Subject: Re: World Population Growth (What do you think?)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:34:43 GMT
ricks@tc.umn.edu (Dell Erickson) wrote:
[edited]
>You are correct Mr. Tell-the-Truth-- world pop will double several
>times prior to 2050. The first doubling took several million years;
>the next doubling, 1000's; the next, about 250; the next, 100, then,
>50, 20, 15, and the next will happen within 12 years. World and U.S
>population are growing exponentially in a classic overshoot mode.
>U.N., U.S. Census data as reported everywhere.
In fact, the US, with a current population of 265 million, is
calculated by the US Census Bureau as having in 2050 a range of
population from 282 to 518 million. Note that only the highest figure
shows a doubling and that in 53 years.
The higher figure, by the way, assumes a higher level of US fertility,
life expectancy and net immigration than is currently the case.
Assuming current levels of immigration and fertility, but high life
expectancy (more probable), we get about 330 million in 2050. Data
from US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, as detailed
in the "US Statistical Abstracts", Section 1, Dept of Commerce, 1996
(now available on CD Rom).
I could wait for you to reply that you meant your figures really
applied to the world, not the US, but then I would need to answer you
again. To forestall that, I will note that the annual growth rate for
the world population is 1.4%. At that rate, the population would
double in 51 years, not the 12 you state. Source, US Bureau of
Census, as reported in the "US Statistical Abstracts", Table 1325.
I should also observe that the world growth rate dropped from 1.7 to
1.4% between the eighties and 90's (same source), thus, the of 51
years probably constitutes the fastest expected time to double, not
the average or most probable.
In the future I think you would find it profitable to read the data
you claim to quote. It is silly not to check things so easily found,
it makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about.
[deleted]
I do not expect you to answer this.
Regards, Harold
----
"Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. And they
have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their
fellow human beings in the process. Capitalism is destroying
the earth....Cuba is a wonderful country. What Castro's done
is superb."
- Helen Caldicott, 1982, Doctors against Health,
Petr Beckman, Golem
Subject: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 970122
From: gsenet@nac.net (Phil Reynolds)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:19:04
970122
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
* MOBILIZING THE REGION 111
* CLIMATE CHANGE HEALTH THREAT
* ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
* THE ENVIROLINK NETWORK
* ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 970121
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MOBILIZING THE REGION 111
MOBILIZING THE REGION
A Weekly Bulletin from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign
============================================================
Electronic Edition 111 January 17, 1997
============================================================
[Excerpt: Full issue on GSENET-BBS & WWW, Econet env.nj]
BIG KICK-OFF FOR NJ SAVE ISTEA CAMPAIGN
A large public meeting room in Newark packed with over
200 state legislators, business leaders, county officials,
union delegates, mayors and transportation agency heads
listened to Senators Lautenberg and Torricelli, Congressmen
Franks, Menendez and Pascrell, NJ Transportation
Commissioner John Haley and NJ Alliance for Action
leaders issue an organizing call to defend ISTEA Monday
morning. The meeting had been called by the Alliance
for Action, a coalition of 500 business, labor, government
and other organizations, and Congressman Bob
Franks. In December., NJ Governor Christine Whitman
signed a letter to then-U.S. Transportation Secretary Pena
with governors of 15 other states, calling for
"[reauthorization of] ISTEA without significant change."
All of the Congressional officials present vowed to
fight hard to preserve ISTEA and the flow of federal
transportation dollars to NJ. Torricelli's remarks provided
the best overview. He said the U.S. has no urban
policy, but under ISTEA, it had crafted a transportation
policy to fill the gap, and that the economic potential of
older centers like Newark could be unlocked via smart
investments in public transit projects. He noted that no
one in the southern and western STEP-21 coalition of
states, which would repeal much of ISTEA and try to return
federal dollars to states in proportion to gas tax payments
by each state's motorists, argued against the merits
of ISTEA, but on the dollar returns to their states. That,
he said, was a repudiation of federalism and the principles
that have governed the country since adoption of the
U.S. Constitution. Torricelli called for full funding for the
Hudson-Bergen light rail project, including its extension
to Giants Stadium, and for construction of the much-discussed
Newark-Elizabeth light rail line.
As each speaker noted, NJ does well through ISTEA's
allocation formula. According to NJ Transportation
Commissioner John Haley, for every transportation dollar
NJ sends to Washington, it gets back $1.12 for highway
and $4.69 for public transit projects. But taking the
overall flow of federal revenues and expendiutures, NJ
only gets 62 cents for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.
Former Congressman Robert Roe, who was instrumental
in getting projects like the Hudson-Bergen light
rail and the Kearny Connection off the ground with federal
funding, also spoke. He departed from the consensus
somewhat by stating that not only dollars, but also the
transportation planning principles embodied in ISTEA,
were critical to New Jersey. He specifically cited
ISTEA's metropolitan planning and urban sub-allocation
provisions as important to the state's future. He predicted
that skillful horse-trading could mitigate the sectional
fight over dividing up federal transportation dollars and
leave ISTEA generally intact.
Attendees of the forum were asked to endorse a set of
ISTEA reauthorization principles that the northeast and
allied states have developed. Overall, they amount to the
preservation of ISTEA in its current form, with some
modifications. The most unfortunate of these is the assertion
that Metropolitan Planning Organizations should be
self-certifying, rather than under some form of oversight
by the federal government.
* * *
------------------------------------------------
New on the Tri-State Transportation Campaign's
web page this week:
* The list of principles agreed to by northeast and
other states opposing radical change to ISTEA.
