HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tilley@fsh.UUCP (Tom Tilley)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
Subject: Environmental Cost Assignment (was Re: Save the Planet and ...)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:49:26 GMT
Reply-To: tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
Distribution: na
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale

In article <C0FGr5.4xI@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <72137@cup.portal.com> gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler) writes:
>
>...
>Oh...you don't think that free markets reflect full economic costs?
>Pray tell us how this is.

Perhaps because some of the costs are common, and therefore not private
property?  All cars I see, including the one I drive, have tailpipes
leading to the outside (space I don't own) rather than to the passenger
compartment (space I do own).

>>Not just autos, everything is to some degree paid for at costs far 
>>below their tru economic cost if you factor in the environmental cost/
>>damage.  
>
>Costs according to whom?  If I own a bit of land with trees on it, part
>of the the price you charge for the lumber will be from the decreased
>value of the land without the trees.  This is the case with any
>freely owned and traded resource.

How about the decreased habitat value of the land around yours?  How about
the damage from increased erosion from your land?

Erosion from logging is considered a contributing factor in the severity of
the Eel River flooding in northern CA in 1964 (the "high water mark" signs
along the "Avenue of the Giants" are impressively high).  Erosion from placer
mining in the 1800's in CA (and subsequent Central Valley flooding) led US
courts to outlaw hydraulic mining.  You can see the results of this mining
along I-80 near Gold Run, CA.

>>The cost of lumber should include the full cost of extraction, reforest-
>>ation, the polution by the trucks moving the lumber, the waste from the
>>mills, etc.  
>
>Surprise...violations of property rights aside, they already do!

Critics of the USFS charge that the annual cost of public land logging to
the taxpayer (including road building costs, administrative costs, etc.) is
$1.7 billion (the USFS excludes the cost of logging roads and a few other
items and claims expenses of $0.8 billion, but the logging roads would
not exist except for logging).  The USFS shows logging receipts of $1.3
billion (a $0.5 billion loss).  Not even the full cost of extraction and
replanting is paid.

Society recognizes the economic necessity of impact to common space (such as
pollution).  While I hard time swallowing some specific studies that attempt
to assign commons cost to certain products, the notion that these costs
should be "reasonably" assigned is one that I agree with.  Cost, after all,
simply provides information to an economy and I see no reason why the economy
should be denied information about impact to common space.

Tom.
#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com   |
From: nec@igc.apc.org (Northcoast Environmental Center)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Vietnam: Population growth could de
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:09:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466602022:000:2880
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!nec    Jan  4 21:09:00 1993


/* Written 12:03 am  Dec 23, 1992 by newsdesk@igc.apc.org in igc:ips.englibrary */
/* ---------- "Vietnam: Population growth could de" ---------- */
Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Title: Vietnam: Population growth could derail economic take-off


an inter press service feature

by kunda dixit

hanoi, dec 21 (ips) --  vietnam has all but abandoned its
centrally-planned economy in favour of a free market, but
officials fear that the reforms could be derailed if the
country's population keeps growing at its current rate.

after three decades of continuous war and seven years of
extreme economic hardship, vietnam's 69 million people are keen
to put the past behind them and are anxiously looking forward to
catching up with their richer south-east asian neighbours.

vietnam's planners have unshackled the economy, but the
still pre-eminent communist party has decided that political
reforms will have to wait until economic changes produce results.

in 1986, the landmark party congress that decided to launch
economic reforms also gave family planning the second highest
priority after food production.

since then, vietnam's success in boosting harvests has been
astounding. from a food importer, it is now the world's third
biggest rice exporter. granaries are bursting in the fertile
deltas of the mekong and the red river, and rice production for
the first nine months of 1992 is up 10 percent from last year.

now, the government is turning its attention to family
planning. officials fear successes in raising food production and
living standards could be negated by runaway population growth.

the last census in 1989 showed that the country's population
grew from 53 million in 1979 to 64.5 million in 1989. an average
vietnamese woman has at least four babies. at the present rate of
growth, vietnam's population could reach 150 million in 25 years.

the increase is straining the government's resources,
especially at a time when state subsidies for health, education
and housing are being drastically cut back.

eight in every ten vietnamese live in the rural areas, and new
incentives to private agriculture has encouraged them to have
more children who can help in the farm and raise family income.

reacting to the threat, reformist prime minister vo van kiet
last year set up the national committee for population and family
planning (ncpfp) which is charged with coordinating a population
strategy for the country and wants to reduce the annual
population growth to 1.7 percent in the next two years.

''we are very concerned that population growth will affect
living standards,'' said ncpfp vice-chairman, mai ky. ''therefore
we want to cut population growth to one percent per year in the
next 20 year
(story received incomplete)
1100
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:05:33 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1993Jan11.165005.17195@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
|> In article <7313@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes:
|> >We should take the case of smoking as a guiding example. Nowadays,
|> >people hardly dare to mention in public that they are smokers: smoking
|> >is 'out'.  Would be great, if in a few years also car driving were
|> >'out', wouldn't it? Only those silly enough to always carry 1000 kg
|> >along with them would still use cars.
|> 
|> Please compare the benefits/risks associated with smoking and driving cars.
|> This is what a scientific minded person would do. I'm going to keep my car.
|> 

|> 
|> Tino
|> -- 



Maybe the reason people are so antismoking is because they [now] realise what
it does to them as an individual whereas many people (such as tino) are happy
to drive cos they do not feel the direct consequences themselves.... and I 
think that "scientific minded" people *WOULD* give up their cars (unless absolutely
necessary to use them for absolutely necessary journeys)

Michael
From: eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Bryan Joseph Hannegan)
Subject: Re: What is Climate?
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:59:23 GMT

In article <dhalliwe.726290141@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:
>
>(...) figure out how long a period is required to observe all possible
>variability for a given set of boundary conditions. A "climate change"
>would be a shift in climate which is attributable to some change in
>controlling conditions (e.g. solar output, or some aspect of internal
>conditions which is independent of the climatic variabilty). Thus,
>variability is the time-dependent behaviour which cannot be attributed
>to time-dependent controlling factors. If we have incorrectly seperated
>"variability" and "change", then we may spend a lot of time looking for
>the cause of "changes" which were in fact "variation" and therefore
>are "unexplainable".
>

     Paleoclimatology seems like a candidate field for these kinds of things.
Can we really be sure that all the variability can be observed? Must the full
range of variability be observed before we can surely attribute climate change
to its rightful forcing mechanism? I'm pessimistic concerning ideas like these,
since I am not sure that the wide range of variability will ever be experienced
for a single set of static boundary conditions, much less the continually
changing and dynamic boundary conditions that exist today.

     The definition I received in my undergrad years lead me to believe that 
climate is simply "average weather", including all the extremes and midpoints.
A little narrow, I agree, but for me this suffices, since it leaves vague
the more specific points of "over how long of a time, and how big of an area?".
Climate change studies, like those we do at UC Irvine, revolve around the 
shifts that can be attributed to something outside of the system (like Dave
mentioned above), and as such, for the purposes of our inquiry, the definition
of climate we use can be safely redefined to best express the changes we find,
for the definition can vary without disturbing the study. A lot of the work 
on climate change I have come into contact with has a similar feature.

     I'll definitely chew on this some more.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Hannegan                              eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu
Dept of Geosciences, UC-Irvine              hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu
If you fall on your face, at least take heart in making forward progress.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Nuclear Power in the Third World
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:33:34 GMT


From the same _Energy Policy_ article (12-88)
(This is mainly paraphrasing from the article - anyone want to donate
 a scanner to me? :)

Latin America

In 1960, research reactors were installed in Brazil, the major power
in Latin America, and by the early 1970's, most Latin American
countries were planning for large nuclear programmes to be in
place by the year 2000: 30 GW for Argentina, up to 50 GW for
Brazil, 25 GW for Mexico.

Argentina
	600 MW Embalese plant completed at 3 times the original cost est.
	Arroyito heavy water plant has quadrupled in cost.
	698 MW Attucha II reactor estimated to cost $6017/kW

Brazil
	626 MW Angra I: 8 years late and at 4.5 times original cost.
	Angra II: work suspended after $1.1 billion due to financial crisis
	Angra III: work suspended after $300 million

Mexico
	Laguna Verde I under construction for 14 years

Latin America had planned for 105 GW by 2000. 1.7 GW is online now (1988).

Asia

For South Korea and Taiwan ... nuclear power has provided an economically
competitive alternative compared with other options for electricity
generation.  IN the four less-industrialized nations with nuclear
programmes, China, India, Pakistan and the Phillippines, nuclear power
has been less successful:

China has postponed its nuclear program indefinitely...

Inability to obtain external financing, rising reactor costs, and vendor
concerns about military intentions led Pakistan to postpone indefinitely
bid submission dates for its 10 to 20 nuclear power plants.

And India, with its three-decade old nuclear programme - the first
substantial nuclear programme in the developing world - has only
1.2 GW of installed nuclear capacity.

-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 00:48:23 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan7.093103.2732@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > Actually that's mostly incorrect. My father owned an "early industrial
 > revolution" machine shop that was powered by a single 15 hp electric
 > motor driving overhead jackshafts that turned the machines by way of
 > flat belts. That type of power transmission is over 95% efficient.
 > He ran 5 lathes, 2 milling machines, 3 drill presses, a shop compressor,
 > the blower on the forge, and a fan off that 15 hp motor. Today the same
 > lathes *each* require a 7 hp motor. That single motor could run everything
 > because it didn't have to overcome startup inertia because it was always
 > running.

We had these types of machine shop, some over 100 years old, operating
in Australia well into the 1970s. I know of several which had not even
replaced their steam engines with electric motors until the 1960s, as
the national grid was extended to their town. During that period there
was also a marked changed in emphasis for apprentice training away from
the traditional trade skills to provide us with a pool of electricians
and electronics engineers instead. The transistor had appeared by then
as well, and the rest is history.

Some of those old machine shops are most probably still operating in
some areas, although with cheap electric motors, cheap lathes, milling
machines and drill stands so readily available now I doubt that the old
flywheels, jackshafts and flat belt pulleys are made anymore. Pity.

Anyway, it was the large industrial plants which had abandoned them in
favour of unit *modularity* facilitating production planning, and ease
of maintenance. Downtime, overtime and weekend loadings are critical
production factors alongside relative energy efficiency and the price
of electricity, and any final decisions must necessarily take them all
into account.

Pre-assembled modular units are now always used in remote areas because
of their ease of transportation and setup on site.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: chenm@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Ming chen)
Subject: How to access EPA through internet ?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:32:35 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
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:25:48 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <7173@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk writes:
>|> Please compare the benefits/risks associated with smoking and driving cars.
>|> This is what a scientific minded person would do. I'm going to keep my car.
>
>Maybe the reason people are so antismoking is because they [now] realise what
>it does to them as an individual whereas many people (such as tino) are happy
>to drive cos they do not feel the direct consequences themselves.... and I 
>think that "scientific minded" people *WOULD* give up their cars (unless absolutely
>necessary to use them for absolutely necessary journeys)

Please tell me how my car is going to kill me, with the same certainty that
smoking will. 

Also, please tell me my alternatives. You can't go around banning cars without
providing a better alternative. No, I'm not walking the mile from my house to
the laundry or to the store because you're frightened of the things.

Absolutely necessary to use them for absolutely necessary journeys? Do you
mean we have to prove that we should be allowed on the road?

I think you lost touch with reality somewhere in there...

Tino (sitting in here while my car idles for 3 hours outside)
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: morten.lange@smu.unit.no (Morten Lange)
Subject: Re: How to get access to USEPA
Organization: Centre for Envir. and Developm., U.of Trondheim, NORWAY
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:00:22 GMT

In article <C0IIsE.A83@newsserver.technet.sg> env_sprd@solomon.technet.sg (Min of the Environment) writes:
>Newsgroups: sci.environment
>Path: ugle.unit.no!aun.uninett.no!sunic!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!newsserver.technet.sg!env_sprd
>From: env_sprd@solomon.technet.sg (Min of the Environment)
>Subject: How to get access to USEPA
>Message-ID: <C0IIsE.A83@newsserver.technet.sg>
>Sender: news@newsserver.technet.sg
>Nntp-Posting-Host: solomon.technet.sg
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:57:50 GMT
>Lines: 11
>
>I am desperately looking for the USEPA source test method for polynuclear aromatic
>hydrocarbons in incinerator flue gas.  I understand that it is possible to
>obtain this info thro Internet.  If anyone can help me access this info, I
>would really be grateful.
>  
>Thank you and Best wishes for 1993.
>
>
>Indrani, Senior Scientific Officer,
>Ministry of the Environment, Singapor

One internet address for USEPA is epaibm.rtpnc.epa.gov, through which one 
can access EPA's Online Library System. Telnet works, but TN3270 (ibm 3270 
emulator ) is better.

