HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas? Combo
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:38:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec30.153705.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.233732.24874@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>> In article <ELM.92Dec16182200@terrorism.berkeley.edu> elm@cs.berkeley.edu writes:
>>>In article <JMC.92Dec16171509@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>>>=>In contrast to oil, natural gas is in good supply in the U.S.

>>>As anyone who's eaten burritos or visited their local landfill or
>>>swamp can tell you, methane is very easy to generate.  All you need is
>>>bacteria or chemical processes that break down more complex carbon
>>>compounds into methane.  You can generate methane from organic waste
>>>-- CH4 is a large component of swamp gas and the smelly stuff from
>>>landfills (though methane is odorless).

>>>In other words, we needn't *ever* run out of it, as long as we can use
>>>generated methane rather than mined methane.

>> Not true.  I did a paper on this back in highschool.  In order to
>> provide a significant percentage of US energy needs you would need
>> whole farms devoted to nothing but producing biomass for methane
>> productions.  Straight solar is simpler, cheaper, and less polluting.

>Why can't anybody work on ways to integrate the different energy
>systems together. Why not have a farm, a methane plant in the area
>with some solar energy near by.. Or maybe a way to have solar generator
>be in the same area as farms for methane genration? Or maybe solar fields
>on top of a methane dump? We don't need in many ways new technology,
>we just need to use what we have more efficiently.. Does anyone recycle 
>oil?.. It is nice to have new tech, but we must be more efficient..

Mike, this is a very pretty touchy feely sentiment, but it conflicts
with cold, hard, scientific fact.

You can't grow stuff on top of solar cells.  You can't grow stuff
under solar cells.  If you decide to devote land area to producing
energy solar uses less per megawatt.  If you want multiple use, it is
easier to put solar cells on top of buildings than to plant grass on
top of buildings.  

Someone eralier posted asking why conservatives hate
environmentalists.  We don't hate them.  We are, however, very
exasperated at the way they seem to think the laws of the universe
should hold themselves in abeyance in order to satisfy their whims
about how it would be nice if things could be.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:02:49

In article <726036250snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec28.170740.17094@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1hq206INNq1f@spim.mti.sgi.com>
	<1992Dec30.013645.16214@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1hvbc8INNa6h@spim.mti.sgi.com>
Date: 31 Dec 92 10:53:29

Mike Polen says:

     Japan is a highly nationalistic company.  Corporations and
     the government work hand in hand.  Unlike the US, you can
     not draw a distinctions between the two.  If a company or an
     industry wants the government to support their plans against
     outsiders, they've got it.

This seems exaggerated to me.  Japanese companies compete with
each other, sometimes in the face of more intrusive regulation
than in the U.S.  If the U.S. copies this mythical Japan, we are
in real trouble.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.004733.3897@megatek.com> cjp@megatek.com (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus) writes:
>mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

:  The
: answer is to apply appropriate taxes to the ownership, fuelling,
: and operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles,
: approximately in proportion to the damage they do.

>	You overlooked the fact that transportation is an integral
>part of our economy. Just about every good and service produced in
>the US requires some sort of transport to deliver it to the consumer;
>railroads and horse-drawn carts will not suffice. The ripple effect
>[trickle-down -- yes] of passing these taxes on to the consumer will
>shrink our economy down to a point sized singularity.

	Tax money does not disappear into a black hole, right-wing
economists to the contrary.

	Instead, it gets returned to the economy in the form of
various government expenditures. Whether these expenditures are
productive ones or not is another question entirely. Even
right-wingers like to see tax money spent on things that they like;
I've yet to see a right-winger denounce military spending or spending
on law enforcement or roads or any other of their favorite causes.

:      I would be happy to help you work out these and similar
: policies.

>	I'm sure you would. Why is it, Michael, that you loathe
>private transportation so much that you want to the rest of the 
>country to share your views?

	I myself am not opposed to cars; I just want alternatives to
them to be abundant and readily available. I also want to see it
possible to have a minimum dependence on the car. I don't own a car,
and I don't like being made into a second-class citizen by a bunch of
carheads.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nast
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:54:38 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <725789687snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>It is no confusion whatever that a high turnover does not correspond
>with a high productivity. There can be an extremely high rate of
>re-production without ever achieving high levels of productivity,
>especially on a seasonal basis with massive mortality rates being
>experienced with the encroachment of the Dry Season.

Biological productivity is the amount of organic matter (usually expressed in
terms of the energy involved) produced in certain area in a certain time.
You seem to be confusing it with population growth.

As the Flood Plain Rat is extremely abundant during the dry season, I doubt
there is a massive mortality at the start of the dry. What is your source
for all of this?

>The bloc together pursuing Camp Fire Programs of which Zimbabwe is a member
> lying in its south west, is in East Africa. Yes?