------------------------------------------------
* * *
===================================================
F Y I: The Cost of Driving
More traffic and more crashes on the NJ Turnpike
have led the Turnpike Authority to cancel a
planned cut in the State Police budget, and give
the force a $1 million increase instead. Overall
traffic on the Turnpike grew 2.7% in the first nine
months of 1996. Truck traffic was up 3.6%. Turnpike
officials now project similar growth for the
highway in 1997. Turnpike crashes from Jan. to
Nov. increased 4.2% from 1995 to 1996. Record
===================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilizing the Region is a weekly publication of the Tri-State
Transportation Campaign, available by fax or electronic mail. We invite
submissions, calendar items and names of additional recipients from readers.
The Campaign was formed in 1993 by 14 leading public interest organizations
dedicated to restructuring transportation policy, infrastructure and
choices to promote environmental health and sustainability, economic
efficiency and social equity in the 32-county region in and surrounding New
York City, from Trenton to Hartford. We invite organizations that agree with
our general orientation to join the Campaign as affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MTR#111. Contributing this issue: Charles Komanoff, Joe Rappaport, Michael
Replogle.
Editor: Jon Orcutt. Executive Director, Janine Bauer
281 Park Ave. South, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10010
tel. (212) 777-8181 fax (212) 777-8157
tstc@igc.apc.org http://www.tstc.org/tstc/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CLIMATE CHANGE HEALTH THREAT
Date: 21 Jan 1997
From: tomgray@igc.org
AGENCIES ISSUE WARNING ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH
On the eve of a new round of international talks on
climate change, three international agencies warned that global
warming threatens human health with "a wide range of impacts . .
. most of which would be adverse."
The World Health Organization (WHO), World Meteorological
Organization (WHO), and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
joined in a 262-page report warning of dangers from prolonged
heat waves and the spread of tropical diseases, among other
possible consequences from the buildup in the Earth's atmosphere
of greenhouse gases.
While the agencies acknowledged that many of the possible
scenarios in the report are subject to considerable uncertainty,
they urged prompt action to reduce greenhouse emissions, arguing
that the results of inaction could be severe. "A wait-and-see
approach," it said, "would be imprudent at best and nonsensical
at worst."
The report comes at yet another decision point in the
long-running international drama. At the Earth Summit in 1992, a
treaty was forged that 159 nations have since signed, pledging to
stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. But since
that time, many countries, including the United States, have done
little or nothing to actually control emissions, with predictable
results. In the U.S., for example, greenhouse gas production has
climbed slowly but steadily each year since 1992.
The World Energy Council, an independent research
organization, released a report July 4 which found that global
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 12% between 1990
and 1995. The Council said the trend would continue unless
direct action is taken to reduce emissions.
The agencies' report said two to three times as many
people may die in heat waves annually by the year 2050 as do
today, even if they become accustomed to warmer temperatures, and
it also forecast a substantial spread in the range of malaria and
other tropical diseases over the next several years.
In other climate change news, Dr. Daniel Lashof of the
Natural Resources Defense Council takes issue in the June issue
of the climate newsletter HOTLINE with global warming skeptics
who point to satellite temperature records to bolster claims that
the Earth is not warming.
The satellite records, which began in 1979, show a small
cooling over the past 17 years, and even when corrected for
changes in ocean temperatures and other variables, show warming
of only 0.09 degrees Celsius (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade,
about half the 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade observed by
ground-based temperature stations.
However, Lashof said, "[T]he ground-based and satellite
records measure different things. The satellites measure a
weighted average temperature in the middle of the atmosphere.
The results, therefore, can be strongly influenced by changes in
the pattern of heat transport through the atmosphere and would
not be sensitive to surface warming if the heat were retained
near the ground."
The most likely explanation for the disparity between the
two sets of records, Lashof said, is that "the satellite record
is just too short to reveal the warming trend found in other data
sets."
Added Lashof, "The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), a large group of climate experts who have been
conducting research and reviewing studies over the past several
years] has concluded that there has been significant global
warming during this century, based on a careful review of all of
the available data, including ground-based temperature records,
satellite data, balloon-borne temperature profiles, bore hole
temperature profiles, and retreat of mountain glaciers . . .
"Claims that the satellite temperature record implies that
global warming is not happening or will not be significant may
continue to be effective rhetoric for skeptics and vested
interests, but they have no scientific foundation."
______________________________________________________________________
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted (from a back issue), at no cost.
For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back
issues, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable energy,
energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news. The
electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
The free electronic edition of the _Weekly_ is intended as an
educational publication for those without a commercial interest in the
wind energy industry. If your interest in wind is commercial in
nature, please write to for more information
about AWEA membership and publications.
If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request. Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.
______________________________________________________________________
Tom Gray
tomgray@econet.org
______________________________________________________________________
Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist for
Renewable Energy Web Site:
http://www.serve.com/stevie2/doorway.html
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Date: Jan 21, 1997
TENEP - The Electronic Network of Environmental Professionals
This list server is a free service sponsored by ENVision
(ENVision Environmental Engineers and Information Consultants,
Inc.). TENEP is moderated by ENVision associates Kathy Wilkerson
and Larry Owens to ensure that quality posts are passed on to
subscribers and the amount of e-mail received by all is
controlled and manageable.
Please send all posts and queries to .
Archives are located at .
The TENEP FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) is located at
.