I found this by using the new gopher space searcing, called Veronica. I 
checked your local gopher at Technet in Singapore, and its available there.
This source may give you additional access options. Other sources are 
the Internet Resource Guide, and the news groups with "internet" in their 
name. 
Morten Lange                          Email  morten.lange@smu.unit.no
University of Trondheim               Telephone        +47  7 59 8948
Centre f. Environment & Development   From May(?) 1993 +47 73 59 5000
N-7005 TRONDHEIM,  *NORWAY*           Fax              +47  7 59 8943
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Toxicity of Fenvalerate t
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

TO: QUANTUM@brownvm.brown.edu

Q>Does anyone know about the toxic levels of
 >the insecticide FENVALERATE towards lobster
 >and fish? Fenvalerate also goes under the
 >trade names PYDRIN; SUMICIDIN; BELMARK.

Have you asked the EPA?  the Fish & Wildlife Service?  Possibly even the
Department of Agriculture?
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:20:10 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan7.093103.2732@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Actually that's mostly incorrect. My father owned an "early industrial
>revolution" machine shop that was powered by a single 15 hp electric
>motor driving overhead jackshafts that turned the machines by way of
>flat belts. That type of power transmission is over 95% efficient.
>He ran 5 lathes, 2 milling machines, 3 drill presses, a shop compressor,
>the blower on the forge, and a fan off that 15 hp motor. Today the same
>lathes *each* require a 7 hp motor. That single motor could run everything
>because it didn't have to overcome startup inertia because it was always
>running.

I admit defeat on this. What I should have said is that there was at
one time, a correlation between the use of water power and living
standard, just as there has been a correlation between the use of
electicicty and living standard. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 09:44:14 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <58447@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu writes:

 > I admit defeat on this. What I should have said is that there was at
 > one time, a correlation between the use of water power and living
 > standard, just as there has been a correlation between the use of
 > electicicty and living standard. 

"Living standard" is entirely subjective, and I regret that it simply
does not correlate with anything at all. Something quite frustrating
to planners and demographers as well . . .

Current community development programs now being put in place here in
Western Australia, after years of abject failure by top-down policy
implementation with no understanding whatever of just what it is that
satisfies people, are finally being based on what local people say
they want themselves.

As each place is so different from another, I am getting quite a lot
of consulting work building complex social matrices through which the
powers that be can now plot their critical paths to facilitate the
new strategy. It is quite an interesting exercise in participatory
democracy, while we are at it.

Suffice that our current Premier has a doctorate in Psychology.

Gil
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:44:52 GMT

In article <58220@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> Yes we can. The energy to run an early industrial revolution era
> machine shop was enormous because a single power source had to drive
> a mechanical gearing system that distributed motion to each machine and
> lost a great deal of power in the process. Dropping energy requirments
> by putting individual electric motors in each machine increased

If it lost power in distribution, it was because the machines were not designed
to use minimal power when idle.  Mechanical power distribution (chains,
belts, and gears) is very efficient, 95% or greater.  So it was machine
design, not distribution that was a problem.  The real problem with
mechanical distribution is that a single fault brings all work in the factory
to a halt.  Individual motors increases productivity by reducing downtime.

> productivity. Energy use <-> GDP seems like an anachronism.

Statistics from the industrial revolution on show this relationship is
true throughout great advances in technology and large changes in economics
and politics.  Undoubtedly, factors such as technological and efficiency
improvements are included in the relation but turn out to be offset by
other factors such as population growth, standard of living increases, etc.
To fully analyze the relation would require analyzing all these components,
but the relation itself stands and is as true today as it was a century ago.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov