Subject: Re: Canadian States?
From: Fred Williams
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:09:35 GMT
Bill MacArthur wrote:
>
> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> >gillies@cs.ubc.ca (Donald Gillies) wrote:
> >
> >> In recent years the Financial
> >>Post has not been publishing this bleak statistic regularly, but you
> >>can read "The Betrayal of Canada" (Mel Hurtig) for a whining Canadian
> >>account, laced with lots of economic statistics proving the bankrupcy
> >>of Canada, and complaining of how the USA pulls all the (purse-)
> >>strings in Canada today...
> >
> >This was written before the US-Canada Auto Agreement. Mississaugua
> >was a green field, and the industrial ring around Toronto did not
> >exist back then.
> >
> I don't think that anyone can argue that Canada hasn't benefited
> tremendously from the Auto Pact. Canada has some of the best high tech
> companies in the world and some of the most efficient plants. How many
> of those would have been built and how many jobs would be missing without
> it?
But didn't NAFTA do away with the autopact? In the three years that
followed free trade, Canada lost 1/3 of it's manufacturing industry and
a total of over half a million jobs. The American multinational
corporations now have privileged access to Canada's natural resources.
In time of shortage, the Canadian government can ration supplies to
Canadians, but it is not allowed to place any restrictions on exports to
the United States, ever. Our forests have all but disappeared, and the
companies that are "raping" Canada often do so with money from Canadian
taxpayers, because our officials and politicians hae been bought out by
the International corporations.
> >The 100 most profitable businesses in _any_ country are mostly under
> >foreign ownership. If this is not yet true of the US itself, it
> >eventually will be.
Where do you get this from? Is there some rule which says it's easier
to make profits in a foriegn land?
> I also read an article a couple of years ago in which the author compared
> the working conditions of multi/transnational companies with home growns.
> Typically, multis offered better pay, benefits and working conditions
> than homegrowns. IIRC this was a worldwide phenomenon.
Yes! That's part of the propaganda. First the CIA, and often the
marines go in and destroy a countries economy creating widespread
unemployment, disrupting commerce, etc., literally turning democracies
into third world, tin-pot, military dictatorships, whose leaders take
their orders from Washington. Then the multinationals move in playing
on the desparation of the people, and offer starvation wages in exchange
for long hours of labour, often by children. Then they turn around and
say, "Gee aren't we nice for offering these poor people jobs?" and,
"How come there's so much anti-American sentiment in the world?"
I have some transcripts of speeches by people in the peace movement and
some ex-CIA people who testify that this is indeed what is going on, and
has been going on for decades now. They are long files, so I won't post
them all at once, but over the next few week I'll try to get them on
.
If anyone wants them directly, email me and I'll attach them to an
email in return. I can send a self-extracting ZIP file if you've got
the PC compatible to unzip it.
--
To fight evil, we must first confront it where it can do us the greatest
harm: In our own hearts, minds and souls.
Peace, Siblings,
Fred Williams,
Fred@acbm.qc.ca
Subject: Re: ?WHAT TAXES HAS CLINTON RAISED?
From: The Generalissimo
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:29:30 -0800
taxservice@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <56aiiv$kb@en.com>, kevin@secant.com (Kevin A. Roll) writes:
>
> >taxservice@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>I am not a tax collector! My work has to do with helping people avoid
> >>having to pay them. Even if I can find no additional ways for my
> >>friends/family/clients, they prefer other people doing the paperwork as
> >>those who prefer to have someone else shine their shoes! Helping people
> >>to get a fair shake - if you will - is my job!!! I don't pretend to be
> >>anything other than someone who is doing a service for others. I don't
> >>solicit them! The come to me!!!
> >
> >This is the ultimate in hypocrisy! I can't believe I'm reading this!
> >This guy babbles on about his beloved social programs, yet he admits
> >to making a living helping people avoid taxes.
> >
> >*shaking my head*
> >
> >
>
> Shake this!! Sucker!!!
>
> You sound like such a nice man! Are you college educated??? I am always
> amazed at how much wisdom some people are able to impart with so few
> words!!!
And we are waiting for some from you, but they never arrive.
>
> "Jack"
>
> John H. Fisher - TaxService@aol.com
> Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
>
> Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!
--
"To its committed members ( the democratic party) was still
the party of heart, humanity, and justice, but to those
removed a few paces it looked like Captain Hooks crew --
ambulance chasing lawyers, rapacious public policy grants
persons, civil rights gamesmen, ditzy brained movie stars,
fat assed civil servant desk squatters, recovering alcoholics,
recovering wife beaters, recovering child-buggers, and so forth
and so on, a grotesque line up of ill mannered, self pitying,
caterwauling freeloaders banging their tin cups on the pavement
demanding handouts". (The Washington post, 11/12/94) Nicholas Von
Hoffman
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capital Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:22:05 GMT
"Jeffrey Matthews Lamb" wrote:
>No - I would think that intelligent, informed, and compassionate people
>together using a real democratic process could decide such things - but we
>are far from this...
Lemme see now, if this is Wednesday I go to the vegetables meeting,
but if it's Thursday I get to participate in the shoes meeting right
after the dental vote...
> And no you are no where near understanding the
>distinction between qualitative and quantitative.
So you claim.
>> As for finite resources, this is a "there you go again." If resources
>> were finite that would mean you wouldn't be able to create and more.
>> The fact, however, is that throughout history we have created more
>> resources all the time, and we continue to do so. Finite means
>> limited. To assert that resources will reach a point where they
>> cannot be improved or increased is to repeat your earlier "We're there
>> now, it can't get better" proposition.
>
>This is absolute nonsense. Do you think we create things from nothing?
No, I don't think that. But I do think that we make our burdens into
resources. Sixty years ago uranium was an obscure metal useful only
for making white housepaint. Today we have made it into a resource
that offers us energy for a billion years. 130 years ago petroleum
was a pollutant in the fishing streams of Pennsylvania. Today we have
both cleaned up the polluted streams and made the pollutant into a
resource which saved the whales.
>Things change form via any number of chemical and physical processes( ie.
>decomposition) - but resources do not come from nothing.
Like, duh.
> So yes, our
>given resources are limited - period. We use resources to produce more of
>some things - and use some resources that we can not replace (ie fossil
>fuels).
Nope. Lissen hee, Minister, the only resurces are spiritual:
inventiveness, curiosity, discipline, ingenuity, determination. Rock
is rock, and water is water, and neither they, nor any other material
thing, is a resource or a waste, until we make it so using these
resources I have named.
> Some things can be recycled or regenerate themselves to some
>degree though things are always lost in the process as useless byproducts
>and waste.
Nope. If a byproduct is "waste" that's only because we haven't found
a use for it yet.
> Technology can make things more efficient - which means
>sometimes less waste - but that can only go so far because always on the
>final analysis things are being consumed that cannot be replaced.
And where do you think these "things" are magically vanishing to?
Half the tin ever mined in Roman Cornwall is still in use 2,000 years
later, and some of that gold in Fort Knox is five or eight thousand
years old. The lime we use for fertilizer is the shells of sea
animals that died millions of years ago.
> You
>need a basic primer in science and a reality check on your "eat all you
>want, we'll make more" philosophy.
The insults people use are generally signs of what they know to be
weakest in themselves. Methinks you know that you need more
background in science.
> I often call this the "Doritoization"
>of life from Jay Leno's dumb Dorito commercials : ).
Sorry, I don't watch Jay Leno, so I can't match your style of
analytical depth.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:17:26 GMT
"Mike Asher" wrote for all to see:
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
>>
>> "Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
>> on a life support system by a population of animals without
>> damaging the system itself...
>
>Hehehe. Unfortunately, that is not the correct definition of carrying
>capacity. If you're going to create the meanings as you go along,
>communication becomes impossible.
I may be mistaken, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect
that Jay does not want communication. He is the only poster I have
seen who references his own (substandard, in my opinion) work, and
redefines accepted scientific terms as he goes along.
Regards, Harold
----
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity,
bought and sold among individuals, but absolutely limited to
the state."
- Kenneth Boulding, 1982, "Progress and Privilege",
William Tucker, pp. 105-106.
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capital Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:10:03 GMT
Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>Can you explain this a bit further ? What resources have we created ?
Uranium is probably th most important recent example: sixty years ago
it was an obscure metal useful only for making very white white paint.
Today we have turned it into a major resource which promises us energy
security on this planet alone for a billion years. (The plutonium,
which we cereate from the U-235 slag, is also useful is a different
story with the same lesson: we created the element, and we are
creating uses for it.)
>In particular, the problem is that of raw materials for _material growth_,
>the usage of energy and minerals; the deterioration of soil quality through
>overuse. These are what people mean by the problems of economic growth.
I understand that these are what people think they mean, but how can
you "mean" something which is not true? Minerals do _not_ vanish into
thin air. Soil quality is improved by use. Energy is incoming at a
rate of a large fraction of a horsepower per square yard. Etc.
>Over time, Civilisation (in Europe, to pick a case I am familiar with),
>we have survived by moving from one resource to another as growth has depleted
>that resource to danger levels, but we haven't avoided the problem in general.
Which European resource has been depleted to danger levels? Coal?
Nope. It's a glut on the market. Wood? Europe has more forest this
year than last, but less than next. Tin? Nope, half the tin mined in
Cornwall over 2,000 years is till in use. Just exactly _which_
resources has Europe stopped using because they were depleted?
> As growth in the middle ages led to deforestation, we moved to coal.
I think this is probably false. The coal made possible the growth in
population; the causality does not go in the direction you suggest.