To subscribe, visit the TENEP page of the ENVision website at
.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE ENVIROLINK NETWORK
Date: Jan 21, 1997
The EnviroLink Network (http://www.envirolink.org) has announced
that it is expanding the free services it already offers to
non-profit organizations. Over 400 non-profit organizations
currently benefit from the EnviroLink Network's free web hosting,
domain name hosting, e-mail accounts, automated mailing lists and
other Internet services.
Now the EnviroLink Network is offering to host interactive
web-based forums for non-profits. These forums allow visitors to
your web site to interact with each other, discuss issues and
create a sense of community online for your organization. To see
these forums in action, visit the following URL:
http://www.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/WebX
The format of the forum system is fully adaptable to your
organization's site design and layout. Organizations that are
interested in taking advantage of this offer are encouraged to
call the EnviroLink Network (412-683-6400) or send e-mail to:
josh@envirolink.org
Josh Knauer
Executive Director
The EnviroLink Network
http://www.envirolink.org
Phone:(412) 683-6400 Fax:(412) 683-8460
If you'd like to support the EnviroLink Network, a non-profit
organization, please consider doing so by becoming a member:
http://www.envirolink.org/membership
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 970121
The following is a daily update summarizing news of interest
to EPA staff. It includes information from current news sources:
newspapers, newsletters, and other publications. For more
information, contact the EPA Headquarters Library at (202) 260-
5921, or e-mail LIBRARY-HQ.
**Viewpoints expressed in the following summaries do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy**
** CLEAN AIR **
Utah Mill Lies at Heart of Fight for Air Pollution Limits. The
New York Times, January 21, 1997, pA10.
At the center of the dispute over whether federal air
quality standards for ozone and particulate matter should be
tightened are two groups from Utah.
Nearly ten years ago, Dr. Arden Pope, a researcher at
Brigham Young University, noted a two-thirds reduction in the
number of children admitted to a local hospital for lung ailments
from the previous winter. This reduction coincided with the
closure of a steel mill near Provo which was the largest source
of air pollution.
Dr. Pope has since collaborated on other studies that link
tiny chemical particles of sooty air pollution that cause some
human ailments and premature deaths.
These studies have helped in the formation of proposals
revising the standards from the federal government.
Top executives at the plant are disputing the findings and
are leading an industry coalition against EPA.
In developing the proposal the agency weighed the findings
of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. As the proposal was being
developed it was reviewed several times by a scientific advisory
committee. The committee raised several questions but gave a
qualified endorsement and suggested continued research.
At public hearings in Salt Lake City industry experts
claimed the studies that environmental and public health groups
had praised were incorrect. The Utah meetings focused more on
particulate matter since it affects the area more than ozone
problems.
Those favoring the more restrictive rule cite over 20
epidemiological studies that link particulate matter with
mortality in cities.
Critics claim it would be too costly to comply with tighter
rules.
"It is likely that when the research on particulate air
pollution is more complete, the proposed PM2.5 regulation will be
demonstrated to be naive and unwarranted," said Robert Phalen, a
professor of community and environmental medicine and the
director of the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at the
University of California in Irvine. He estimated that it would
take 10 to 20 years to complete the scientific studies needed to
issue a new particulate matter standard.
Other scientists strongly support the proposal though.
A group of 27 scientists led by George Thurston, a professor
of environmental medicine at the New York University School of
Medicine, signed a letter that stated, "health studies around the
world have demonstrated that levels of particulate and ozone air
pollution below the current U.S. national air-quality standards
exacerbate serious respiratory disease and contribute to early
death."
The letter was submitted to the hearings by the American
Lung Association.
"Tens of thousands of hospital visits and premature deaths
could be prevented each year by more stringent air-quality
standards for these two pollutants," the letter said.
The debate is complicated by the fact that there are
reputable scientists on both sides of the debate.
Around the time Dr. Pope initially noticed the drop in
hospital visits during the mill closure in Utah, Joseph Cannon,
an EPA official during the Reagan Administration, took over the
mill from the USX Corporation. Cannon is leading the industry
coalition in Utah against the proposals.
"At the beginning," said Cannon, "I became skeptical simply
because I was at the outset the subject of one of those studies."
He said that subsequent figures for hospitalizations had
undermined the studies findings.
Pope defended his studies and claimed there are now "several
epidemiological studies on the health effects of particulate air
pollution."
When asked about the persistent questions to his work, Pope
responded, "Some are fundamental to the science. Some are
fundamental to public policy, and others seem to be primarily
attempts to detract from or discredit the research.
** POLLUTION **
Survey of 100 U.S. Coastal Sites Shows Pollution Is Declining.
The New York Times, January 21, 1997, pC4.
Pollution levels have decreased at more than 100 sites along
the nation's coastline, according to a federal program than
monitors contaminant levels in mussels and oysters.
Despite the decrease, coastal pollution is still a major
problem in many areas of the United States.
The study, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), monitored 14 chemicals. Trace elements in
the study included cadmium, copper, arsenic, selenium, lead,
mercury, zinc and nickel. The pesticides chlordane, DDT and
dieldrin were also studied. Other chemicals included in the study
were PCBs, butyltin and PAH (a byproduct of industrial and oil
pollution).
Dr. Thomas O'Connor, head of the study, said that many of
the chemicals studied had been outlawed or restricted in their
use or discharge in waterways. Other declines appeared to by
caused by voluntary cutbacks.
"There are lots of decreases and some increases," he said.
The study monitored mussels and oysters at 154 sites
nationwide and found 217 decreases in chemicals and 41 increases.
Most of the cases recorded no changes, though, with 1,898 such
readings out of 2,156 samples.
The chemicals with the greatest number of decreases include,
chlordane(43), DDT(24), and cadmium (20). The greatest increases
were recorded for mercury(7), lead(7), zinc(6) and arsenic(5).
The study entitled "Trends in Chemical Concentrations in
Mussels and Oysters Collected Along the US Coasts from 1986 to
1993" was published in Marine Environmental Research last year.
The report shows the trend of decreasing chemical pollution
is continuing and it illustrates the trend with greater
statistical strength.
Despite the general trend of decreasing pollution, the study
noted that 21 states had high and increasing amounts of
chemicals. According to the report, the upward trends "should be
interpreted as indicating that ongoing human activity is
increasing chemical contamination."
Sites of concern included the Shark River in New Jersey,
Naples Bay in Florida, Biloxi Bay in Mississippi, Lovers Point in
Pacific Grove, California and Keehi Lagoon in Honolulu Harbor.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* G A R D E N S T A T E E N V I R O N E T *
* Tel 201-586-4128 MAILBOX@GSENET.ORG Fax 201-627-8616 *
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
* EcoNet Conference: env.nj *
* WWW Site: http://www.gsenet.org *
* BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400 *
* Listserver: majordomo@igc.org subscribe gsenet-L *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=END=
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 23 Jan 1997 14:11:13 GMT
In article <32E3D647.3A1B@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Toman wrote:
>A poster wrote:
>> You wrote that there was a fast reactor constructed at Clinch River - the
>> fact remains that the Clinch River Breeder Reactor was cancelled around
>> 1982 slightly after ground breaking and well before completion.
>>
>>For a reactor which was never build, the US taxpayer paid one hell of a lot of
>> >money!
>>
>B. Alan Guthrie wrote:
>> Don't blame me - blame the federal government!
>
>
>For funding it or cancelling it? From a Heritage Foundation page:
>
>http://www.frc.org/heritage/library/categories/budgettax/bg1061.html
>
>"What Congress Should Do:
>
>1) Terminate all federal funding for energy supply research and
>development, including fossil fuel R&D.;
>
>2) Privatize all government-owned laboratories engaged in this research.
>
>Savings from the Heritage Proposal:
>
>Rationale: In today's dollars, the federal government has spent over $70
>billion on energy research programs since the Department of Energy was
>created in 1977 and has little or nothing to show for it. The United
>States imports 30 percent more petroleum now than before the oil shock
>of 1973, and alternative energy supply methods account for only one
>percent of all energy produced in this country.27
>
>Much of this DOE-funded research is already conducted by private firms
>or simply irrelevant to market needs. Electric utilities, for instance,
>voluntarily fund the $240 million-per-year Electric Power Research
>Institute at no government expense. Moreover, "the major new
>technologies for enhanced oil recovery... have come from private
>industry, not DOE," according to the Congressional Budget Office, and
>DOE's $9 billion investment in nuclear fission research has gone to
>waste because the private sector has no interest in building new nuclear
>power plants. Thus, Energy "has little in the way of commercial
>applications to show for its investment."28 All the federal government's
>attempts to outguess the energy market have produced are such expensive
>failures as the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and the Clinch River Breeder
>Reactor.29 Federal funding for renewable and non-renewable energy
>research and development should be halted immediately.
>
>27.Susan Q. Stranahan and Gilbert M. Gaul, "Billions Spent, but
>Alternative Energy Remains out of Reach," The Philadelphia Inquirer,
>June 9, 1995, p. 18.
>28.Congressional Budget Office, Reducing the Deficit: Spending and
>Revenue Options, August 1994, pp. 109-113.
> See also Boesman, "Department of Energy Laboratories: Capabilities
>and Missions."
>29.Linda R. Cohen and Roger G. Noll, The Technology Pork Barrel
>(Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1991). "
>
>I would also point out that Clinch River was one of the most egregious
>"hogs at the trough" energy projects ever undertaken. What started out
>as a joint public-private demonstration program, eventually turned into
>an industry proposal to have government fund 90% of the costs and
>private industry 10%. It was this one-sided provision that persuaded
>Congress to not fund any more. I note as an aside that Westinghouse was
>going to be the reactor vendor and hence a major beneficiary of Clinch
>River funding.
>
My libertarian streak says to keep the Federal government out of
energy R&D.; I do note that the utility industry kicked a substantial
amount of money, on the order of $200 to $500 million (in mid 1970s
dollars) into Clinch River and it was left holding the bag when
the Feds (under Reagan) killed Clinch River. That is perhaps the
problem with long-term demonstation projects. If the Feds get
involved to a substantial degree, then they can unilaterally kill
the project and leave the private investors on the lurch.
I also note that the evolution of Clinch River from a joint public-
private project to a very much Federal one was caused to a large
degree by political and regulatory delays.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
alan.guthrie@nmd.pgh.wec.com |
Subject: ECOLOGICAL RULES OF MANKIND DEVELOPMENT? (Tetior A.]
From: tetior@aha.ru (Alexandr Tetior)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:26:03 GMT
ECOLOGICAL RULES OF MANKIND DEVELOPMENT?
Why there are not special ecological rules (laws) or taboo for
interactions between mankind and nature? Why a mankind during
hundreds years created not ecological code similar to Bible
commandments?
Religious rules was created at civilisation dawn was interactions
code between mans and nature. The planet was in clean condition and
there was not problems of its pollution and overpopulation. Therefore
this religious code includes interactions between people (Bible
commandments "esteem your father and your mother", "don't steal",
"don't kill", etc., Bible mortal sins - licentiousness, smoking,
etc.). Many commandments was directed to mankind preservation.
