HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:34:06 GMT

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

   [Summary of Japan's progress towards hegemony deleted]

>Perhaps the Japanese plan consists of advancing the interests of the
>country using whatever means seems appropriate at the time.  If that's
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it, then every country has the same plan.

You have hit the nail on the head.  That indeed is the problem.  Japan,
ruled by the mandarins of the civil service (not to be remotely
confused with the civil service of the US), has had a consistent
*national* economic plan.  A consensus if you will.  ``Keep them out
until we have achieved the manufacturing excellence which we know we
are capabale of, then dominate the market.''

I am asking for the same kind of leadership in the North American
context.  Symmetric trade, not free trade on one side and barriers on
the other.  I submit that the US-Canada Auto Pact is that kind of
``managed'' trade that has been very good for both countries.

John, I know you have wide interests and an extensive knowledge base.
Do you have time for a read of two books that I have found very
interesting and, as near as I can verify, factual?  ``Trading Places,''
by Clyde Prestowitz, 1988, and ``Head to Head,'' by Lester Thurow.


--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and t
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:20:00 GMT
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085

TO: donb@crash.cts.com

DB>Some of us cannot ride bikes for a lot of reasons
  >It is real hard to bring home a 4X8 sheet of oak plywood on the bus and
  >just as hard to deliver the Shaker style dresser to a good friend.  This
  >is not to mention the difficulty of locating a shop in the living room.

But that's exactly what the "Back to the Middle Ages" bunch wants you to
do:  Live like a peasant, have your shop in your hovel's living room,
and walk or ride your bicycle everywhere in your _very_ limited world.
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                          
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.195749.11721@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.182038.26674@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>|> 
>|> While it is not theoretically impossible to do both, they both cost
>|> money and such money does not grow on trees.  
>
>Hmm, I thought the idea of an "investment" was a long term return for a short
>term cost. It seems to have worked so far. Both new energy production and
>new energy efficiency are investments in that sense. Both have large costs
>in the immediate term but negative costs (i.e., benefits) in the long run.
>Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. You are applying short term budgetary
>thinking to long term policy questions where it doesn't really apply.

I completely agree with you but we alone do not make this decision.  If
the money can be found, I would support doing both.  As a practical
matter, I don't think the funds are available.
>
>|>Further, you ignore 
>|> the part of the thread that discusses opportunity cost of
>|> investing in nuclear power.  It is an inefficient use of money if
>|> the goal is to lessen CO2 emissions.
>
>Even in the rosiest of scenarios, power plants age and some of them must
>be replaced. Assuming the storage problems of solar and wind energy 
>remain unsolved, would you replace a fossil fuel plant with another, or
>with a nuclear plant? I believe this is a difficult issue, but it's obvious 
>that considering impact on CO2 alone (or acid rain alone) the choice
>is clearly for nuclear power over fossil fuels, and no amount of 
>handwaving will change that.
>
>Your argument that it is better to reduce consumption than to build 
>production is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far in arguing
>against nuclear power once new production capacity becomes necessary.

I have posted proof that efficiency improvements should be enough to
forestall the need for new capacity in general for 10 to 20 years.
This proof was from an EPRI study.  As we approach that limit, we
can determine what the best decision is for new capacity, nuclear,
wind or solar, based on the newest technology of the day.  Remember
that efficiency has the shortest installation time. This is all
for the U.S.  The developing world will need new capacity soon (if not
now).  I would argue that they would be best served by smaller scale
generation and solar and wind tend to serve them well since they have
little or no grid, but that is their decision to make.
>
>mt
>


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: afong@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Krell Kraver)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 1 Jan 93 18:46:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

>Well let us in Alaska decide the fate of our lands. Let us have the same
>oportunity to make our fortunes. We just might suprise you on how it can be
>done without dystroying the environment.. 

No one can afford the risk.  If you're wrong, and we let you try,
there'd be no turning back.