> As the
>growth in traffic at the turn of the century threatened to inundate us with
>manure, we moved to cars and oil, etc.
I doubt this. Was there more manure in 1910 than in 1810?
> We have until now survived by
>changing dependencies to other materials, but not solved the problem of
>living within finite raw materials.
This one is emphatically wrong, as you yourself are busy pointing out:
we are not dependent on materials. We live by our wits.
> As oil runs out, we cannot switch
>back to coal, or wood, or horse and cart. Do you suggest we move onto another
>finite raw material ?
We can, do, and will switch to coal when it's the best way of doing
things. I predict a rise in the charcoal market in the next fifty
years -- a healthy export industry, from Russia to Africa. I
certainly suggest that we add uranium, thorium, and plutonium to the
available options. These last two, you notice, did not exist on Earth
in the last several billion years, until mankind found new and
different ways of making them.
>Alastair McKinstry
>Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
>Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
>is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.
Depends on the exponent, dunnit?
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:06:59 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : > : > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
> : > : > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
> : > : > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
> : > : > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
> : > : > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
> : > : > rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
> : > : Those will then include a different bunch of fish
> : > : in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
> : > : amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
> : > : Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
> : > : have been unthinkable in 1970.
> : > The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
> : > price change is _understated_. If people hadn't compensated
> : > for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
> : > the index would have increased by more than 40%.
> : Ah, no. There other reasons people make choices as
> : to what they eat than the price. eg if fish is perceived
> : at some point as healthy, or even fashionable, people will
> : accept a premium price for it.
>
> I don't see your point. This sounds like an argument about
> the interpretation of an increase in the CPI. Sure, it could
> be caused by in increase in demand. But I thought we
> were discussing bias in the CPI, which I don't see in this
> example.
...deleted...
> : > : A number of different species of fish were introduced to
> : > : US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
> : > : commanded a premium price.
>
> : > You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
> : > Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
> : > unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
>
> : Expensive new varieties of fish will increase the
> : mean price paid for "fish" if the fish index is
> : calculated with uniform weight. How else do you allow
> : for the introduction of new products in a category
> : when calculating a mean index of cost?
> If they're new goods, we can't calculate a change in
> price the first year they're introduced, right?
> You can only calculate the change in price in
> subsequent years. A price index compares the _same_
> bundle of goods in two years.
What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
(to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
up as a rise in the cost of "fish", or not?
> The treatment of new goods is a common criticism of the CPI,
> but the usual critique makes the opposite point from yours.
> Expensive new goods like VCRs are introduced, but drop
> in price rapidly: the CPI goes down because of the fall in
> price. It doesn't go up because VCRs are more expensive
> than TVs. (the critique is that new goods aren't
> introduced into the CPI rapidly enough.)
The point is not whether the CPI takes introduction
of new goods into account, the point is that the
change in marketing of goods may lead to price
changes that the market is inelastic to, and hence
the rise in (eg) fish prices may not reflect a change
in supply or demand of the raw goods (fish), which is
what we're arguing here, but the fact that retailed
fish now has value added from the raw product and
people are paying that premium for extraneous reasons.
(eg the convenience of rapid cooking, or pre-spiced,
or "extra fresh"). CPI would have to be incredibly
fine-grained (and rapidly become meaningless) if everytime
the spice blend on cod fillets was changed the basket
of goods contributing to the CPI had to be reinitialised.
> : > : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
> : > : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
> : > This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
> : > the price of fish in retail establishments, and
> : > don't make any distinction between domestic and
> : > imported.
> : Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
> : imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
> : dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
> : an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
> : to completely extraneous factors
> : If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
> : trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this
> : can not be argued to be representative of some supply
> : and demand problem with fish itself.
> Ok, granted. I misunderstood your point because you didn't
> claim any trend in the exchange rate. And you still don't.
> I have no idea what's happened to exchange rates over the last
> 25 years. Maybe the increase in the price of fish is even
> more rapid than I thought.
Or it may be slower. Remember the US doesn't import much
fish from Japan, so $-Yen rates are irrelevant, you'd need
the import value weighted basked of currencies of countries
that import fish to the US. I have no idea where the
PP corrected value of the $ was in 1970 relative to the intervening
years, but I do know it changed drastically at times during that
interval.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:00:39 -0500
Harold wrote:
> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the average loss
> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years, the average
> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has been farmed the
> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>
Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
reality.
You make assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
> with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
> the character of the previous poster.
You're right - other than name some publications, I couldn't be specific
about studies, stats, numbers - so I'll butt out and leave you to be
refuted by the people who've got the information at their fingertips. Of
which there are many, I see. My point about the mainstream press is that
they're generally unimaginative, unquestioning and not interested in any
new information unless they're cudgeled over the head with it - like alot
of people who prefer not to face the damage we've done to our world.
Betsy
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:10:59 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote:
>Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
>anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
>their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
>conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
>You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
>reality.