According to Bible the planet was gave to people on God
benevolence: " And fill planet, and possess, and own,...". But a man
must was fear of God punishment for bed running of economy. A man
forgot possible punishments and "possession of Planet" idea was
transformed in anthropocentric model of World: a man is highest
creation of nature serves for his needs satisfaction.
Religious contains all experience of interaction between people
and nature of all mankind, but interactions by nature stand not in
first place in religious. The mankind collided with global ecological
problems in hundreds years. The problems foresaw not Bible creator.
Full unity between people and nature and prohibition of nature
destroy are at all times in primitive religiouses, in cults.
Now there is important necessity of new ecological moral postulates
creation and their implanting in mass consciousness similar to
religious postulates. Ecology examine a mutual between living
organisms and environment. This mutual formed in millions years and
brought to their sustainable interaction. The mutual described in many
ecological laws, rules and principles.
A man differs from other living organisms as regards to natural
environment. Development mankind history demonstrates it transformed
in global force changes a nature. Special ecological rules are
necessary for mankind development description. A separation of
special ecological "rules (laws) of mankind development" may help to
see catastrophic peculiarities of man interaction with nature and may
help to keep a life and nature on planet. New "ecological rules of
mankind development" are described below.
1.A "Rule of chaotic demographic increase" presents a danger for
all mankind. Multiplication of natural living organisms takes
place by speed provides their maximum quantity. The quantity
corresponds to environment capacity, to ecological rules of inner
uncontradiction, of food correlation, of mutual adaptation, etc.
Their multiplication speed always corresponds to food resources
quantity, to preservation of their environment, to mutual adaptation
of living organisms. A mankind multiplication is without of
environment preservation, a man has not a natural limitation of his
multiplication.
2. Religious row proved a "Rule of "hard" management a nature".
According to the rule a nature serves for satisfaction of mankind
needs. Ecological rules row ( rule of "soft" management a nature,
rule of chained reactions of hard management a nature, principle of
naturality) forestall "soft" (restoring an ecological balance)
management may bring desired natural chained reactions and the
management more better than hard technical management. But a mankind
transforms easily a nature by help of big technics. Animals adapt
themselves to changeable nature, a man adapt to herself a nature.
3. Mankind thinks during many years according to a "Rule of
ideal future" descendants will live more better and more clever.
According to principle of "event remoteness" a man thinks far
phenomenon is less essential and he can decide very well future
ecological problems. But ecological laws forestall( "law of nature
system development at the expense of environment", etc.) future
resources situation will more strained up to ecological-economical
revolution. Ours descendants will pay more expensive for our
prodigality.
4. During many years the mankind follows "Rule of seeming
infinity of natural resources". An use of natural resources grows very
quickly. Technologies of all countries are directed to unrenewal
resources. But there are laws "natural resources limitation",
"reduce of energy efficiency of nature use", "natural-resources
potential fall" forestall about all resources limitation, about more
complicated access to resource, etc.
Does have the mankind a right so carelessly to spend natural
resources belong not to him completely ( the resources belong also to
all future generations). The mankind must accumulates resources or
can spend with following resumption. But a man has not natural organ
for consumption limitation.
5. "Rule of reaction delay to negative ecological situations". It
is very difficult to foretell consequences of nature transformation
actions (according to ecological "principle of indefinity") in view
of eco-systems complexity and of chained natural reactions
unprediction. Therefore reaction is prepared not usually and it
arrives (for example, reaction on reduction of ozone stratum thick .
Usually people would not think about future troubles. A man also
has not sometimes necessary organs for warning (for example, organ of
radioactivity increase), and there is not sometimes necessary
information about future negative situations. It increase ecological
situation.
6. The mankind interfered in nature constantly (cities and
towns, industry and agriculture, etc.) and acted by "Rule of long
artificial change of ecological components". A man recasted "hard"
a nature by his temporary needs and changed ecological components. But
very important laws ("inner dynamic balance", "biogenic
migration of atoms", "physical-chemical unity of living matter")
talk about existence eco-systems impossibility by artificial create
want or superfluity even though one ecological components (they
provide for matters circulation and energy stream going - water,
atmosphere, energy, soil with living organisms, etc.). A long change
of ecological components may bring to sudden catastrophe.
7. People can not forecast firmly consequences of big
interference in nature and acted in according of "Rule of
incomplete information use" by decisions taking. Even developed
countries make elementary economical and ecological
substantiation's by decisions acceptance for natural resources use.
Third law by B. Commoner talks about getting impossibility of
objective information about nature functions and its mechanic. " A
nature knows better" and man must previously research a problem with
natural processes dynamic calculation.
8. The mankind thought always nature resources are free of charge
and so "Rule of insolvent mankind" was created (Rule of maximum
removal of payment term for seized natural resources). Fourth law by
B. Commoner forecast about compensate necessity of all things was took
from global eco-system by help of human labour. It is inevitably.
The mankind must return very much : the people lost about half
productive arable land; the mankind use annual energy bearers was
accumulated during 1 million years.
9. "Rule of inner contradiction" is very unlogical rule for
"homo sapiens". An activity of all kinds in natural eco-systems
supports the eco-systems as their environment according to rule of
"inner uncontradiction". Natural species can not destroy their
environment. Mankind activity ruins environment in regional and global
scales. There is of principle contradiction between the
inhabitants interests(increase of production and use) and the nature
interests (reduce of antropogenic influence).
10. A wish quick to get effective results by economical activity
resulted in Rule of quick getting of results("Rule of impatience").