>is).  Basically resay what I haev said in the past, clean your own house
>before you even try to clean mine..

Nothing says that just because your own house isn't "clean" you
give up all rights to try to correct problems elsewhere. 


>I know that there has been many precendences for mass exploitation, but all
>that is happening is locking the land up so that no one can use it, other than
>a select few, congressmembers and their cronies... Its interesting to note that

Geez, you're right.  The land should not be locked up, but made
available to anyone who wants it.  I think Alaska would look great as
a giant mobile-home park.  We might as well let the developers have
Walden pond for their condo's and office buildings like they've been
trying to do for several years now.

I suggest you visit the "horrid East" of the U.S. and see what
uncontrolled development can do.  You're living in an environment up
there which has trailed the mainland in development, environmental
disasters (expcept for Valdez, of course) and other fun side effects
of civilization.  But, it'll catch up.
  

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14164 talk.environment:5309
From: 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: ??? NUCLEAR WASTE ???
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:30:04 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
Originator: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu

Am I missing something here, I still have no response to my simple
question-

 WHAT ABOUT THE WASTE???

Perhaps, John McC or Tino want it. Or maybe they just want to save it for
their children.


-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Sh
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:08:21 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec17.141023.10146@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > Ah, I see Alan is still preaching the new Lysenkoism here on Sci
 > Environment. 

Let us just hope there will be no new Central Committee to decree its
correctness, or new Stalin or Krushchev wanting to promote him to head
the Ministry of Agriculture . . .

--
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 * *
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13741 ca.environment:1113 ba.transportation:2873
From: gb@cup.portal.com (Greg A Buechler)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:05:37 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

I'l add my $0.02 worth on this one.

If we were to charge the full economic cost to ALL items used, mined,
manufactured, etc. we wouldn't be in the present condition at all.

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.  

Let's use another example, lets say homes.

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.  Nails should cost far more.  Wallboard, wiring, (do you get
the point yet?)

Bottom line here..... If we want to curb the destruction of this planet
                      caused by us, we have to incur the true cost of an
		      item, including the full environmental cost.

gb

ps  If you really want to clean up the place, then show me how I can make
    a profit doing so and I will run over all the environmentalists 
    because they won't be able to get out of my way fast enough.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Pro
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 05:37:26 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <C057J2.4LE@sunblossom.ge.com> byrnes@sunsmart.dab.ge.com writes:

 > Under a democratic system, the majority chooses the rule makers.  But, our 
 > system has a major flaw, too many people don't vote.  The other flaw is that
 > the media ignores the people with low ad budgets.

I think I have commented previously that we have a difference system
here in Australia, where adult suffrage is compulsory. We also have a
preferential voting system in place such that if no absolute majority
has been won (>50%) on first preferences, the second preferences are
added, and so on until a clear majority emerges and the seat can be
declared.

Australians, however, also pursue a certain sympathy for the underdog,
and if a poorly funded independent comes from way behind the powerful
party candidates with multi-million dollar advertising budgets, to
take the seat by winning their preferences, it is most certainly a
newsworthy event. Mike Cleary won the seat of Wills in the bi-election
called following the resignation of Bob Hawke in such a manner.

It is chronic losers and also-rans who get inadequate coverage, since
nobody is much interested in them anyway. Such a lack of interest is
reflected very much in the voting pattern, and anyone complaining of
not having received a fair go is always at liberty to examine all the
figures for themselves.

