actively tyrannical, but it still tries to confiscate lots of stuff
and fails to do any good.  It is now an African style government,
rather than a totalitarian government, which is a considerable
improvement on communism, but still a long way from capitalism.
Mafia taxes are typically seven to fifteen percent, and they generally
do protect property rights, even though they usually fail to ensure
that justice is seen to be done.
> You are making things up just you can justify your unjustifiable ideological 
> bias.  The current Russian government is undertaking reforms, and trying to 
> take a corrupt system and remake it. 
True it is undertaking reform.  But these reforms fall far short of
supporting property rights and the rule of law.
The Russian government is now governing in the style of Brazil, or
Peru before Fujimori.  If the Russian government had the power to make
its will stick, the Russian economy would wind up somewhere between
Brazil and black africa.
And even if someone like Fujimori were to take the helm in Russia, it
is far from clear he could actually do anything.  He would probably
wind up dead (which may well happen to Fujimori, the way the wind is
blowing in Peru.)  
> Their privitization has gone too fast, 
Too fast?
In Russia the collective farm system is still in place, except that
even fewer peasants turn up to work.  In Peru Fujimori privatized land
overnight with the stroke of a pen backed by the distribution of
shotguns to the peasants.  What was so hard about that?  Food
production rose in a year.  Abruptly the subversive left leaning
Peruvian peasantry turned into staunch rural redneck conservatives
with shotguns.  What is taking the Russian government so long?
What is taking the Russian government so damned long is simply that
the nomenclatura has no intention of giving up its privileges except
at gunpoint.  Guns are now being applied.
Privatize land, and everything else will follow, as if you drag a
squealing pig by a ring it its nose.  Don't privatize land, and
nothing much will get privatized except by the mafia.
> which mafia rats have filled, spreading terror, killing 
> people, and basically SCARING AWAY INVESTMENT,
Well here is one investor who finds lawless governments considerably
more scary than the mafia, and who invested a modest sum of money in
officially privatized business in a reforming communist country in
part because of the mafia, not in spite of the mafia.
> How can you so shamelessly lie?  They don't protect, they simply promise not 
> to attack. 
Most, though far from all, of the incidents of Russian mafia violence
that I have read of, appear to have been retribution for violation of
property rights and breaches of contract.  They fill a vacuum created
by a government that still claims ownership of most important stuff, a
claim that more and more people ignore.
Hence the phrase "spontaneous privatization".  Most privatization is
unofficial, and those that make it happen are officially criminals,
mafia.  As with drug "criminals" in the USA, some of them are real
criminals, and some of them are legitimate businessmen forced to act
contrary to the legislation imposed by a lawless state, and these
legitimate but criminalized businessmen are often forced to work with
real criminals, as a lesser evil than attempting to work with a
lawless state.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com