A man supposes to get usually necessary results during short time
(1-2 years), or project is not proved economical.
First successes in nature use are short according to principle
of "deceptive well-being", objective result may be reached during
10-30 years by long interaction of natural and antropogenic
factors. Attempts to hasten a nature are uselessly according to law
of "successive delay"; at first there is effect, but then
self-regulation begins to act and bio-production falls.
11. Constantly increase of needs results in appearance of "Rule of
level needs excess ("Ecological egoism"). Man needs in developed
countries begin to exceed ecology admissible middle level for all
mankind. The needs are fasten by producer of goods and services and
are not proved by ecology laws. Needs satisfaction is very unevenly
on planet.
There are not in nature species needs was not limited by
environment (according to law of eco-system development at the expense
of environment"). But inhabitants of developed countries want not
to reduce needs level may be not reached for all planet mankind.
12. A prodigal use of nature resources brought to realisation
of "Rule of unproductive use of natural resources". There is in
nature a consumption of renewal recourses only and nature remade a
basic part of needs waste without environment pollution. A man
consumes nature resources very ineffectively and throw out waste
mass. The prodigal mankind uses only 2% from got resources and 98%
throws out.
13. The mankind expands constantly their environment according
to "Rule of antropogenic expansion". Every species occupies in nature
their ecological niche. Consequences of antropogenic liberation may be
dangerously: more dangerous kinds may take a free niche.
Antropogenic expansion brings to breaks in "global life network"
(law of "physical-chemical unity of living matter")" and reduces
kinds biodiversity. It may challenge mass reproduction of new
dangerous organisms. A man don't occupy strange ecological niches to
provide biosphere stability.
14. "Rule of dissipation energy increase" is very injudicious
rule. Ecological principle of "direction of evolution" forestalls
development direction must guarantee minimum of energy
dissipation. Law "energy maximisation" talks that system may survive
promotes to energy entrance and uses it more effective, accumulates
high quality energy.
A man spends more and more energy for unit production getting from
nature systems (approximately 60 times as more than for far
ancestors). Basic part (about 2/3) of all energy became not to
consumers. Dissipated energy pollutes an atmosphere.
15. Aggression in people wars increased constantly. It allow to
separate a "Rule of aggression increase". There are not in nature
useful and harmful kinds (rule of "interadaptation"). All kinds are
one whole. A man annihilates similar to him and other kinds in mass
quantity.
16. A man perfect during hundreds years his weapons of mass
defeat to accordance "Rule of excessive efficiency of attack weapons".
Natural attack and defence organs (tusks, claws, a poison, an armour,
etc.) are effective only by defence or attack to small quantity of
animals. Their efficiency has humane principle for nature. A man
created a huge quantity of very effective weapons are not proved by
ecological norms may annihilate all living organisms frequently.
17. Many years mankind thought about ideal "pink" future and
acted by "Rule of future unforesight". It is apparently a basic rule
of mankind development. A future may be not foresaw accordance to any
ecological laws in view of exceptional complexity of
antropogenic-natural systems. But existing results of interaction
between man and nature allow to foresee nearest future. This
unsuccessful interaction bring to rise of global ecological problems
instead regional problems.
I'm of the opinion that new ecological rules of mankind development
must be learned and must be proposed to people for use in their
actions. New ecological rules must forestall about possible negative
consequences of unecological activity. For example new ecological
commandments may be added to Bible 10 commandments: " 11. Respect
and don't destroy a nature; you are a part of nature. 12. Give
back all things took from nature and leave for descendants. 13.
Restore a broken nature. 14. All natural living organisms are equally.
New ecological sins resulted to global ecological problems may be
added to Bibles sins: 8. Nature pollution. 9. Ecological egoism
(consumption above ecological admissible level for all mankind). 10.
Unlimited reproduction.
Very truly : Alexandr Tetior
1
Subject: GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS 970123
From: gsenet@nac.net (Phil Reynolds)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:24:36
970123
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
* NJ'S COYOTES TO BE SLAUGHTERED FOR HUNTERS "RECREATION"
* NATIONAL LIST OF WETLANDS PLANT SPECIES
* ENDANGERED SPECIES SETTLEMENT RESOLVED
* NOAH - NEW ANIMAL SEARCH ENGINE!
* VIDEO CONTEST: ENVIRONMENT/POPULATION
* ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 970122
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NJ'S COYOTES TO BE SLAUGHTERED FOR HUNTERS "RECREATION"
Date: 23 Jan 1997
From: veganman@mail.idt.net (Stuart Chaifetz)
New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance
PO Box 174
Englishtown, NJ 07726
908-446-6808
Contact: Stuart Chaifetz 201-955-9203
NJ'S COYOTES TO BE SLAUGHTERED FOR HUNTERS "RECREATION"
EACH HUNTER WILL BE ALLOWED TO KILL UP TO 34 COYOTES DURING 17 DAY
HUNTING SEASON
Starting on Feb.1 and continuing until the 17th, more than 400 hunters
will be out in force across our state. Armed with shotguns,
muzzeloaders and bows and arrows, they will be stalking and
slaughtering coyotes. The NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife and
the Fish and Game Council approved this first ever hunt against the
overwhelming opposition from the citizens of NJ.
"This horrendous action on their part should be a wake up call to all
the people of our state." States Stuart Chaifetz, Chairman of NJARA's
Anti-Hunting Committee. "The Council and Fish and Game are made up of
hunters, for hunters and by hunters. They only care about making sure
that there are enough animals for hunters to kill."
There is no doubt that this killing is purely for hunters pleasure. In
fact, Fish and Game readily admitted this in the "New Jersey Register"
Aug. 19, 1996. In the Register, they were responding to questions sent
to them about the hunt. When faced with the question, "Why do we need
to hunt coyotes?", Fish and Game responded: "The proposed hunting
season will allow for increased recreational use of the coyote
resource by New Jersey Sportsmen and women."
Barbaric Hunting Methods
One of the requirements that Fish and Game has made for hunters is
that they use a predator call. One popular predator call for hunting
coyotes is "Puppy Distress." This is a device that makes the sound of
a wounded puppy.
"A coyote female who hears a puppy crying will rush to his aid. For
this caring act, she will be slaughtered by a hunter looking for a
trophy." States Chaifetz. "This is one of the most disgusting things
I have ever heard of. Any hunter taking part in this hunt should be
ashamed of himself."
Only 48 coyote sightings in 1995
Fish and Game has said that there are 1,000 and 1,500 coyotes in NJ.
However, their own reports show that in 1995, there were only 48
coyotes sighted in the entire state. The most sightings that have ever
occurred were in 1993, and there were only 90 sighted that year. These
few sightings show that there are far fewer coyotes in NJ than Fish
and Game says.
When you consider that there are 8,000,000 people in NJ, and less than
90 people a year see coyotes, this shows that coyotes have adapted
wonderfully to our state. They aren't hurting anyone, they are merely
trying to survive in the environment that we have created. We should
be proud that a state like NJ has these wonderful animals. Fish and
Game, however, just sees another animal for hunters to kill.
Hypocrisy of Fish and Game
Fish and Game says that hunters have to kill deer because there
aren't any natural predators. Yet, here we have a natural predator of
deer and now Fish and Game wants to kill them too.
The fact is that the salaries of Fish and Game employees are paid for
by the sale of hunting licenses. Any animal that a coyote kills to
survive is one less license that they can sell to a hunter.
"All this shows just how extreme Fish and Game is." States Chaifetz.
"Fish and Game must be dramatically changed so that slaughters like
this never happen again."
-=*=-
NJARA is a community based, non-profit, educational organization
working toward a more peaceful, nonviolent coexistence with our
earthly companions, both human and nonhuman. Through our programs of
promoting responsible science, ethical consumerism and
environmentalism, NJARA advocates change that greatly enhances the
quality of life for animals and people and protects the earth.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NATIONAL LIST OF WETLANDS PLANT SPECIES
Date: 22 Jan 1997
From: Topheim@AOL.COM
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Revision of The National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks public input and
comment on a revised National List of Plant Species That Occur in
Wetlands (Reed 1988) (hereafter, "National list"). The revised
National list conforms to Kartesz (1994). A wetland indicator was
assigned to each species that expresses the fidelity to wetlands by
region and sub-region. The National list was originally developed as
an appendix to Cowardin et al.(1979). The National list has also been
used to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean
Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in implementing
the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act.
DATES: Comments on the revised National list must be received by April
15, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revised National list including its regional
subdivisions are available on February 15, 1997, from the Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Suite 101, Monroe
Building, 9720 Executive Center Drive, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2440.
Electronic copies of the above lists are available for downloading
from the World Wide Web at http://www.nwi.fws.gov/ecology.htm. Written
comments may be submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Wetlands Inventory, Suite 101, Monroe Building , 9720 Executive Center
Drive, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2440, faxed to (813) 570-5409, or
electronically transmitted to: ecology@wetlands.nwi.fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Porter B. Reed, Jr., Fish and
Wildlife Service, at (813) 570-5425, Dr. Russell Theriot, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, at (601) 634-2733, Mr. William Sipple,
Environmental Protection Agency, at (202) 260-6066, or Dr.Norman
Melvin, Natural Resources Conservation Service, at (301) 497-5933.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ENDANGERED SPECIES SETTLEMENT RESOLVED
Date: Jan 22, 1997
From: Mike Markarian
CONTACT: Eric Glitzenstein, (202) 588-5206
DISPUTE OVER LANDMARK ENDANGERED SPECIES SETTLEMENT RESOLVED
THE FUND FOR ANIMALS AND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FILE JOINT
AGREEMENT TO HASTEN PROTECTION OF 85 SPECIES
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week, The Fund for Animals and the Department
of the Interior filed a joint stipulation to resolve disputes in a
landmark 1992 settlement agreement that sped up the pace of listing
for hundreds of animal and plant species under the Endangered Species
Act.
In the stipulation, the defendants agree to make a listing decision on
41 highly imperiled candidate species by April 1, 1998; those species
include the Spotted Frog, the Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel, and the
Riparian Brush Rabbit. By December 31, 1998, the defendants agree to
make listing decisions on 43 additional imperiled species, and also to
take action on the rare Florida Black Bear, which has suffered from
habitat loss and sport hunting while awaiting listing for nearly two
decades.
"Because of politics interfering with the endangered species listing
process, critically imperiled species such as the Florida Black Bear
have been last place in triage," says Eric Glitzenstein, attorney for
The Fund for Animals and other plaintiffs. "We can only hope that this
joint stipulation will prompt the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect
these species before it is too late."
For a copy of the 10-page stipulation, please contact The Fund for
Animals at (301) 585-2591.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NOAH - NEW ANIMAL SEARCH ENGINE!
Date: Jan 22, 1997
From: Andrew Gach
Dear Animal Lover,
I am excited to announce the debut of Noah, a search engine dedicated
only to quality animal sites on the web!