No. By East Africa most of us, mean what was formerly British and German East
Africa, i.e. Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi.  Zimbabwe is in
southern Africa.  CAMPFIRE is actually an acronym for a particular Zimbabwe
program.  The only other country I've heard of pursuing a similar program is
Zambia.

Many African countries try to both involve local people in conservation
and allow them to benefit from it.  This is a tenet of "meddling foreign
conservationist" organisations such as the WWF.

>the repeated plea has consistently been toward raising the standard here.

You have lowered the standard by posting reams of abuse and mis-information.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.systems
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:43:19 GMT

In article <1gm3bcINNaia@access.usask.ca>, assmus@rocky1 (Bayne Assmus) writes:
> 
> 
> Why do so many "so-called" environmentalists preach against   
> nuclear energy, an industry with a low fatality history (yes, 
> we know about Chernobyl, a tragedy, but the only real source 
> of fatalities in the industry) when thousands of miners a year 
> in the United States alone die of black lung disease (an average
> of 4000 deaths/yr during the seventies).  These deaths occur in
> a modernized country with safety regulations.  How many deaths
> occur in less developed countries that heavily rely on coal power
> (and we can't deny them the rights to cheap energy that has given us
> the standards of living we've enjoyed and abused)!
> 
> Maybe Greenpeace should start intercepting coal shipments
> --
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> cranky geoeng's doing grad studies in the tundra   
> 
Sounds like Green Peace needs to figure out who they really are and who they
get their money from.. Basically what I am saying is Green Peace like many
organizations are a small core group of person who are into power trips and
just might still believe in what their organization supposedly stands for, but
generally like any similiar organization contains a lot of mindless cretins who
when you ask them why they support the organization is becuase there friends
belong or their father or mother was a member or because the Organization
supposedly believe in what they do, but most if you asked them what they
believe or what the organization believes and they will get a blank stare and
say well they believe what they do.. Basically what Im saying is the majority
of many pro or anti environmental are just brainless and don't know what they
are doing... If blowing treess up was fashionalbe, they would do it..
God saves us from the sheep..
I have lived in Alaska for the last 22+ years and I don't appreciate anyone
telling me or my friends what to do or what we can do with our land..
If people want a park, let them make a park in their own backyard and not in
mine..
Greenpeace, Russia did not want you and neither do we! (sorry old funny bumper
sticker) and not directed at anyone..
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:12:19 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <901.38.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) writes:
>TO: mfriedma@uucp

>MF>>but Japan supposedly has a 100-year enviro-industry
>  >>plan.

>MF>I keep hearing this kind of bullshit.  Does anyone out there really
>  >believe it?  After all, can you imagine the hundred year plan that a
>  >business or company would have come up with in 1893?

>Think about the hundred year plan Japan might have had in 1938 - they
>have encountered a few technical difficulties, but seem to be getting it
>back on track.

You mean invading and conquering most of Asia?  Come again, please?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 08:09:44 GMT

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
  >jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
  >>but Japan supposedly has a 100-year enviro-industry plan

>I keep hearing this kind of bullshit.  Does anyone out there really
>believe it?  After all, can you imagine the hundred year plan that a
>business or company would have come up with in 1893?  

Michael, May I suggest that your difficulty in believing any particular
thing is due to more to your upbringing and environment than anything
else.

You take a trip to Germany and you sit yourself down in a brewery that
has been brewing beer for 600 years and you get yourself a sense of
continuity.

There are places throughout Europe that existed when Columbus sailed
to the U.S. still operating... though to be honest the management has
changed hands.

This is surely the case in Asia.  A company that made steel for swords
hundreds of years ago is probably still in existance.

You're trying to wedge your own definition of "100 year plan" into the
works and if you mean "show me where they say how many units they will
sell in 2092" then by all means there is no plan by your definition.

In short they plan to exist 100 years from now, and they plan to serve
their customers and to have employees and your stock certificates will
still be worth something.

Get it ?

tom
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Japanese breeder plans
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:48:36 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Dec28095152@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>1. Contrary to the implications of the _New York Times_ "Japan's
>Nuclear Fiasco" article, the Japanese are going ahead with the
>breeder program.  Good for them.  We'll eventually be buying
>nuclear technology from them.

But, I thought you were against government interference in the marketplace,
Nuclear power and AI, two technologies that are somehow immune to 
Prf. McCarthy's virulent dislike of government planning. 

>the rate of building reactors will spurt.  Then the price of
>uranium will go up, and those countries that don't have their
>own breeder reactor programs will end up buying them from Japan
>and France.

