HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:37:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Jul28.211303.1784@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <3595@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>Wow, what a neat proposal.  Let's have a UN body that is responsible
>>to no electorate (but to the "votes" of the "East"?) make our
>>economic and political decisions.  Not much point in having a
>>presidential election, is there?
>
>Welcome to the Third World Mr. McCants. I would hope your sense of
>empathy for the lives of many citizens of most of the world would be
>heightened by sharing in the experience of powerlessness. In case its
>not obvious, substitute "East" with "West" in the above, and position
>yourself in India or elsewhere. Yeah, its a gross simplification, but
>it carries a subtle truth.
>

I can't make much sense out of what I think you said.

I don't expect to "share in their experience of powerlessness" until
Clinton takes office in January.  Are you claiming that the UN responds
to the wishes of the West?  I disagree.  Let's have a vote to shut down
the UN and see who really wants to keep it.  Let's see if those who
benefit from its programs want to keep it and those who pay are willing
to abolish it.  I don't see any subtle truths here.

If they are powerless, is it because they voluntarily gave up
their power?  Why should the US voluntarily give its right to determine
its own fate to a UN body?  The "environmentalists" can't understand
why Bush is so stubborn about not giving away our rights.  Clinton
and Gore will take care of that problem.  The UN will soon give
us $4/gal gasoline.  Then I will no longer pay more in insurance
than I do for fuel.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2942 alt.politics.marrou:154 misc.invest.real-estate:286
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.marrou,misc.invest.real-estate
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Summary: Genetic rights, based on concept of mineral rights
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:35:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul22.193524.5598
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <TSF.92Jul20135713@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:

>3. The forest is useful because we may have a use for its genetic
>   information someday.  In that case a speculator would find it
>   worthwhile to buy it and save it, in hopes that it would increase in
>   value when technology advances to the point where it becomes useful.  
>   Unfortunately this doesn't work because the speculator gets stuck
>   in the inflation/tax squeeze:  Even if the real value of the land
>   doesn't change, he has to pay property taxes and capital gains taxes
>   on the illusory increase in value caused by inflation.
>   Libertarians call for tax abolition and currency reform, so the
>   speculator would have a chance if we had a libertarian government...

Another libertarian idea, which addresses this problem and the problem of
original ownership, is to create a concept of "genetic rights" based
on the concept of the mineral rights.  Many pieces of rural land were
originally owned by extraction companies, and when they sold the land
it was with the caveat that they retained right to any minerals
discovered in the future on that land, including the right to reclaim
the land for extraction activities.  These mineral rights are mantained 
indefinitely whoever owns the land, unless the mineral company itself
comes back and sells it.

Genetic rights would work similarly: when the Feds, a private biotech 
company, Nature Conservancy, etc. sell these lands, the contract can
include genetics rights clauses, which give the original owner a right to
preserve ecosystems if an endangered species is threatened (as specifically
defined in the contract). This would in effect be a private-enterprise 
version of the Endangered Species Act.  This will decrease the monetary 
value of the lands, but we now have a good method of accounting for the 
cost of maintaining these species, and specific definitions of genetic 
rights that the purchaser will know about when buying the land, instead 
of having post-hoc devaluations of his property handed down from bureaucrats 
in D.C.  Best of all for environmentalists, it gives them direct control
over endangered species instead of having to go through expensive,
wasteful contortions trying to lobby an Administration and bureacracy
that may or may not agree with their goals.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:16:54 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Joshua Alan Knauer's message of Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:30:33 -0400

In article <keQjpNi00UhWM2SXEc@andrew.cmu.edu> Joshua Alan Knauer <jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

   On 26-Jul-92 in Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTI..
   Lord John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf speaks for all:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're going to pull crap like that, expect to take serious heat
;-) Hope you can take it :-)

   >point - that the environmentalists, just as much as business
   >and government, owe the public impact statements about their
   >proposals that would include negative impacts.  For this reason,

   These full impact statements are all available through the number
   previously listed.  

The point is they are _not_ "full" impact statements.

   John-  "We" (whoever that is) owe nothing to you.  This newsgroup is
   intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
   the earth in the hands of the "let's wait and see" people like you.  

No it is not. Please keep a distinction between the Usenet group
talk.environment and whatever local net you're feeding. talk.env
is for discussion about environmental issues, participanst do not
have to be concerned about any damn thing at all.

   I also wonder what the other people on this newsgroup feel. John seems
   to feel that he speaks for the masses, I sincerely hope that not all of
   the people on the net are similar in thought to him.

It is usually a good idea to _read_ a newsgroup for a while before 
starting to post on it. In particular if you're going to be bringing
up old fights. The Mt Graham issue has been raised several times here
in the past, and I am quite astonished that it is still being brought
up, it's been reviewed, analysed and fought out in court, is there
anything that would lead to the opponents accepting that they were
just maybe a wrong on this, that there will be no lasting damage
to the mountain, that the observatory might even be benficial, and
that this issue was actually studied by people who knew what they
were doing (even if they had terrible PR agents)? What's the point of
a review system and a legal system if every time an issue is decided
in a way you do not favour you simply raise a new and different
challenge?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2983 alt.politics.elections:9182 rec.bicycles:18502
From: dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.elections,talk.poltics.misc,rec.bicycles
Subject: question regarding transportation policies of candidates and parties
Summary: what are the transportation policies of the candidates?
Keywords: autos,bikes,transportation
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:04:29 GMT
Organization: Panix, (New Yawk City)

[pardon if you've seen this post before but it didnt have the right
subject line]

	I am looking for details from the platforms of any and all
of this years presidential candidates that specifically relate to
transport policy, federal funding of highways versus other modes
of transportation, a pro-auto or anti-auto stance, enforcement of
the clean air act (amendments of 1990), support of bicycling as
alternatives to use of autos (especially in urban areas), and any
other related or relevant data that could be available.

	So, if you know of where any information relative to the
above - as expressed by any of the 1992 political campaigns ... OR
in regards to messrs Bush, Quayle, Clinton, or Gore, please email
me what you have or where I might be able to get copies of same.

	advance THANKS to netland.
-- 
***********************************************************************
* Danny O'Bedlam  = dfl@panix.com = cmcl2!panix!dfl = Danny Lieberman *
* PO Box 3131 Church St Station, New Yawk, New Yawk, 10008-3131 (usa) *
***********************************************************************
-- 
***********************************************************************
* Danny O'Bedlam  = dfl@panix.com = cmcl2!panix!dfl = Danny Lieberman *
* PO Box 3131 Church St Station, New Yawk, New Yawk, 10008-3131 (usa) *
***********************************************************************
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians...($ is not the question)
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:28:12 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul20.190653.5687@iscsvax.uni.edu> duneman7484@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>When we see the eagle as our brother, the land as our mother, the sky as our
>father and the water as our sister it becomes impossible to plunder and rape 
>and destroy any of the above. In the end '$' is going to mean nothing anyway.
>I could be wrong ... but solutions seem apparent when we study certain people
>LIVING this way and then look at the people stumbling over each other simply
>trying to find a way to survive in this enviro-terror they've created.

When we contrast certain "indigenous" people's lives to our own, we find 
that their lives are short, brutal, and uncomfortable. Literally, "Ye have
never had it so good." Golden Ages are always in the past, and the people
living them didn't consider them Golden. They considered them dirty, difficult,
and short. The life of a Greek philosopher sounds glorious, but the life of
his slaves does not, and that Greek philosopher often died early from bad
water or tainted food or some disease that we would consider a minor 
inconvienence.

Your "enviro-terror" is mostly in your mind. There are problems, there
have always been problems, but we are better off today than any time in
the past and we have more ways of dealing with problems than we have ever
had in the past. The major enviro-terror in 1900 New York City was the
disease and filth caused by horse manure. The automobile was hailed as
the savior of the city. It's effuvia is now seen as choking the city
and ways of dealing with that are now being implemented. Those in turn
will likely be the enviro-terror of some future Greenhypist. '$' is
power, and increased power is what has allowed our lives to be better
and what has allowed us to deal with problems as they arise. We have
not reached the limits of knowledge, and having tapped the atom, we
have not reached the limits of the energy we can wield with that 
knowledge. Most physical problems are amenable to solution through
the sufficient application of knowledge and energy. Only through
failure of will can we collapse into a dark age of misery and death.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul25225348@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<IeQgD0i00iUy41NmQa@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 26 Jul 92 09:09:43

Josh Knauer evidently missed the postings in which I made my main
point - that the environmentalists, just as much as business
and government, owe the public impact statements about their
proposals that would include negative impacts.  For this reason,
I ask from *them* a statement of the possible negative impacts
of *their* proposals.  For example, Knauer could begin by telling
us, if he even knows, what negative impact the bill by the Indiana
Congressman would have on astronomy.  He could then tell us,
"This is not as important as ...".  Advocates of the Mount Graham
telescopes could then say, "Your impact statement has left out ...".
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:19:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.

In article Environet writes:
>
>=> From: DENISE JOINES
>=> Subj: MT GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
... Junk deleted ...
>
>You can play a key role ...

I sure hope not.  I hope it's too late now.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:53:48

Joshua Knauer includes:

     For all of the people out there that do not understand the
     full ramifications of the proposed observatory, here is the
     full posting, taken from Student EnviroLink.  I think it is
     relatively clear that there are some much larger issues
     involved than John McCarthy's twisted version science.

[followed by their appeal for support]

I see no statement of the possible negative impacts of their getting
their way on astronomy.  I must admit ignorance as to whether there
are already astronomical facilities on Mount Graham.

Some people may be wondering why I keep pounding away at the
environmentalists to tell us negative impacts of their proposals
when they tell us that they have no intention of doing so.  I
think this may be an area in which repetition can actually get
people to think.

Anyway I propose to fight it out along this line if it takes all
summer.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC)
Subject: Re: Democrats & Ecology
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 06:08:43 GMT

In article <l6v1k3INN8qf@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>Al Gore's book, _Earth in the Balance_, while not as academically informative
>as one of Paul Ehrlich's books, covers many of the same ideas, and brings
>some of the discussion up to date in a way that other books have not recently
>done.

A couple of month ago, I tuned into a PBS radio station (88.5 FM), 
and happened into the middle Common Wealth Club show speach.
Since I did not hear the start of the lecture, I could only 
try guessing at who the was lecturer.  Since I'd read a couple
of Dr. Paul Ehrlich's books (Population Explosion and New World, New Mind),
that was my guess.   Bzzzz!  It was Sen. Al Gore.

So my conclusion, since Senators obviously have no brains 
their own :-), was the Gore has read some of Ehrlish's books also.

So, John, have you ever meet Dr. Ehrlich?  :-)
Maybe you can get Dan to read some of your books. ;-)

John S. Watson, Civil Servent from Hell          ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov

HOMEBREW NAKED! --- Ursus cerevisiae nudium  (The Bare Beer Bear)
All right, then, I'll GO to hell"  --- Mark Twain
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:36:01 EDT
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>   Mark Kubiske
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment

>in <ewright.711999698@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
>writes:

>>In <1992Jul20.192034.2963@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu
>>(Paul Barton-Davis) writes:


>>Why the caricature ? What aspect of deep ecology ("biocentrism") prevents
>>you from recognising the idea that trees deserve rights as trees, not as
>>people ?

>Perhaps the same aspect that prevents him recognizing that trees should be
>required to register with selective service.  He may be operating under the
>delusion that trees are not people.

BTW Paul, after you telling me that I had a very limited understanding of
what is meant by "rights", I asked for an explanation.  How 'bout it?  What
'rights' do trees have?  Do these 'rights' apply to all members of the plant
kingdom or just trees?

Mark.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2872 sci.environment:9705 alt.politics.marrou:105
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Please write the World Bank (3 of 3)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:44:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Jul29.030401.2313@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:

>... urge your director to suspend irresponsible projects ...

Suspending irresponsible projects - who could argue with that noble purpose?

I wonder why they started these irresponsible projects in the first place?

I guess it must have been politicians - the scientists obviously weren't
involved.

[List of names deleted.]

>Possible harmful effects of this action include:

[Silly statements deleted]

This attempt at humor seems to be "reaching" to me.
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians ... ($ is not the question)
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:11:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <92202.230702MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I appreciate the passion with which you write.  Just don't forget that a
>very significant life form that forests support is us.  Its a simple fact
>that we need forest products to survive as a society.  

Not true. We need trees to support us as a society, not forests.

							Don't be alarmed that
>the forests are disappearing (North America, I'm talking about), because
>they aren't.  

I'm afraid they are. The tree count might be constant, or even
increasing, but the acreage of actual forest, as opposed to tree farms,
is decreasing.
	       
-- paul



-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:53:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.213229.4946@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.035335.25089@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>>I am Libertarian on most issues, but their stance on the environment
>>does little for me. 
>
>Unfortuneately, the environmental movement has allowed itself to become
>dominated by socialists like Al Gore, who thinks that government
>intervention is _a priori_ the answer to new problems.  It is much
>easier to say "ban it!", or dump the problem on distant bureacrats,
>than to think up good solutions to problems.  Libertarians observe
>that people who own things have the incentive to think of and 
>implement such solutions.  
>
>-- 
>szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
>Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 

There are two problems here.  The first is that an examination of 
maximum yield for an investment will often show that it will be more
profitable to use up an environmental resource for its cash value now
and then move your capital to some other resource and do the same there.
Though preservation of environmental resources may preserve the capital,
it is analogous to putting your money in a guaranteed passbook savings,
rather than investing it in a growth-type investment.

Secondly, many of the costs for using environmental resources are externalized
so that others pay for your profit.  It is a common tactic to
maximize ones profit by minimizing ones expense, which can be done by
maximizing someone elses expense.  The delayed nature of the expense
of environmental degradation means that private property owners can
pollute now, profit now, and the rest of us pay later.  Some obvious
egregious examples like toxic wastes are illegal, but these costs are
difficult to determine, and are often discovered after the fact.

All of this shouldn't be taken to mean that I am a supporter of the
government ban form of environmental protection.  It is shown to be
ineffective.  At best it lessens some damage with a very low efficiency.

I cannot point to some miracle solution to this problem, but the private
ownership solution touted by Libertarians is simplistic.  I do support
the Libertarian concept of litigation for environmental damage AS LONG
AS it includes criminal prosecution and the use of governmental action
to prevent obvious damage, as the police would prevent a mugging.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:55:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.055902.6498@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.035335.25089@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>}how
>}does one first acquire moral ownership of a natural resource?  In other words,
>}if we look at a case where some land or natural resource is unclaimed, what
>}is the method that can give me a right to do whatever I want with the land?
>}Historically, I gather that the most common method employed to determine 
>}"turf rights" has been invasion, conquest, and so on.
>
>The "homesteading" principle is the one for land acquisition.  First appropri-
>ation.  The particular conventions differ.

What is the "homesteading principle?"  Most arguments I've heard along this
line are arguments that it is "fair" for someone to own the resource, rather
than that he has a right to do so.  Additionally, I suspect most definitions
of homesteading involve some notion of "productive use" of the land, but
productive use seems a relative term.  Productive to whom?  To the in-
dividual farmer?  The community?  Why does it matter?  What is the dif-
ference between productive use to the farmer, and self-serving use?  I
don't see how either results in a *right* to do anything you want with
the land.


>environmentist economists are defending private ownership of natural resources
>on the grounds that economic rent ensures the most economical use of it.

I don't see how that makes them environmentalists.  The argument would
have to be that private ownership ensures the most environmental use
of the resource.

-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Newsgroups: talk.environment