Noah has less than 100 entries right now and that is why I am writing
to you for your help. If you have an animal-related web site, or know
of a few good ones, please submit it using the submit link on the Noah
page. We want to build Noah up a lot more before we announce it to the
general public. Your help is appreciated!!
Even if you don't have a site to submit, feel free to visit us at
http://www.cyberark.com and try Noah out. Your comments and
suggestions are highly appreciated while we are in this formation
stage.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
*Sierra*
cyberark@pacbell.net
**********************************************************************
http://www.cyberark.com - Cyberark - Your One-Stop Resource for
Everything Animal!
**********************************************************************
http://www.cyberark.com/animal - Animal Connection - Discover the
fascinating world of telepathic communication with animals, Flint
River Ranch Dog and Cat food, holistic health for pets and much more!
**********************************************************************
http://www.cyberark.com/streamline - Streamline International - the
Internet's most exciting and profitable business opportunity! Don't
miss it!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
VIDEO CONTEST: ENVIRONMENT/POPULATION
Date: 22 Jan 1997
From: ricks@tc.umn.edu (Dell Erickson)
Educators and Students:
What:
Prepare a film/video/multimedia in any cinematic form (drama,
animation, image-montage, music-video, narrative, documentary, etc.)
for the 1997 World Population Film/Video Festival. The film or video
statement is limited only by the student?s imagination. It can be of
any length (although most fall in the 30 second to 30 minute range).
Submissions must be in ?" VHS (NTSC) format for preview judging. There
is no entry fee.
Who:
Secondary and College students, individually or as a group.
When:
Entries must be postmarked by June 15, 1997. DO NOT send the original
program master!
Prizes:
A total of $10,000 in prizes awarded to the top three entries in
secondary and college categories. In addition, a "Best of Festival
1997" VHS tape will be available to secondary and college schools
nationwide; and may be broadcast on MTV, VH-1, Turner, Discovery
and/or the PBS network with the collective title: "The Future Through
Student Eyes." Winners will be juried by a distinguished panel of
environmentalists, population experts, humanists, filmmakers, and
broadcast executives. Winners will be announced September 30, 1997.
Objectives:
To encourage educators and students to explore, using film or video,
the connection between population growth, resource consumption, the
environment, and our common global future. Where are we headed, is it
sustainable, and what can we do about it? This international
competition, while exciting and fun, promotes critical thought and
self-expression concerning the most critical challenges facing
humanity today.
A free colorful poster suitable for classrooms (11X17") , resource
guide, and a copy of the video, "Best Of Festival ?96" is available.
Contact:
Rawn Fulton, Festival Director
World Population Film /Video Festival (WPFVF)
46 Fox Hill Road
Bernardston, MA 01337
Tel: 1-800-638-9464
Fax: 413-648-9204
E-Mail: info@wpfvf.com
Http://www.wpfvf.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 970122
The following is a daily update summarizing news of interest
to EPA staff. It includes information from current news sources:
newspapers, newsletters, and other publications. For more
information, contact the EPA Headquarters Library at (202) 260-
5921, or e-mail LIBRARY-HQ.
**Viewpoints expressed in the following summaries do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy**
** SUPERFUND **
GOP Senate Agenda Includes Bill to Reform Hazardous Waste
Cleanups. Daily Environment Report, January 22, 1997, ppAA-1-2.
Included in the cluster of Senate bills announced January 21
was legislation to identify the causes of waste and delay in the
federal Superfund program.
The Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1997 (S 8) was the
only environmental bill in the set of bills released by Sen.
Trent Lott (R-MS) and Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK).
The act outlines a comprehensive approach to Superfund
reform, according to a GOP fact sheet. "This act will help
achieve the original vision of superfund to protect human health
and the environment through common-sense cleanup and quickly
allow for the economic development of these blighted areas," the
fact sheet said.
Some of the points of the bill were described by Robert
Smith (R-NH) in a January 21 statement on the Senate floor. Smith
said the bill would provide $60 million annually to state and
local governments for brownfield redevelopment.
The bill would also "cap municipal liability". Smith did not
indicate the how much the cap would be.
States would be given an increased role in Superfund
cleanups under the bill. "Citizen participation is increased by
setting up a Citizen Response Organization process to ensure that
interested individuals, government officials, and scientists work
together to provide input on the selection of cleanup remedies at
superfund sites," the fact sheet said.
The Environmental Defense Fund claimed that Republicans did
not receive proper input from the environmental community in
putting together the bill. "Though some significant changes have
been made from the bill under consideration last year, our
initial review indicates that numerous critical flaws remain,"
said Karen Florini, EDF Senior Attorney. One criticism voiced by
Florini was that the bill allows fenced-off "dead zones" that
"will hamper community development over the long term."
** CONGRESS **
Craig Releases Membership of Six Senate GOP Task Forces. Daily
Environment Report, January 22, 1997, pA-3.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) released the names of members
assigned to six task forces that are designed to develop
Republican positions on several issues.
The task forces are scheduled to be active for only two
months.
The members of the environmental task force are: Larry
Craig, Wayne Allard, John Chafee, Slade Gorton, Judd Gregg, Kay
Bailey Hutchinson, Frank Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions
and Gordon Smith.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* G A R D E N S T A T E E N V I R O N E T *
* Tel 201-586-4128 MAILBOX@GSENET.ORG Fax 201-627-8616 *
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
* EcoNet Conference: env.nj *
* WWW Site: http://www.gsenet.org *
* BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400 *
* Listserver: majordomo@igc.org subscribe gsenet-L *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
=END=