Indeed, that is where McCarthy's arithmetic really does count. If
you can't add up the numbers you're as dead as the proverbial dodo. I
spent quite a few years while young and foolish doing these sorts of
sums and writing papers discussing the outcome of particular election
campaigns. All the statistics are readily available free from the
Electoral Office, and make a fascinating study. I recommend anyone
with an interest in public affairs to get right into it, and don't
sit back complaining that it never goes their way.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: --New York Looks at Green Pricing
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:40:36 GMT

In article <1466602014@igc.apc.org> Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>/* Written 12:45 pm  Dec 21, 1992 by tgray@igc.apc.org in igc:en.energy */
>
>NEW YORK LOOKS AT
>'GREEN PRICING'
> 
>The New York Public Service Commission is working on a "green
>pricing" plan that would allow consumers to choose whether to pay
>higher electricity bills for power from clean, renewable energy
>sources, according to The Energy Daily.
> 
>Several other states, the article said, are considering the
>concept, which was developed in detail by David Moscovitz of the
>Regulatory Assistance Project in a study commissioned by the World
>Resources Institute.
> 
>A number of polls and studies have shown that many consumers --
>perhaps as many as 40 percent or 50 percent -- are willing to pay
>more for power from sources that do not damage the environment,
>according to Moscovitz.
> 
>New York is looking at a trial implementation of the concept in
>connection with its state energy plan, which calls for the state's
>utilities to install 300 MW of renewable energy generating capacity
>by the year 1998, the article said.
> 
>Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
>Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org            UUCP: uunet!cdp!tgray
>

I have mixed feelings about this.  Just at the time that there is a
discussion going on in this group about true-cost pricing, we have
here a policy that reinforces the attitude that environmental
policies don't make economic sense.  There are a number of studies
that have calculated the externalities of the various
fossil fuels on a per kwh
basis.  These costs should be added to the rate schedules and the
money spent either on handling these costs or supplying cleaner
power or maybe helping those who would be heavily impacted by the
price increases.  I believe that one state (Nevada?) has started doing this.
-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: myahgula@questor.org (Michael Yahgulanaas)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Who is watching the Moonies ?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 22:33:45 PST
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670

Is it true that the Unification Church, "I am the second coming" Rev Sun 
Moon, has very close links to the "Wise Use" movement in the US and to 
the "Share" groups in BC ? Is it also true that industry (particularly 
MacMillan Bloedel the forestry giant) have financed the Share group to 
function as a screen to supporter short term resource smash and grabbing 
?  Is any of the above true ?



--
  Michael Yahgulanaas (myahgula@questor.org)
    | QUESTOR:  Free Dial-in Public Access to Usenet Health, Medical News |
    | & AIDS forums, and Info on Global Environment at  +1 604  681 0670. |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Re: Chill out, and swim the waters near Victoria, B.C.
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:17:23 GMT

Some say that the sewage discharged off Victoria does no harm to the marine
environment.  The ocean currents sweep it all away, and it's supposed to be
dilited, etc. in the water.  Other people say that the sewage is causing
harm. It would be going a bit far to say that those people come to this
conclusion out of resentment about paying taxes to treat their sewage or
because of some political reasons, such as not upsetting Americans
(especially the Washington State variety).

I saw a TV report on the CBC.  Somebody had taken a camera down to take
pictures of the "out" end of the outfall.  Luckily, I didn't watch that TV
report at 6 PM, but at 11:30 PM.  The point is that I think that people may
make their decision on aesthetic grounds.  Then they write to their
politicians, who might then make a fuss.

Now, if you want to think of some unappealing swimming areas how about the
shores of Lake Ontario near Toronto?  And weren't there some reports a few
years ago about some revolting green scum washing up onto the beaches of the
Adriatic?  Or was the scum covering some Mediterranean beaches?

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sheep in Organizations
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 05:08:03 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <58189@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu writes:

 > >Sorry Victor, but "WE" do not "OWN" anything at all. Neither the State
 > >nor the collectivity (despite Rousseau) is a *person* in its own right,
 >  
 > Where is it written that only individuals may "own"?  In the current
 > US legal system, the Federal government "owns" national park lands in 
 > the name of the general public. If you have some ideological committment
 > to a theory of property in which "own" means something else,  replace
 > "own" with "holds title under current law" if that makes you feel better.