Betsy,
When you chop the head off corn, you still leave some stalk above
ground, and a root system comparable in size to the entire
above-ground plant. All of this has been grown out of nitrogen and
carbon in the air, plus water, plus fertilizer, since the previous
spring. All of it will rot into humus, together with the bodies of
dead bacteria, over the forthcoming winter.
This is the regeneration of the soild which goes on every year.
In North American agriculture, fallow years are the planting of an
alternate crop, typically alfalfa, but often soybeans or peanuts, to
fix nitrogen in the soil, hence cutting down on the ammonia bill. In
southern Ontario the alfalfa cycle is typically one year on four, but
people with more cattle in their mix may grow alfalfa every other
year, with winter wheat, oats or barley in between. The nitrogen from
the alfalfa feeds the grain; the stalk and root from the grain feed
the alfalfa.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:11:10 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>The point is not whether the CPI takes introduction
>of new goods into account, the point is that the
>change in marketing of goods may lead to price
>changes that the market is inelastic to, and hence
>the rise in (eg) fish prices may not reflect a change
>in supply or demand of the raw goods (fish), which is
>what we're arguing here, but the fact that retailed
>fish now has value added from the raw product and
>people are paying that premium for extraneous reasons.
>(eg the convenience of rapid cooking, or pre-spiced,
>or "extra fresh"). CPI would have to be incredibly
>fine-grained (and rapidly become meaningless) if everytime
>the spice blend on cod fillets was changed the basket
>of goods contributing to the CPI had to be reinitialised.
I doubt that we're going to see Louisiana cod: cod is already a luxury
good as it comes. We do, however, have a super-luxury cod: smoked.
Poor man's lox.
Here in Toronto one of the more expensive products on the market is
dry salt cod, which sells for about 1.6 times the price of frozen cod.
That may work out the same per unit of protein if you make allowance
for the dessication, but my point is that it's really a matter of the
market: dried cod is a necessity fo bacalao, a staple among the
Portugese, so they bid it up beyond the price of frozen.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:11:03 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote:
>DLJ - I'm not going to argue with you - according to the articles I read
>on the subject, some of California's best farmland IS worn-out and useless
>from a cropping standpoint, thanks to poor stewardship. "We naturally
>build cities where the land is good" - if this somewhat random statement
>is true, isn't it a tragedy to lose former cropland and wildlands to
>suburpia? But that's another discussion, I suppose. "It is being pulled
>out of farming because it is NOW more useful as roads and housing" - add
>that one word and we're in perfect agreement, so what's your point?
Whaddya mean, what's my point? You just got through agreeing with me.
What's _your_ point? :-)
>
>> And we'll pull it out of the Gulf of Mexico the same way the Dutch
>> pull it out of the North Sea, the very moment it becomes worthwhile to
>> do so.
>
>Sounds dramatic and exciting - real John Wayne movie material.
Not a John Wayne fan, and setting up windmills to push the water back
from the vastly expanded Mississippi delta (and to keep New Orleans
dry) does not strike me as high noon material. It is, however, one of
the ways we live by our wits, and improve our standard of living as we
go.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:28:19 -1000
Mike Asher wrote:
> Jay Hanson wrote:
> >
> > Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
> >
> > "Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
> > on a life support system by a population of animals without
> > damaging the system itself...
>
> Hehehe. Unfortunately, that is not the correct definition of carrying
> capacity. If you're going to create the meanings as you go along,
> communication becomes impossible.
============================================================
"Investing in Natural Capital:
The Ecological Approach to Sustainability"
from the International Society for Ecological Economics
CARRYING CAPACITY REVISITED
Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a
given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined
habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which
it is dependent. However, because of our culturally variable
technology, different consumption patterns, and trade, a
simple territorially-bounded head-count cannot apply to human
beings. Human carrying capacity must be interpreted as the
maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that
can be sustained indefinitely without progressively impairing
the functional integrity and productivity of relevant
ecosystems wherever the latter may be. The corresponding
human population is a function of per capita rates of material
consumption and waste output or net productivity divided by
per capita demand (Rees 1990). This formulation is a simple
restatement of Hardin's (1991) "Third Law of Human Ecology":
(Total human impact on the ecosphere) =
(Population) x (Per capita impact).
Early versions of this law date from Ehrlich and Holdren who
also recognized that human impact is a product of population,
affluence (consumption), and technology: I = PAT (Ehrlich and
Holdren 1971; Holdren and Ehrlich 1974). The important point
here is that a given rate of resource throughput can support
fewer people well or greater numbers at subsistence levels.
Now the inverse of traditional carrying capacity provides an
estimate of natural capital requirements in terms of
productive landscape. Rather than asking what population a
particular region can support sustainably, the question
becomes: How much productive land and water area in various
ecosystems is required to support the region's population
indefinitely at current consumption levels?