On 12 Dec 1996 13:39:22 GMT, "Sam McClintock" 
wrote:
>
>
>John Moore  wrote:
>
>>>Sam McClintock  wrote:
>>>I think your statement pretty much sums it up.  You have admitted that
>>>all the models point to warming,
>> 
>> not true
>
>Which one(s)? Unless you force a few parameters away from current
>understanding/research, they all point to the same thing (at least the ones
>rehashed over the last five years or so).  Of course I may be overly
>selective - but I haven't seen one.
> 
You said I admitted that they did. I didn't.
>> That particular argument says that IF the models which I am suspicious
>> of are taken at face value (as global warming proponents are wont to
>> do, then it won't be as bad as many people have said. You
>> mischaracterize my arguments.
>
>I don't think so; you are not debating the theory of greenhouse gases, nor
>that we are sending copious amounts into our atmosphere, or that MOST :<)
>models agree that the earth will warm up.  Yet you wish to continue the
>global experiment.  What am I missing?
The rest of my argument which I am not going to repost again.
>> But you equally iconveniently ignore all the models that indicate that
>> waiting a decade or two will make little difference.
>
>Which models? Again, from the material I have seen to date is that once the
>temperature rise occurs, it will take from several decades to a century
>plus to reverse the problem.  So if we wait to confirm the theory, then we
>shoot ourselves in the foot.
But that isn't what I am talking about. The incremental effect on the
problem of waiting a while is very small, while the effect of not
waiting may be very large on our economy. This has nothing to do with
how long it takes to reverse the "problem."
>
>Many industries actually saved HUGE amounts of money in changing from CFCs
>to different chemicals. 
Fine, and do you really think this is anything more than an accidental
side effect?
Many spend a lot. It wouldn't be a hot smuggling item (#2 after drugs
here in Arizona) if it wasn't more cost effective than the
alternative. Also, it is less toxic (as in zero toxicity), than many
replacements. Up until the time that CFC's came along, refrigerators
routinely killed people in their homes.
> We put a man on the moon with technology and
>computers not half of what we have  today.  And we are entering an age of
>putting all types of information at our fingertips. Reducing CO2 and other
>greenhouse gas emissions? - child's play (but unfortunately corporate money
>and adult politics).
Sorry, but you are showing again some rather poor logic. Yes, we put a
man on the moon. OTOH we have made almost no difference in cancer
survival, in spite of an intensive effort lasting over 20 years.
Batteries have been around for a long time, but we still have nothing
that compares to the old lead acid cells if we factor in cost, energy
density, and safety - and batteries are the key technology for solving
emissions from automobiles (or fuel cells, which have been under
development for over 30 years and are still not practical or cost
effective for most battery applications).
Just because we have made great advances does not mean we can solve
every problem. You say that solving CO2 emissions is child's play
(except for the canonical evil corporations and politics - what a
joke). But you fail to mention how that will be accomplished. I
suppose we are just around the corner from faster than light travel,
immortality or colonizing other solar systems - hey, it's just a bunch
of technology and computers, right?
>In the process of making the necessary adjustments we reduce overall air
>pollution, reduce consumption of non-renewable energy reserves (leave the
>oil for other uses), decrease our dependence on large infrastructures of
>energy (and their cost)
HOW? Are you suggesting that we just don't use energy any more? Good
luck and happy dreaming.
> and decrease our GNP contribution for
>transportation 
No evidence is offered.
>and oil imports (save our money)
yeah, probably.
> - all because of reducing
>our CO2 emissions.  
If there are such great economic savings to be had, why aren't people
running out to do it on economic grounds? Where are the corporations
that will reap all the profits of this easy new technology? Where are
the millions of consumers who have decided they don't want to live in
the suburbs but would rather go into the rat warrens where they can
walk everywhere?
You offer no evidence of economic savings.
OTOH, whenever environmentalists start arguing that what they are
doing is good for the economy, it is time to step back and ask just
why it takes environmentalists to do that? It is either a coincidence
or it is a false savings. Rarely do attempts to preserve the
environment really provide a net gain to the economy.
Environmental protection must be argued from other grounds than how
good it will supposedly do the economy.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.F8C0F8E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pipo On line
for: Hans Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html
Madam
Sir
I'm working at a case study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel ?
Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by Email
Yours sincerely
Pipo on Line
for: Hans Smellinckx
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.F8C0F8E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
Pipo On line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 =
Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: =
http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html


Madam
Sir

I'm working at a case =
study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive =
more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in =
order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the =
reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was =
the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel =
?

Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by =
Email

Yours sincerely


Pipo on Line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx



------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.F8C0F8E0--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.C5860B00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pipo On line
for: Hans Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: ht.//www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html
Madam
Sir
I'm working at a case study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel ?
Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by Email
Yours sincerely
Pipo on Line
for: Hans Smellinckx
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.C5860B00
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
Pipo On line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 =
Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: =
ht.//www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html


Madam
Sir

I'm working at a case =
study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive =
more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in =
order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the =
reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was =
the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel =
?

Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by =
Email

Yours sincerely


Pipo on Line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx



------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.C5860B00--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.9EE34BC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pipo On line
for: Hans Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html
Madam
Sir
I'm working at a case study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel ?
Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by Email
Yours sincerely
Pipo on Line
for: Hans Smellinckx
------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.9EE34BC0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	
Pipo On line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx
Onderwijsstraat 6
9473 =
Welle
Tel:+32.53.67.09.89
Fax:+32.53.67.09.89
Email: pipo@tornado.be
URL: =
http://www.tornado.be/~pipo/index.html


Madam
Sir

I'm working at a case =
study about the above mentioned subject, therefore
could I receive =
more information from you about:
	> What does your hotel in =
order to preserve the environment ?
	> What are or were the =
reactions on your actions (clients + personnel) ?
	> What was =
the economic effect of your actions on the rentability of your
hotel =
?

Thank you very much and awaiting your reply by =
Email

Yours sincerely


Pipo on Line
for: Hans =
Smellinckx



------=_NextPart_000_01BBE9B1.9EE34BC0--