Well, of course one can also argue a case where a conflict of interest
might arise in a private person owning land, who is also a citizen of a
democracy which has a public interest in the same land, or indeed a
case where the State owns land in the name of the public, of which an
individual citizen also a member of that public by definition makes a
private claim on that land. But apart from its utility as an exercise
in pedagogy, however, the case is pointless and cannot be pursued in
law. The matter must always rest on the strength of claims on their own
merit as they stand from time to time.

I had already argued for the far more accurate and reliable *tenure*
which can be tested and assessed by due democratic processes. It seems
appropriate here to add "title" as relevant to the formal recognition
of such tenure as it has been negotiated by due process, describing its
nature and the manner by which it was derived. But whichever way you
wish to look at the problem, if you care to actually *think* through
its various complexities, it remains that the concept of "ownership"
with respect to land is misleading and problematic.

There is no "ideological committment" as you suggest; merely a report
on the facts of the matter as they pertain out there in the real world
in response to your petty and wholly uninformed nit-picking against a
plea for land justice arising in Alaska. There is plenty of scope for
a sound and workable compromise, were you willing to pursue it.

We have been through this before however, during your membership of
this group in fact, so I must reasonably assume that you have a brain
of your own and I'll not bother expanding on the it again merely for
your benefit.

Gil
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sheep in Organizations
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 05:42:49 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <58022@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor
yodaiken) writes:

 >Sigh. We already own the land. You want to change the ownership, put up
 >some money. It's really sickening how many people want to get something
 >for nothing.

Sorry Victor, but "WE" do not "OWN" anything at all. Neither the State
nor the collectivity (despite Rousseau) is a *person* in its own right,
and this matter of Crown or State prerogative is always only the very
final resort in the case of an indeterminate claim on particular land.
Even then, the State provence is one primarily of trusteeship in the
public interest while land claims (if any) are being sorted out.

The issues of land holding in a democracy are fundamentally concerned
with the processes of assessing the strength and validity of competing
claims on *tenure*, and the further processes by which the priorities
arising from those competing claims can be addressed toward a mutually
satisfactory outcome.

I would certainly not be prepared to risk capital on land for which a
clear practicable outcome has not been established consistent with my
own project planning strategy, yet once it has and the strength of my
claim has been acknowledged by due process, it becomes an asset of
itself attracting investment.

That is, I do not need any money to start with. Most probably I have
a idea for a project for which I have done my homework, established its
feasibility, and attracted interest from expertise in the field and
cooperation from the community, then got the go-ahead from relevant
agencies. Any capital and other resources I need will be forthcoming
anyway, because astute investors can see the risks have been assessed
and therefore the likelihood of a return very high.

Gaining tenure thus on the land in question, despite apparent initial
poverty, is not by any stretch of the imagination getting something for
nothing. It is reward for my intelligence, persistence and hard work
in pursuing a substantial economic activity of benefit to the whole
society of which I am a member.

Even in Aboriginal Australia, and among any traditional society on
Earth not dissimilar systems are in place. Nobody in their right mind
(except notably the now defunct USSR and many run-down US inner-city
areas) would risk such social instability and impoverishment arising
from the constant disputation inherent in an absolute system of land
ownership, be it "public" or "private". Always, there must be allowance
for real people to negotiate with one another and settle what issues
emerge from time to time.

Gil
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:30:55 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM> writes:

	The answer is staring us in the face: take it from the rich,
	who have far too much already.

Jack Kemp asked Jesse Jackson in an '88 Election "debate" a question
that's appropriate here: if you redistribute the wealth, how do you
convince the "wealth makers" (takes money to make money, ya know) to
continue creating wealth?

/jordan
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:01:03 GMT

Mike E. Romano (bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:

: 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.... |-)

	You saw the same report I did!  I posted on this a couple of
days ago.  Fortunately, Al Gore described this push in his book,
harped on it over and over during the campaign, and is now in office.
Maybe we'll see some action.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov