HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:40:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.014843.1852@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <C0GDKx.IDu@news.iastate.edu>,
sartre@iastate.edu (Michael J. Wendling (515) 294-6186) writes:
>>
>>My rally cry:
>>	
>>	I like the earth as it was before the industrial revolution.
>>
>
>No, make it:
>I like the earth as it was before the industrial revolution, when people
>lived 20-30 years shorter and had a much lower standard of living.
>
>Tino
>-- 
>     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Now, Tino, you and I both know that this is not the whole story.
True, in the areas known as the First World, living standards have risen
dramatically.  However, the level of resource consumption practiced by
the world today cannot be sustained.  Furthermore, economic and political
conditions in many Third World countries have been on the decline for
decades.  These impoverished Third Worlders have an unsettling tendency
to shut off our petroleum supply or showing their starving faces on our
television sets, making us spend huge amounts of our own resources getting
them back on their feet, or shooting their toes off - whatever seems more
appropriate.  So, we First Worlders are living better, but I don't think
that we can do so indefinitely if we don't think seriously about restruc-
turing our society - and that's the global society, not just America.

	Lest you have any doubts about my preference of a First World 
socioeconomic environment to that of the Third World, please see my own
posting in response to Mr. Wendling's rally cry.

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: chenm@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Ming chen)
Subject: How to access EPA through internet/bitnet ?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:33:46 GMT
Distribution: sci.environment
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.


Hello, all

Is there any way I can access EPA BBS (for example CEAM) through
----------------------------------------------------------------
internet/bitnet ?
-----------------


Thanks for your help.

/ming


Email: chenm@tuns.ca


Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Shetland Oil Spill
Keywords: Supertanker, Oil
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:33:55 GMT

In article <rodger.1@ray.uct.ac.za> rodger@ray.uct.ac.za (Duffett, RV, Rodger, Radiobiology (RAY Supervisoor)) writes:
>It is ironic to see people chaining themselves to embassies in protest over 
>isolated Plutonium shipments while daily hundreds of giant, fragile 
>motorised balloons, filled with millions of litres of oil, sail the oceans 
>of OUR world. The catastrophes like the Valdez and now the Baer are only 
>the tip of the iceberg in a series of daily disasters which escape world 
>headlines. 

I agree, but it's easier for Greenpeace, et al. to jump on a fragile nuclear
industry with wild tales of radiation raining from the heavens than to attack
entire oil-producing/consuming countries.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:13:25 GMT

In article <93005.184122SHALEE@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> SHALEE@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
>A bigger negative image problem is trying to stop timber cuts that are
>not illegal.  The attitude that all timber harvesting is wrong is simplistic.
>Remember in the 70's when using wood instead of oil or plastics was good
>because they are renewable.

I think the attitude about sttoping all cutting is a response to the
attitude that any cut is justified to save a job no matter what the
environmental impact.  Kind of like physics - an equal and opposite
reaction.  ITs also a result of decades of overcutting.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:40:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.160937.26636@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>>I like my standard of living. 
>
>	I like mine, too.  I believe that there's an excellent chance that,
>within my lifetime, my standard of living (and yours) will suffer a signi-
>ficant decline - unless we all work on more efficient and environmentally-
>sound implementations of that lifestyle.  Won't you join me in my endeavor?

That is where I disagree. Unless the U.S. decides to embrace worldwide
socialism in order to bring the Third World up to our standards (at our
expense, of course) it won't happen.

Another possibility where our standard of living COULD decrease is if every
environmentalist's whim became a law. Without power plants, automobiles,
genetic/medical research, or food preservation techniques that are currently
opposed to by many groups, life would become quite grim indeed.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Followup-To: talk.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1993Jan7.014843.1852@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <7134@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:11:06

In article <7134@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!) writes:

   Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.environment:9919 alt.politics.greens:210  References: <1993Jan6.194324.13459@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <C0GDKx.IDu@news.iastate.edu> <1993Jan7.014843.1852@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
   In article <1993Jan7.014843.1852@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
   |> In article <C0GDKx.IDu@news.iastate.edu> sartre@iastate.edu (Michael J. Wendling (515) 294-6186) writes:
   |> >
   |> >My rally cry:
   |> >	
   |> >	I like the earth as it was before the industrial revolution.
   |> >
   |> 
   |> No, make it:
   |> I like the earth as it was before the industrial revolution, when people
   |> lived 20-30 years shorter and had a much lower standard of living.
   |> 
   |> Tino
   |> -- 
   |>      "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
   |> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   |>              Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
   |> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Tino - what is wrong with shorter lives? And what`s wrong with a lower standard
   of living? Will either of these, really, decrease your happiness or feelings as
   a human?