Japan can't even get its own utilities to buy into the technology without
strong-arm tactics. The French breeder program is an expensive shambles.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: scallan@midland.jsc.nasa.gov (brian scallan 283-4118)
Subject: Re: Japan Bashing, Why?
Organization: MDSSC
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:48:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.040409.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
|> Japan is just doing what we once tried to.. Japans modern economy is based on
|> the thoughts and theories of a American (US).. Not sure of his name at the
|> moment, which is interesting since the same man was/has been ignored in this
|> country..
|> 
|> Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu


   The individual's name is Edward Deming (still alive .. but barely).  The Japanese have an award  which goes by his name.  The  Malcolm Baldridge Award is the U.S. Govt's equivalent to the Deming Award.

   Ironically, he began in the post WW-II Detroit auto industry purveying such wild ideas as built-in, first-time quality, efficiency and statistical quality assurance rather than the subjective practices employed by the industry's "quality inspectors".  The big-wigs simply discounted his advice due to the euphoria of a boom economy which had NO competitors at the time.  The Japanese had such a complete lack of raw materials and manufacturing capability that Deming's ideas of first-time quality helped them


 to build the manufacturing capability which they have today.  A great deal of the Japanese standard of living and ability is attributable to the ideas of one man as reflected in the existence of the Deming Award in Japan.


					Just a couple pennies of bandwidth,

					-BJS-
-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian J. Scallan,				  scallan@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov

When angry, count four; when very angry, swear.
Pudd'nhead Wilson - M. Twain

The opinions expressed 
should not be interpreted as those 
of my employer or any other (semi-)rational entity.			{-BJS-}
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Date: 24 Dec 1992 11:57:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



I have to give Japan tremendous credit for this:

Just saw on news report that Japanese gov plus major
businesses have developed ==100 year== plan to clean
the earth, including

Sanyo is busy developing cheap solar panels for homes.
Mitsubishi heavily into improving wind generation economy.
Algae systems to scrub CO2 from air from coal gen plants.
Massive solar power systems to supply clean electricity global.

They took the vision and are moving ahead with it.

When will the U.S.?


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:49:17 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <78156@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:

 > In <1992Dec21.041755.4485@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike
 > Vandeman) writes:
 >  
 > [Much drivel about how the world would be better off if only we could get
 > someone else to pay, deleted.]
 >  
 > >                                   Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
 >  
 > Mike, you are a perfect example of how earning an advanced degree does not
 > stop somebody from being a perfect and absolute idiot.
 >  
 > -- 
 > Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
 > a government.
 > It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
 > Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Oh Michael, look here! Mark is being really rude! You had better have
a few words with him, now.

Tch, tch, what *is* the world coming to, everyone being so irritating
and nasty to one another, demanding that they all must say something
sensible for want of having read the instructions first . . .

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
Consulting Ethnologist                              Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.153929.7870@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>Where is your brain? I don't "loathe private transportation". I do
>like walking, bicycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc.

And cars?

>And don't you want the rest of the country to share your views?

Actually, I don't care whether or not they share my views.  I care
only about what they do to interfere with what I'd like to do.

-andy often commits thought-crimes
--
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097)
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace+
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 08:35:31 GMT

nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:
: In article <JMC.92Dec30061125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
: > Not just any wood for David Hinz's stove - old growth hardwood no less.
: > 
: > 
: After all it is HIS land (or so he mentioned).. Would you have him have some
: kind of reforestation program and make him pay for it??
: 
: But burning something other than Old Stand Hardwood would be nicer, but that is
: the problem with things.. To get less pollution, you burn hardwood, which is
: harder to replace. So you burn less hardwood, and you get highter cots and more
: pollution.. Catch 22 aint it.. God help you if you burn coal or fuel oil..
: (yes Im trying to correct my spelling errors).
: 
: Factors, COST, TIME, POLLUTION and what else??
: Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
: I know here in Nome we once had some forests but not anymore they were all cut
: down for fuel and timber c.1900 for the miners..

Yikes, we've got this going on two seperate threads....

I should mention that yes, they are my trees, and yes, they are on my land.  I `
should also mention that since I bought the property, I've planted (roughly) 
2000 hardwood seedlings on about 20 acres of this land.  Yes, it will take a while
for them to reach maturity, but think of it as a crop.  You plant, you wait, you 
harvest.  Properly taken care of, this woodlot will allow me to retire in style
(I'm 25 now, they should be about ready when I am).

The wood I'm currently burning is NOT virgin timber.  I've got about 10 acres of
that, and don't go in there much.  The reason it hasn't been cut before is that it
is rather hard to get to, so I don't even clean it up much.   There are enough
deadfalls (from some rather heavy storms of 2 years ago, 60mph winds etc.) that I
am still working on those without cutting down anything new.  

And, I can always lose one tree, use it to heat for an ENTIRE SEASON, so what's the
harm?  There's thousands more where that one came from.
 

Dave
--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
Ask me if I have an opinion on this! \ Don't blame me; I voted for Perot!
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.     \       Pherrets are Phun!!!
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13776 talk.environment:5187