HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:00:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct5.180056.12170
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct2.135339.13025@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3) writes:
>
>	Raise the gasoline tax!  Even with a $0.50 increase per gallon,
>we'd still have the cheapest gas in the Western world.

Though $.50 a gallon less cheap than we have now. No advantage America.

Perhaps we should extend this thought. 

We have the lowest income tax in the Western world, we could raise it
to 89% and still be less than Britian. No advantage America.

We have the highest worker salaries in the Western world. We could
lower them to $41 a month and still be higher than Russia. No advantage
America.

We spend more on public universities than any other Western nation. We
could cut it tenfold and still spend more than Germany. No advantage
America.

Hmmmm.  There seems to be a trend here.

Gary 
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Upcoming environmental education conference
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:57:08 GMT
Distribution: wi, mn
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

My sister, who does not have Usenet access, asked that I post this.

 
Upcoming Environmental Education Conference
 
hosted by the Wisconsin Association for Environmental Education
 
October 29-31
 
Near Merrimac, Wisconsin
 
Choose from over 32 sessions, 16 field trips, or five workshops designed
for classroom teachers, nature center professionals, and others.
 
To encourage increased awareness and responsibility by understanding the
environment.
 
Keynote address by Ben Logan.
 
Music by Ken Lonnquist.
 
For more information call Mata Riegel 715-824-2428.
From: kachun@aquarius.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: George Will's "Global Cooling"
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:15:52 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

So can anyone send me info on George Will's argument against global warming:
that those atmospheric scientists don't know what they're doing since they
were predicting global cooling not too long ago?  I remember seeing some sort
of rebuttal several months back on another newsgroup but didn't save the post.
I already have info on Will's selective use of a Gallup poll so I don't need
that.  Thanks.


--
*Ka Chun Yu                * "I'm going down to Cowtown, the cow's a friend of *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu     *  me; he lives beneath the ocean and that's where  *
*But you should reply to:  *  I will be.  Beneath the waves, the waves..."     *
*kachun@vela.Colorado.EDU  *                                      --Cowtown    *
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:03:39 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <JMC.92Oct1182258@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I ask the following question seriously and not entirely rhetorically.
>
>How are we to tell the "Energy Efficiency Education Project" from
>an "Energy Efficiency Propaganda Project"?
>
>For example, does it present more than one view of energy issues?

Probably not. Like most Washington lobby groups, it chose a name
that will sound scholarly or public-spirited. 

However, I suspect that the policies it advocates are sounder than
those of the Bush administration.

Propaganda is not necessarily bad. By definition, it's one-sided,
but even one-sided arguments can lead to a better understanding of
an issue.

(The term "propaganda" comes from the name of the Vatican agency for
promoting or propagating the faith. Originally, the term was not pejorative,
at least not in Roman Catholic circles.)

For more information about the "Energy Efficiency Education Project",
you can call its publicist, Phil Sparks, in Washington at 202-682-1270.
I don't have a snail-mail or e-mail address.

Disclaimer: I find interesting press releases on other systems and sometimes
post them in this newsgroup. I normally don't have any additional information
beyond what's included in the press release.


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3936 sci.environment:11587
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 27 Sep 1992 00:24:40 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep25.220539.5889@news.acns.nwu.edu>, len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
>I believe Carl Lydick was assuming the growth rate was c ln t/t,

I've explained what I meant in a separate post.

>However, all of this is a bit silly.   If the growth rate stays over
>say 1.5% for the next 50 years, there are very simple ways to
>estimate (crudely with continuous models or accurately with discrete
>models) what will happen by about 2050.

Certainly there are.  What evidence do you wish to present that indicates that
your assumption (growth rate greater than 1.5% for the next 50 years) is
correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: lrxi00@icts01.Kodak.COM (James Nonnemacher)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Strip Mining in National Parks
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:01:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co

Does anyone have more information on the Bush Administration's plans to allow logging and strip
mining in National Parks. Heard about this on the 11:00pm news last night -- it was given no more than
30 sec. and I haven't seen the morning paper yet.
From: mark@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Mark Webster)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Solar Powered Roof
Keywords: solar power
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:07:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Originator: mark@morningstar


It seems as though eventually, solar power will become a more viable source
of energy.  Solar cells are becoming more efficient and cheaper, and hopefully,
the ecological impact of manufacturing them will be reduced or eliminated.  
Other forms of solar energy conversion are also making strides toward
viability.  One problem that I can see is lack of space.  I'm a desert lover and
I really don't want to see a lot of desert torn up to erect solar power plant
farms.  Floating them on the ocean makes them vulnerable to storms and may have
some sort of impact on ocean life.  And solar satellites are vulnerable to 
space debris, atomic oxygen, atmospheric and solar drag.  The method of transferring energy from orbit is also somewhat problematic.