   Michael

When people have a choice they migrate from places with low standards
of living to places with higher standards of living.  To put one
issue sharply, how would you like to be a parent in a society in
which about half of the children born died of diarrhea before reaching
five.  When I was about 15 my mother told me that she considered it
a real triumph that both my brother and I were still alive.  Actually
in my generation, death of children was rare, but in her generation,
it was still common.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Spotted owl
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:26:38 GMT
Summary:  get the Jack Ward Thomas book, it's free
Keywords: Northern Spotted Owl conservation indicator species

In article <1993Jan9.190636.14141@nosc.mil> shall@obiwan.nosc.mil (Scott R. Hall) writes:
>I am concerned with the issue of Wa. State's forest lasnds, and the  
>spotted owl. I would be interested in any information anyone has on this  
>topic, including the logging of this land, legalities, and/or the welfare  
>and well being of the spotted owl. Thanks in advance.
>
>Scott


The most complete discussion that I've read of "the welfare and well being"
of that species known as the Northern Spotted Owl is called "A Strategy for
the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl." It was assembled by a panel of
experts in population biology, forestry, ornithology, and other related
fields, led by Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, and it is commonly known as "the Jack
Ward Thomas report."

It was a joint effort of the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and several other agencies and
interest groups.  You can get a free copy from the USFWS or your
congressperson's office.  It comes with some nice maps and an economic
analysis projecting the impacts were it adopted, which it was.

In the three years since it was published, the economic analysis has been
shown to be wildly pessimistic, and the proposed conservation strategy to be
somewhat inadequate (the proposed "habitat conservation areas" were too small
and the corridors connecting them too narrow), but the meat of the book is a
valid and readable discussion of what it takes to keep the owl population
healthy.  Those who wish to understand the notions of "indicator species"
and "old-growth forest" could start here and then go to the references
in JWT's enormous bibliography.

:-)  Those who prefer an easier read may want to look at _The Lorax_
by Dr. Seuss.  :-)


Insights into the legality and politics of forest management in the
Pacific Northwest might be obtained by asking members of the Association
of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.  POB 11615, Eugene
Oregon 97440  (503)484-2692.

Hope this helps, as they say.
 Cameron Spitzer in San Jose Ca.
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Subject: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:12:43 GMT

The reason that there is no money in solar energy research and development
is that the fossil fuel industry is highly subsidized by the government,
since not all of the costs of using fossil fuels are incorporated into the
price of "conventional power" technology.  If the costs of the environmental
impact of fossil fuels were incorporated, as well as incentives for finding
alternate solutions when the fossil fuels run out, then it would be
economically viable to invest in alternative energy sources.

The current administration talks a lot about free market economics, but
subsidizes fossil fuels, water use in California and farmers around the
country without admitting it.  It's just to damn cheap to use anything but
fossil fuels.

-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Lets pulp hemp for paper, not trees
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:59:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.180244.90925@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>        I was listening to the radio the other day, and the hourly
>news report mentioned how protesters were preparing themselves to
>go to Tasmania (an island state of Australia) to prevent logging
>(for woodchipping and ultimately paper making overseas) from taking place.
>
>Now if only there wasn't such a social hangup about hemp.

Replace "hemp" with nuclear power, DDT, CFCs, PCBs, CO2, or animal research
and you'll see how environmentalists attempt to turn scientific issues into
social ones when they can't win.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Shetland Oil Spill
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:42:58 GMT

Has anybody heard how the cleanup and containment efforts are going?

The trouble with cleanup efforts is that, in the case of the Valdez oil
spill, the cleanup did damage on its own.  For instance, the spraying of hot
water to wash oil off the stony beaches made the beaches look better.
However, the spraying was hard on the invertebrates living between and under
the stones.  The Alaska storms were what did the most good in getting oil off
the beaches and breaking down the slick.

As for where I think I remember this information about the Valdez spill, I am
quite sure that the information was in some papers given at one of the
American Petroleum Institute oil spill conferences.  Those conferences come
out every two years or so, and the titles vary a bit.  I'd think it was the
1990 or 1991 conference (the one held after the Valdez oil spill).

But if, as I think, the storms will help disperse the oil and clean the
beaches I feel that if the weather was calm the tanker would not have hit the
rocks.