Our preliminary data for developed regions suggest that per
capita primary consumption of food, wood products, fuel, and
waste- processing capacity co-opts on a continuous basis up to
several hectares of productive ecosystem -- the exact amount
depends on the average levels of consumption (i.e., material
throughput). This average per capita "personal planetoid" can
be used to estimate the total area required to maintain any
given population. W call this aggregate area the relevant
community's total "ecological footprint' (see Figure 20.2) on
the earth (Rees 1992).
This approach reveals that the land "consumed" by urban
regions is typically at least an order of magnitude greater
than that contained within the usual political boundaries or
the associated built-up area. However brilliant its economic
star, every city is an entropic black hole drawing on the
concentrated material resources and low-entropy production of
a vast and scattered hinterland many times the size of the
city itself. Borrowing from Vitousek et al. (1986), we say
that high density settlements "appropriate" carrying capacity
from all over the globe, as well as from the past and the
future (Wackernagel 1991).
The Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley Region of British Columbia,
Canada, serves as an example. For simplicity's sake consider
the region's ecological use of forested and arable land for
domestic food, forest products, and fossil energy consumption
alone: assuming an average Canadian diet and current
management practices, 1.1 ha of land per capita is required
for food production, 0.5 ha for forest products, and 3.5 ha
would be required to produce the biomass energy (ethanol)
equivalent of current per capita fossil energy consumption.
(Alternatively, a comparable area of temperate forest is
required exclusively to assimilate current per capita C02
emissions (see "Calculating the Ecological Footprint").
Thus, to support just their food and fossil fuel consumption,
the region's 1.7 million people require, conservatively, 8.7
million ha of land in continuous production. The valley,
however, is only about 400,000 ha. Our regional population
therefore "imports" the productive capacity of at least 22
times as much land to support its consumer lifestyles as it
actually occupies (see Figure 20.3). At about 425 people/km2
the population density of the valley is comparable to that of
the Netherlands (442 people/km2) [p.p. 369-371]
Even with generally lower per capita consumption, European
countries live far beyond their ecological means. For
example, the Netherlands' population (see Figure 20,4)
consumes the output of at least 14 times as much productive
land as is contained within its own political boundaries
(approximately 110,000 km2 for food and forestry products and
360,00 km2 for energy)(basic data from WRI 1992).8 [p. 374]
THIS IS A FABULOUS BOOK! EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ IT!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PUBLISHED BY:
The International Society for Ecological Economics and
Island Press -- 1994 http://www.islandpress.com
1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
Subject: Re: Paul & Anne Ehrlich's Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:33:36 -1000
Don Ranck wrote:
>
> > A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about.
> After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
> and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different. The sad thing
Betrayal of Science and Reason
Paul and Anne Ehrlich Chronicle Anti-Environmental Efforts of the
"Brownlash" in Betrayal of Science and Reason
Here is another review from Publisher's Weekly:
"The time has come to write a book about efforts being made
to minimize the seriousness of environmental problems."
With that opening sentence, the authors (The Stork and
the Plow) take on what they see as the purveyors of
environmental disinformation. In a lively style, they
systematically dismantle claims allegedly made in recent
books-by the likes of Gregg Easterbrook, Stephen Budiansky,
Rush Limbaugh, Dixy Lee Ray and Julian Simon-that global
warming is fiction, ozone depletion should be of no concern
and that the earth can support many times its current
population. Chapters cover population growth, food supply,
natural resources, species diversity, toxic substances,
global warming and economics. In each, direct quotations
from the anti-environmentalists named above are presented,
dissected and refuted. With ample documentation and a great
deal of input from some of the world's most renowned
environmental scientists, such as Stephen Schneider, Peter
Raven and Nobel laureate Sherwood Roland, the overall
effect is powerful.
Shearwater Books/Island Press
Publication Date: October 21, 1996
320 pages, Appendices, index
ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
http://www.islandpress.com/categories/books/BeSciRes.html
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:14:13 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote for all to see:
>Harold wrote:
>> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
>> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
>> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the average loss
>> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
>> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
>> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years, the average
>> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has been farmed the
>> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>>
>Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
>anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
>their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
>conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
>You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
>reality.
I am sorry you are unaware of the use of modern conservation tillage.
Few farmers wish to "strip mine" the soil, though I am sure that this
situation does occur.
Are you actually Shiela, better known as the Word Warrior? She had a
similar debating style; attack character and intelligence, make
assertions, present no references.
>You make assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
>> with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
>> the character of the previous poster.
>
>You're right - other than name some publications, I couldn't be specific
>about studies, stats, numbers - so I'll butt out and leave you to be
>refuted by the people who've got the information at their fingertips. Of
>which there are many, I see. My point about the mainstream press is that
>they're generally unimaginative, unquestioning and not interested in any
>new information unless they're cudgeled over the head with it - like alot
>of people who prefer not to face the damage we've done to our world.
Same methods exactly!
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
being honest."
- Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.
"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capitalist Growth
From: mobus@sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu (George Mobus)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 17:19:24 GMT
In article <56bj78$o18@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
writes:
>
> * * *
>
> You ask for "no more quips," but you evade my suggestion that limits
> to growth implies the idea that the world cannot be improved, and that
Unfortunately I did not save the original post in this thread so I can't quote
it here. If you have it and can show me where I am wrong, via email or in
this forum, please do so. At any rate, I do not recall the suggestion in that
post that the "growth" referred to "improvement" per se. The term growth is
generally applied to some measurable parameter relative to a bounded
structure. Improvement is a more nebulous concept that is more often in the
eye of the beholder. I did not take the original post to be questioning the
idea that improvement (in the sense of evolution or increasing complexity with
stability) could not take place. I've never understood the term 'economic
growth' as it seems to be commonly used. Is it growth of the money supply
(with coupled devaluation perhaps), is it growth of GDP (coupled with
increases in consumption). Just what is growing?
> this is in fact a blasphemy, an assertion that mankind has reached the
> peak of perfection. This is not a "quip." It is a serious
> accusation, that the doom and gloom set have arrogated to themselves
> the moral position of judges over all, even if it puts them in the
> self-contradictory position of saying that a flawed world is perfect
> because is is unimprovable.
>
> The illogic of this position is not mine; it is the fault of the
> people who assert it. That it is blasphemous is the problem of those
> who hold it.
> -dlj.
This seems an overly strong reaction to what seemed to me a perfectly
legitimate, open and honest inquiry. How do you get from a question about the
nature of growth in natural systems (and I take the economy to be a natural if
poorly understood system) which, so far as we know, seem not to grow without
limit, to charges of blasphemy? Quite a leap of assumption it seems to me.
GM
--
=====================================================================
George Mobus, Ph.D. Office: BH-310
Visiting Assistant Professor (360) 650-6520
Dept. of Computer Science, MS 9062 mobus@sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu
Western Washington University http://sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu/mobus/
Bellingham, WA 98226
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 18:05:23 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: [argument with set of figures leaving out 1995 omitted]
: : As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
: : world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
: : modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
: : double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
: : though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
: : for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
: You are welcome to calculate the increase of the crude oil drawdown rate
: if the rest of the world farms the way the US does.
Mike Asher, I suppose, also decries the low-tech inefficient methods
that most of the third-world 'voluntarily' adopts for transportation
(bicyles, etc) instead of the more efficient high-tech v-8 powered
4x4s. Damn those stupid people in the third world - if only they
would become more efficient and use the same level of resources as
the advanced countries, then we would all live better.
Atanu
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capitalist Growth
From: mobus@sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu (George Mobus)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 17:47:17 GMT
In article <56bagv$rg0@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott
Susin) writes:
> George Mobus (mobus@sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu) wrote:
> : nature that are capable of growing in mass (or whatever the relevant
> : parameter) do not do so without limit. Peoples' brains do not continue to
> : grow as they continue to become knowledgeable. They do not become more
> : knowledgeable as time passes either.
>
> The wonderful thing about the growth in knowledge is that it generally
> benefits everybody, not just those who hold it in their heads. When
> folks figured out how to transmit telephone calls over fiber-optics
> rather than copper, my life got better, even without understanding
> either technology.
>
Surprisingly there are people whose lives are worse when technology improves.
My own area of research is a case in point. For years we struggled with
making computers so easy to use and so ubiquitous that information processing
could be improved everywhere. Though there are no conclusive studies that
prove this point, it does seem that improvements in technology have enabled
considerable downsizing in many industries. I am certainly not a luddite and
I continue to look for ways that computers can take over what I hope are
mundane tasks (they would be for me!). However, I think we can see the impact
of technology cuts two ways in the quality of lives for people.
I am greatly concerned about the over-reliance some people in this news group
have expressed for technological progress. My observation is that most
technological advances have associated hidden or external costs and involve
tradeoffs. While one might take the really long view and say that increases
in knowledge and technology are good for the evolution of society, this does
not address the individual life.
Of late there is talk of limits to what man can know! Some physicists speak
of limits to our knowledge at a fundamental level. Complexity theorists speak
of limits to our ability to solve problems algorithmically. Chaos seems to
impose a fundamental constraint on our ability to predict the future. Perhaps
we should not get too caught up in the notion that even knowledge can grow
without bounds. We should certainly not conclude that because knowledge may
result in some advancement in technology that peoples lives are uniformly
improved.
> Knowledge rarely disappears, so society continually gets richer.
>
But it can change over time!
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=
> Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
> Department of Economics Reason"
> U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
--
=====================================================================
George Mobus, Ph.D. Office: BH-310
Visiting Assistant Professor (360) 650-6520
Dept. of Computer Science, MS 9062 mobus@sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu
Western Washington University http://sanjuan.cs.wwu.edu/mobus/
Bellingham, WA 98226
Subject: Re: The Necessity of Capital Growth
From: Alastair McKinstry
Date: 13 Nov 1996 19:58:11 +0100
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
> Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
>
> >Can you explain this a bit further ? What resources have we created ?
>
> Uranium is probably th most important recent example: sixty years ago
> it was an obscure metal useful only for making very white white paint.
> Today we have turned it into a major resource which promises us energy
> security on this planet alone for a billion years. (The plutonium,
> which we cereate from the U-235 slag, is also useful is a different
> story with the same lesson: we created the element, and we are
> creating uses for it.)
Yes, at current usages there is an "almost infinite" amount of Uranium out
there. However this is not a new situation; in 1890 the amount of oil
present was billions of times the annual oil usage, too.
The annual oil usage went up exponentially. The amount of recoverable oil
went up too, as we developed better recovery techniques. But it only went up
polynomially, not exponentially.
As long as we have exponential growth in the usage of the material, the only
thing that matters is that the volume is finite.
>
> >In particular, the problem is that of raw materials for _material growth_,
> >the usage of energy and minerals; the deterioration of soil quality
> > through
> >overuse. These are what people mean by the problems of economic growth.
>
> I understand that these are what people think they mean, but how can
> you "mean" something which is not true? Minerals do _not_ vanish into
> thin air. Soil quality is improved by use. Energy is incoming at a
> rate of a large fraction of a horsepower per square yard. Etc.
>
> >Over time, Civilisation (in Europe, to pick a case I am familiar with),
> >we have survived by moving from one resource to another as growth has
> > depleted
> >that resource to danger levels, but we haven't avoided the problem
> >in general.
>
> Which European resource has been depleted to danger levels? Coal?
> Nope. It's a glut on the market. Wood? Europe has more forest this
> year than last, but less than next. Tin? Nope, half the tin mined in
> Cornwall over 2,000 years is till in use. Just exactly _which_
> resources has Europe stopped using because they were depleted?
>
We haven't totally stopped using any; we don't. In the same way we won't
"run out of oil" , it will just cease to be economic. We no longer use wood
as a fuel, it being uneconomic to do so. The same will happen to oil; we can
manufacture fuel from sugar and wood, so once the price goes over , say $20 a
gallon, we'd switch. We would probably ditch the automobile, too, as being
too energy inefficient. But first, a few million people are going to be
killed over resource wars that could be avoided if we planned this changeover
properly, rather than let the vicious hand of the market deal with it.
For most energy purposes we have moved from wood and coal to oil. As you do
so, the "danger level" changes -- the rate at which we use the resource
goes down, but only because use of a different one goes up. We are
not currently running short of wood for energy, but if we were to run out
of oil, wood would not be a substitute; we would have used up both.
Do we then move on to another energy resource ?
> > As growth in the middle ages led to deforestation, we moved to coal.
>
> I think this is probably false. The coal made possible the growth in
> population; the causality does not go in the direction you suggest.
>
There was a large population growth just after the black plague that led to
major deforestation before the industrial revolution took off. It was the
pressure on wood that lead to development of coal as a resource.
> > As the
> >growth in traffic at the turn of the century threatened to inundate us with
> >manure, we moved to cars and oil, etc.
>
> I doubt this. Was there more manure in 1910 than in 1810?
Yes. It was pretty much a problem in _urban_ areas at the time; the removal of
all that manure would have been a very heavy strain on the infrastructure. We
have the same problem today with intensive beef and crop farming; a large
amount of manure generated in Colorado, etc that is uneconomic to ship
to Kansas for soil fertilisation, for example.
>
> > We have until now survived by
> >changing dependencies to other materials, but not solved the problem of
> >living within finite raw materials.
>
> This one is emphatically wrong, as you yourself are busy pointing out:
> we are not dependent on materials. We live by our wits.
But we use mineral resources and energy.
Ultimately there is a fixed input of energy to Earth from the Sun; there is a
fixed supply of minerals on the planet. Maximising the efficient use of those
resources is where our wits come in; many (in fact most) civilisations have
failed in this regard. But we must recognise this fact.
>
> > As oil runs out, we cannot switch
> >back to coal, or wood, or horse and cart. Do you suggest we move onto
> >another
> >finite raw material ?
>
> We can, do, and will switch to coal when it's the best way of doing
> things. I predict a rise in the charcoal market in the next fifty
> years -- a healthy export industry, from Russia to Africa. I
> certainly suggest that we add uranium, thorium, and plutonium to the
> available options. These last two, you notice, did not exist on Earth
> in the last several billion years, until mankind found new and
> different ways of making them.
Yes, you are probably right about the growth of those industries. Yes,
thorium and plutonium did not exist before man made them. But their energy
content was latent in the existing Uranium, we just developed better
recovery techniques.
But our energy recovery techniques are not growing exponentially; our
energy usage is.
For minerals, we don't run out of them, as you pointed out. But we do consume
them and dump them in a manner that makes it increasingly harder to recover
the material; a metal oxidises, reducing it requires large amounts of
energy and reducing agents.
Soil fertility can be maintained, but at increasingly higher inputs of
refined fertilizers,pesticides, and ultimately, energy again.
There is a limit to the energy input to the planet, and we have to live
within it.
>
> >Alastair McKinstry
> >Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
> >Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
> >is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.
>
> Depends on the exponent, dunnit?
>
> -dlj.
>
>
--
Alastair McKinstry
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.
Subject: Re: Paul & Anne Ehrlich's Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: alnev@midtown.net (A.J.)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:39:13 GMT
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:54:35 -0500, "Don Ranck"
wrote:
>> A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about.
>After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
>and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different. The sad thing
>is that these holdovers from the 60's cultural revolution are desperately
>trying to find some remnant of their doom and gloom prophecies that the
>public will accept.
I just read the book and it's probably his most widely-appealing work
to date, since it puts all the anti-environmental rhetoric in context
and doesn't just focus on overpopulation. The same people who've
always criticized Ehrlich will be eager to criticize this book, but
they should actually read it before doing so. Ehrlich successfully
debunks all the standard fallacies posted on Usenet.
Ehrlich also explains why some of his oft-quoted "Population Bomb"
scenarios were overzealous (it's because science is always correcting
itself). And he goes into great detail about the famous 5 minerals
bet with Julian Simon, and Simon's recent refusal to make another bet
on 15 factors that are far more meaningful. The following excerpt
gives a description of the original bet that you'll won't hear from a
Dittohead:
"In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists
to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that
humanity would never run out of anything. Paul and the others knew
that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical
indicators and said so at the time. They emphasized that the depletion
of so-called renewable resources--environmental resources such as
soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater--is much more
indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support
systems.
Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley
physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge
in late 1980, jointly betting a total of $1000 ($200 each on five
metals), rather than listen to him charge that environmental
scientists were unwilling to put their money where their mouths were.
Perhaps it was a mistake, but it can be quite satisfying to skewer an
adversary on his own terms, and they thought they had a good chance
of winning.
Prices of all five metals (chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and
tungsten) had gone up between 1950 and 1975. But the prices of
three of the five went down in the 1980s, in part because a recession
in the first half of that decade slowed the growth of demand for
industrial metals worldwide. Ironically, a prominent reason for the
slower industrial growth was the doubling of world oil prices in 1979.
Indeed, the price of oil probably was a factor in the prices of metals
in both years, being unprecedentedly high in 1980 and unprecedentedly
low in 1990. Paul and his colleagues ended up paying a small sum on
the bet, even though the price of a ton of copper (Simon's favorite
example) had risen in constant 1986 dollars from $1970 per ton in 1975
to $2166 in 1989."
("Betrayal of Science and Nature" pp. 100 - 101)
- A.J.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 13 Nov 1996 18:56:51 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Mike Asher wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this is true. Risk analysis studies rate solar power
as
> > more dangerous than coal or nuclear.
>
> Could be, Mike, but you're missing the point. Read my other
> repsonses.
Still fail to see it. What is it?
By the way, I have nothing against passive solar. It's a technology that
makes sense. However, it only reduces energy usage somewhat, and that only
for heating and cooling. Industrial energy accounts for the majority of
the usage pie.
Solar power makes sense in many places, especially when nature has been
kind enough to concentrate it for us, in the case of oil, coal, or falling
water. In other cases, it's less useful, but may still have limited
applications. As a panacea for our energy needs, it falls well short.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Let's face it. We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO
nuclear power plants."
- spokesperson for GAO, the Government Accountability Project
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: Dwight Zerkee
Date: 13 Nov 1996 20:13:19 GMT
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes: > mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
snip
>
> Replies like that are what _establish_ my credibility. I am able to
> look at the realities underlying these wonderful-sounding ideas.
>
snip
>
> -dlj.
>
I happen to agree with dlj on this, and similar, issues. Most of these grand ideas,
such as windmills, solar heating/electricity, electric cars, etc. ignore life-cycle
costs, the hazards involved in making the things (look at the hazardous wastes
created by making amorphous silicon solar cells) and, most importantly, the fact that
the technologies are just plain inefficient. I had a professor way back when that
estimated that installing windmills 5 deep around Winnipeg would eliminate all the
wind in the city and yet would not be able to meet the electrical demands of the city.
If you can't make wind power work on the Prairies, where can you?
Most technologies are in widespread use as they are the most efficient compromise
available at the time. If oil becomes too expensive due to decreasing supply, some other
energy source will become the most efficient compromise (cost vs. energy content).
Until that happens, there is no economic incentive for firms, individuals, etc. to
invest money in making the alternative technology more efficient in its use of that
energy source.
dz.