So, I have and idea.  How about we cover the roof of every building, commercial, public and hell, even residential with solar cells.  If you fly over LA, black roofs as far as the eye can see.  Even erect them over freeways on light weight frames that can't hurt anything if they fall during an earthquake (only a problem in California and the area around New Madrid Missouri).  

Whattaya think? Flame away. Just post please.

Mark

On an intimate quest for knowledge.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3)
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:53:39 GMT

John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: Specifically, do its educational efforts include presentations of
: the Bush Administration energy policies by spokesmen for these
: policies?

	I sure hope so.  That way, when sound and visionary energy
policies are also presented, the Administration's sorry policies will
be a sharp contrast.

	Raise the gasoline tax!  Even with a $0.50 increase per gallon,
we'd still have the cheapest gas in the Western world.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Hydrogen-burning cars?  Why not use alcohol instead?
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:56:40 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

Why all this talk on hydrogen?   Why not burn the fuel that burns
clean, and can be made in  abundance here in the U.S.

Alcohol!

I see several advantages  over hydrogen:

1.  Alcohol is easier to store, and while not as safe as gasoline, I'd
    rather be riding around with it than hydrogen.

2.  Make alcohol from grain, corn, etc.  Stop payment-in-kind (payments
    for farmers not to plant) and give the farm loby the best kind
    of subsidy: a good market! (of course, you'd have to let the
    oil folks refine and sell the stuff to keep them happy).

3.  Hydrogen and electric cars emit  emissions AT THE POWERPLANT!
    Alcohol ferments, pollution free.

4.  Brazil is a model for an alcohol conversion, see what they did right/
    wrong.

5.  Alcohol gives high-outpus (can you say indy-car fuel?)

Why has alcohol not been given serious thought in this country?

Shawn Duffy
Edinboro University of PA
USA
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Sharks
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:28:24 GMT

John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: While you're at, I'm interested in getting information about groups
: who are involved in halting the slaughter of mosquitoes.

	I know you meant this in jest, because the shark has long
been thought of as a menace, but a Discovery Channel show I watched
two nights ago (which may have prompted the original post) showed
video footage of Japanese fisherman catching sharks, slicing off their
fins, and discarding the rest of the shark back into the ocean.  It
was graphic, and horrifying that they could so callously destroy this
creature for such a small return.
	The shark, menacing or not, plays much the same role of
scavenger as vultures, jackals (sometimes, though jackals hunt too), and
many predators that prey on the weak and sick of a population.  Because
sharks are live-breeders, their reproductive rates are quite slow compared
to fish.  Therefore, overfishing of sharks is a considerable danger to
the oceanic ecosystem.
	Although aware of shark overfishing concerns previously, the level
and stupidity of this slaughter had not been apparent before seeing this
show.  Anytime the natural balance is disrupted, we must be concerned.
After all, our careless discarding of old tires has provided those pesky
mosquitoes many more places to breed and spread disease.
	I don't mind the joking, but make sure you understand the issue, too.


	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Waste containment (was: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves ...)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:30:09 GMT


Thanks for the info--I I'll see if I could find that Scientific American
on microfilm at a local library.  I've been getting some e-mail on the subject.

Simon
From: gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Are You a Misanthrope?
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:55:10 CDT
Organization: America, Planet Earth

	I have a good friend (who does not have internet access) who wishes 
to pose a question to this forum.  She is a serious naturalist who is 
concerned about her views concerning mankind's actions as a whole.

	To anyone who considers themselves a true misanthrope:  Why?  Why 
are you misanthropic?  What do you believe so much that you would term 
yourself as misanthropic?  What are your reasons for your beliefs?

	My friend has many misanthropic viewpoints, mostly related to 
humankind's destruction of the environment.  She wishes to supplement her 
viewpoints with others' after carefully analyzing each reason and opinion of 
those who respond to this post.

	I will print responses and give them to her, and allow her to respond 
through my or another account.

	Thank you!  :)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 David Caruso II                               Email: gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3932 sci.environment:11583
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Date: 26 Sep 1992 23:54:36 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep23.052120.25865@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>(What the
>hell for instance is the Institute for Biospheric Research in Tempe, AZ?)

I believe they may be the people living in the big glass house with severe air
conditioning problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:55:39 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <ECONEWS.29Sep1992.2121@naughty-peahen.org>
jym@remarque.berkeley.edu reports:

>[From EcoNet ecotopia.news Conference]

>Minus-Emission Cars Tap Hydrogen

>by Elaine Weinreb

>Like wind, water and photovoltaics, hydrogen is a benign energy source --
>and the only one that can be burned, and even substituted for gasoline.
>Pure hydrogen contains no carbon, and does not contribute to the greenhouse
>effect since the only end-product of combustion is water vapor.

Sorry, Elaine, I hate to burst your bubble but water vapor is a major
component in the energy balance of the Earth's atmosphere; because of its
high specific heat it is far more important in atmospheric heat exchange
than are the "in vogue" green house gasses of CO2 and methane.  It is
entirely possible that an increase in atmospheric H2O vapor will result in a
higher state of dynamic equlibrium in the hydrologic cycle, resulting in a
greater atmospheric content of H2O vapor and far more global warming than
additions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

>Cars that run on alternative fuels such as methanol are said to be low
>emission, and electric cars are called zero emission -- but a
>hydrogen-burning car can be called "minus emission" because it turns a
>pollutant into a clean fuel.

Since when is hydrogen a pollutant???

>[other stuff deleted]

Don't get me wrong, I think its great that we're looking for alternative
fuels/energy sources.  But lets not fool ourselves that just becouse
something doesn't produce a carbon compound that it's "safer" than the
burning of fossil fuels.

MEK
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:03:55 GMT


Here is a press release from the Energy Efficiency Education Project
 Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Monday
 To: Assignment Desk, Energy Writer
 Contact: Phil Sparks, 202-682-1270, for the Energy Efficiency
          Education Project

   News Advisory:

   A timely report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), quantifies prospects of job creation, personal
income, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) if sustainable energy
policies were adopted -- including auto fuel efficiency measures.
   The release of the ACEEE report coincides with the debate among
policymakers and Bush administration officials over the exact gain or
loss of jobs if certain energy efficiency proposals were adopted to
help the environment and reduce public health threats, especially
from automobile emissions.
   ACEEE is an energy research organization based in Washington, D.C.
The study was assisted by the Oregon-based Economic Research
Associates, a nationally respected study group specializing in energy
issues.
   Participating in the report's release on Monday, Oct. 5, at noon
in the Main Lounge at the National Press Club will be Howard Geller,
executive director of ACEEE, Skip Laitner of the Economic Research
Associates and Alden Meyer, director of climate change and energy
policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
   In addition to the ACEEE report, materials distributed at the
press conference will include a summary of national public opinion
polling that shows overwhelming support for energy efficiency
measures, including auto fuel economy upgrades.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:22:58

I ask the following question seriously and not entirely rhetorically.

How are we to tell the "Energy Efficiency Education Project" from
an "Energy Efficiency Propaganda Project"?

For example, does it present more than one view of energy issues?

Specifically, do its educational efforts include presentations of
the Bush Administration energy policies by spokesmen for these
policies?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sharks
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:39:56

While you're at, I'm interested in getting information about groups
who are involved in halting the slaughter of mosquitoes.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
From: mark@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Mark Webster)
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Originator: mark@morningstar
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:07:04 GMT


In article <JMC.92Oct1182258@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
|> I ask the following question seriously and not entirely rhetorically.
|> 
|> How are we to tell the "Energy Efficiency Education Project" from
|> an "Energy Efficiency Propaganda Project"?
|> 
|> For example, does it present more than one view of energy issues?
|> 
|> Specifically, do its educational efforts include presentations of
|> the Bush Administration energy policies by spokesmen for these
|> policies?
|> --
|> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> *
|> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
|> 

Why should it?  The Bush administrations policies are espoused by the government, the oil and energy companies that the administration supports and you.  The Energy Efficiency Education Project is not the official point of view, they are an alternative and have no obligation to present the opposite viewpoint.

Mark Webster
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 Emissions vs Global Warming/Ozone Depletion
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:34:02 GMT
Distribution: World
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Oct3.202135.29655@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umrobe57@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Ken A. Roberge) writes:
>
>	It would appear that the majority of predictions concerning the
>rate of fossil fuel consumption state that the supply will be depleted
>around the year 2020 or possibly earlier.  This will obviously have
>serious affects on the CO2 emissions.  Bearing in mind these predictions
>that I have seen were for the U.S, it can still be assumed that the world
>supply is not that far behind.  This mass reduction in CO2 emissions is
>probably the best thing that could happen to the environment/atmosphere,
>however at what cost is it happening.  At the point where the fossil fuels
>are gone what form of energy is next, possibly nuclear fission/fusion or
>possibly something that will have a worse affect on the
>atmosphere/environment than CO2.  Granted that CFC amounts probably won't
>cut back due to this problem so there will still be a large amount of
>ozone depletion (if CFC's are actually proven to be the problem, which
>they probably are).
> 
>Any Opinions on these predictions?
>
>
>-- 
>Ken Roberge
>umrobe57@ccu.umanitoba.ca

I haven't seen many sources indicating that fossil fuels will be used up by
2020.  They will last a lot longer than that.  The most plentiful fossil
fuel, coal, could last centuries or millenia- and its the dirtiest of
the lot!  No "easy" out here.

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: Env. Satellites Shutdown in Dec. 1992
Keywords: satellite, budget cuts
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:02:53 GMT

 We at Langley Research Center received news on Thursday, October 2,
1992 that NASA intends to shutdown the following satellites in
December to save about $15M:

     NUMBUS-7

     ERBS

     NOAA-9

     NOAA-10

The following experiments will not be operational while
the satellites are shutdown:

     Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II  (SAM II)

     Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBS) (3)

     Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II)

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3934 sci.environment:11585