Desiree Bradley
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:35:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec31.184447.23405@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>Would you
>consider blockading a road to prevent an illegal timber cut to be
>extremist?

That's a touchy issue.  I wouldn't go so far as to call it extremist per
se, but definitely confrontational.  It usually seems that it is the
confrontational aspects that have the greatest potential for a huge
media backfire.  The fact that the timber cuts are illegal makes a
confrontation a little more palatable with the public likely, but there
will always be those who are against such actions altogether - regardless
of the legality of the cutting.  Some people you can't change - but if you
can win a majority on your side and inform more of them by creating such
a confrontation then I would consider it a success.

greg
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 06:27:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.034022.11476@netcom.com> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>>>My rally cry:
>>>	I like the earth as it was before the industrial revolution.
>>
>>No, make it:
>>I like the earth as it was before the industrial revolution, when people
>>lived 20-30 years shorter and had a much lower standard of living.
>
>	Now, Tino, you and I both know that this is not the whole story.
>True, in the areas known as the First World, living standards have risen
>dramatically.  However, the level of resource consumption practiced by
>the world today cannot be sustained.  Furthermore, economic and political
>conditions in many Third World countries have been on the decline for
>decades. 

The comment was about the Industrial Revolution, which was mainly a First 
World phenomenon. The Third World is grossly behind, until they can control
their population (even with Sally Struthers begging and pleading for "just
one more dollar").

I like my standard of living. 

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:52:21 GMT

In article <C0IJJy.CMv@news.iastate.edu> sartre@iastate.edu (Michael J. Wendling (515) 294-6186) writes:
}My original point was simply that the environment was in better shape
}prior to the industrial revolution than it is now.  This, I believe,
}is undeniable. 

Believing it undeniable makes me think you lack healthy skepticism.  I'd like
to know what measures you're employing and what evidence you're relying on.
I can think of ways in which our environment is better now than it was then.

}Secondly, why is it that people think that improved standards of
}living inherently require damage to the environment?

I don't know, but I don't think this.

Does anyone
}disagree that the industrial revolution proceeded with basically no
}concern for the environment?

Yep.  Moi.  It all depends on what part of the environment you consider,
and whether your consider public policy as a possible cause of environmental
destruction.

With a little more long term
}thinking (not one of the western worlds strong points) we could
}have advanced socially while having minimal inpact on the world.

Long-term planning is done better by the West than by the East.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1993Jan3.232128.11928@inel.gov> <2CKWB3KM@cc.swarthmore.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:10:30

In article <2CKWB3KM@cc.swarthmore.edu> dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen) writes:

   The reason that there is no money in solar energy research and development
   is that the fossil fuel industry is highly subsidized by the government,
   since not all of the costs of using fossil fuels are incorporated into the
   price of "conventional power" technology.  If the costs of the environmental
   impact of fossil fuels were incorporated, as well as incentives for finding
   alternate solutions when the fossil fuels run out, then it would be
   economically viable to invest in alternative energy sources.

   The current administration talks a lot about free market economics, but
   subsidizes fossil fuels, water use in California and farmers around the
   country without admitting it.  It's just to damn cheap to use anything but
   fossil fuels.

   -->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	   dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
   ======================================================================
   Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	   50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
   "Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]

Would Daniel Pedersen tell us how much money is spent on solar energy
research per year, - 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, 300 million,
1 billion?  Rhetorically, it is best to say "no money", so the actual
number is irrelevant.  Therefore, an administration that might hope
for credit from Daniel Pedersen would be well advised to spend no
money at all on solar energy research.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.greens
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:43:24 GMT

I say that the phrase "Save the Earth" is the worst thing to hit
environmentalism and green politics since the Industrial Revolution.
Let me count the ways:

1) its ridiculous

	- nothing that humans are doing right now threatens the
	  earth as a planetary body or a geological entity.

2) its foolish

	- few people seriously believe that anything humans are
	  doing will eliminate life on earth either. 

3) its simplistic

	- the effects of human activity are on the types and distributions
	  of ecosystems on the planet, not the presence of life
          here. The choice is not life on earth, but particular
          kinds of life, particular kinds of landscapes.

4) its a straw man

	- all it takes is for someone to come up with an easily
	  understood, 6 word phrase that refutes the simplistic
          nonsense of "Save the Earth", and public opinion will
          shift with the wind. "Wise Use" isn't it, but they're
          working on it.

Put another way: if you buy support with simplicities, someone else
can always buy it back at a cheaper price.

-- paul

-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either
Newsgroups: talk.environment