HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --Warming Threat to Economy
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:34:10 GMT
Reply-To: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Organization: U of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography

In article <1992Sep11.094843.20185@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick
Szabo) writes:
$>In article <STEINLY.92Sep10140417@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu
(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
$>>In article <1466601760@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
$>>
$>>
$>>   degrees Celsius (C) by the year 2050 will reduce U.S. gross
$>>   domestic product (GDP) by about one percent, or $60 billion. 
$>>   However, Cline noted, global warming is cumulative and irreversible
$>>   and is projected to reach 5.7 degrees C by the year 2100 and 10-18
$>>   degrees C by 2300.  The impact of the latter figure would be a drop
$>>   of six to 20 percent of GDP.
$>>
$>>Ignoring the ludicrous 10-18 K warming figure (what _did_ they
$>>do to get that? Do a linear extrapolation of 2.5K/50years and add
$>>nominal error bars? ) it could be noted that 1% variations in GDP
$>>are economic noise, and US growth rates are 2-3% per year long term
$>>average. Anyway, isn't the whole problem excess economic growth
$>>by the "North"? ;-)
$>
$>Even more fundamentally, how was that $60 billion derived?  Loss of 
$>seacoast real estate?  Was the increased productivity of forestry and
$>agriculture from the CO2 fertilization effect taken into account?
$>

What, I wonder, is Nick Szabo's reference for this statement?  I have read
nothing to indicate that agriculture will be more productive in an enhanced CO2
world.  Indeed, a month (two months?) ago, I posted a couple of references that
said as much.  Although it is true that plants can do better in an enhanced CO2
world, the emphasis must be placed on `can'.  Will they?  Doubtful.  Any gains
caused by decrease in stomatal loss of water are countered by no  increase in
nutrients, and by the fact that both `good' plants and `pest' plants enjoy the
effects of CO2 `fertilization'.

Nick, please post the reference, and the results of it, that lead you to
conclude that agriculture and forestry will be more productive in an enhanced
CO2 world.  Let us all read it.

Scott
--
   The only other sound's the sweep of easy wind and downy flake

shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu 4017926509 URI GSO NBC Narragansett RI 02882
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing)
Subject: Re: Neutralizing hurricanes
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:18:01 GMT


I can conceed that it may be very possible for the human race to 
take preventative measures against hurricanes, perhaps even 
destroying them once started.  I question whether or not we will 
be able to predict even the simplest of the long term ecological 
effects of such action.  Like it or not, hurricanes are an 
intregal part of local ecosystems and the entire northern 
hemisphere's weather systems.  Though blowing up an oil tanker in 
just the right spot may seem like an interesting idea, wouldn't 
preventative measures in construction and evacuation on the 
mainland be a bit more ecologically conscious?

doctor@edsi.plexus.com
From: red_trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: "short Env Tips" still available!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:29:37 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

Since today marks the start of the schoolyear in many places, I 
thought I'd take this opportunity to announce, once more, that
I have available a file called "Short Environmental Tips."

This file is about 300 lines (40 blocks), and contains about 60
ideas of things *you* can do to save the earth.  It is heavily,
but not exclusively, based on "50 Simple Things you Can Do to
Save the EArth", available at bookstores or by mail order through
EarthWorks Press #25, 1400 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley CA 94709, 
United States of America.

Interested parties may obtain a copy from me (Andrea Shettle) at:

Red_Trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu


This file is expressly NOT copyrighted!  You are *encouraged* to
distribute the file, or the information contained within it, in
any way you are able!  Pass on to your friends!  Crosspost in 
newsgroups, mailing lists, and bulletin board services!  Print out
and donate to your local or school library!  Use tips as fillers
in a newsletter, magazine, newspaper or other publicaiton you run!
Add a tip or two to the "Author's Notes" in a book you publish!
(or if your book is eminently relevent, and you have the space, you
could print the whole thing!)
From: frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --UK Moving Ahead in Wind
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:01:02 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Andrew Taylor (andrewt@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep3.220128.6140@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu
: (Gregory Frazier) writes:
: > ... California's windmills slaughter birds.
: 
: Yes, California's windmills kill birds but so do many man-made structures
: probably including your house. The overhead wires and other structures
: of an electricity distribution system will kill quite a few birds.

Wish I had a house! :-)  But, yes, birds do dumb things...

: The interesting question is how many birds and which species do the windmills
: kill. If you have these numbers, please post them. I saw sketchy numbers
: several years ago suggesting the number of bird kills was quite small
: and the species involved were largely common ones.

Unfortunately, as I said in my original post, I have no numbers.
My friend was bemoaning the failures S. Ca Edison had encountered
in its alternative energy source efforts.  He indicated that the
bird kill was substantial, particularly among birds of prey, and
that that was a significant problem.  He also bemoaned their
efforts at solar power - apparently, the super-heated oil that
was used to transfer energy from their solar panels to the turbine
spontaneously combusted.  Oh, well...

: It is possible that measures to reduces bird kills will be necessary and 
: they may stop specific sites being used but I can't see it affecting
: the viability of wind power.

I'm not quite sure what that means - I can easily imagine it affecting
the viability of wind power, but then, I have a very active imagination.

--
"They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true
freak cannot be made.  A true freak must be born." - Geek Love

Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: _EcoLinking_ book (was Re: Environmentally Conscious Students...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 08:10:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: gnosys.1992Sep14.081048.20528

In <15347@umd5.umd.edu> jkrumrin@oyster.smcm.edu (Jennifer R. Krumrine) writes:

> I am an undergraduate interested in finding out about computer networks  
> which will allow students in a "Global Changes" seminar to access current,  
> scientific information on environmental issues.

I'd like to recommend the new book, _EcoLinking: Everyone's guide to online
environmental information_, by Don Rittner, published by Peachpit Press in
Berkeley, California, 1992.  (ISBN 0-938151-35-5, 342pp + index, US$18.95)

--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Bicycle-Generated Electricity
Date: 12 Sep 1992 07:56:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  There is a gadget described in a previous posting under this
heading....a frame and generator for your bike and will either
switch TV on at a minimum pedalling rate which you can set
(and switch it off when you pedal too slowly) or alternately
can power a small set directly with a voltage regulator.

I believe I saw it advertised in one of the major US
environmental gadget catalogs....either Real Good from
Ukiah California or Seventh Generation, etc.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:43:51 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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.

Has anyone else noticed that Yodaiken, in a rathr pathetic attempt to
get the last word, has been restricting all of his replies to
sci.environment in the hope that the original posters will not see his
replies? 

In article <53191@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <97snfpj.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>In article <STEINMAN.92Sep9145437@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:

>>>I think we all agree that radiation is dangerous, although we may
>>>disagree on the dose. Then it becomes not a matter of protecting us
>>>from nature, but avoiding adding to nature's existing perils.

>>Sure.  And fire is dangerous.  Water is dangerous.  Crossing the
>>street is dangerous.  Driving is *incredibly* dangerous.
>>Eating is dangerous.  Going to the bathroom is dangerous.

>>All of these things are more dangerous than a couple of millirems
>>couple of millirems of radiation, even given the very pessimistic
>>linear hypothesis.

>A) what is the evidence that the linear hypothesis is worst case?

The fact that no one has proposed a model which is worse.  A
worse-than-linear model would imply that the damage per unit of
radiation goes up as the amount of radiation decreases.  Everything we
know about biological systmes indicates that, if anything, the
opposite should be the case.

>B) we are, of course, not talking about radiation in the abstract, but
>   about plutonium wastes from reprocressing. What leads you to believe
>   that the dangers of dispersed plutunium in the sea and in beach sand
>   are less than the dangers of eating?

Eating what?  Arsenic in bulk?  I'll happily do an experiment with
you.  I will eat 5 grams of beach sand from near Sellafield, washed
and sterilized but with no plutonium removed, if you will eat 5 grams
of arsenic.  
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: hughes@swine.cs.uiuc.edu (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: Hurricanes
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:28:34 GMT

I believe that more common speculation is that the volcano eruption
last year is the leading factor.
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Date: 5 Sep 1992 13:50:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Conspiracy theories may be easy to generate, but within the 
transportation sector, documented conspiracies have occured in the 
past. The US used to have a large network of trolleys in its cities.
To promote private transportation, GM bought many of these trolley
systems and scrapped them. Now I would call this a criminal cons-
piracy, though maybe others might just call it free enterprise.
From: briang@bari.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 8 Sep 1992 15:48:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: bari

In article <53056@dime.cs.umass.edu> kim@.cs.umass.edu () writes:
>An FAQ?
>
>Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?
>
>I'm a novice environmentalist.
>
>
>                            
>   John Kim               Before you slip into unconsciousness 
>                          I'd like to have another kiss...
>                                                       (jm)

(I tried mailing, but ".cs.umass.ed" doesn't compute ...)

Don't know precisely on that one, but consider the following.  When the City of
Berkeley, CA, was considering forcing fast food chains (MacDonalds, et al) to
switch from styrofoam to paper for packaging, the opponents presented several
studies that showed that, over their lifecycle from obtaining raw materials
through non-existence in a recognizable form, plastics, including styrofoam,
had much less environmental impact than did paper and cardboard.  In addition,
MacDonalds was about to start a pilot program on styrofoam recycling right
there in the city.  Of course, the ordinance passed anyway ...

--
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
| Brian G. Gordon	briang@Sun.COM    briang@netcom.COM		      |
| B.GORDON2 on GENie	70243,3012 on CompuServe	BGordon on AOL	      |
:-:- Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in! -:-:
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,dc.general,alt.activism
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Environmental Action to Name 1992 Congressional 'Dirty Dozen'
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:12:07 GMT

Here is a press release from Environmental Action.

 Environmental Action to Name 1992 Congressional 'Dirty Dozen'
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Bill Brooks, 202-546-7311, for Environmental Action

   News Advisory:

   The 1992 "Dirty Dozen" of Congress -- a bipartisan manifest of
Congressional members with the worst environmental records -- will be
announced by Environmental Action at a news conference to be held
Tuesday, Sept. 15 at 10 a.m., in the 1st floor conference room
of the United Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Ave., N.E.
   Two senators and ten congressmen comprise the 1992 list as a
result of a study conducted by a leading national environmental
organization.  Congressional members were judged by their votes on
key environmental issues, contributions received from polluting
companies and other factors including leadership of
anti-environmental fights, seniority and committee positions.
   Environmental Action will also present its second Lifetime
Achievement Award since the awards began in 1970, to a major national
figure for his efforts to undermine key environmental regulations in
the name of big business.
   Environmental Action will display the voting records and
environmental profiles of this year's "Dirty Dozen".  Environmental
Action's political action committee (EnAct/PAC) studied key
environmental votes on clean water, clean air, toxic waste, Superfund
"right-to-know" issues, energy conservation and issues such as
industry accountability (liability) for environmental accidents,
worker compensations, and pesticides.
   Environmental Action is a national, nonprofit membership
organization with members in all 50 states that lobbies Washington,
researches and educates on environmental issues and assists
grassroots organizations to combat problems in their communities.
 -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
From: File Distribution Coordinator <ecixfiles@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 06 Sep 92 12:44 PDT
Subject: ECIX File Distribution Update
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601758:000:1531
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecixfiles    Sep  6 12:44:00 1992


From: File Distribution Coordinator <ecixfiles>
Subject: ECIX File Distribution Update

 
ECIX File Distribution Service Update
 
For those of you who have thought about retrieving back issues of
ECO, the ECIX Newsletter, the ECIX Climate Digest, or Tiempo
via ftp from igc.org.....
 
Now available - the tables of contents ONLY for these publications
so that you can scan them before retrieving the much larger complete
files.
 
All of these files are available via anonymous ftp from igc.org, or
via email from ecixfiles@igc.apc.org.  I will be updating them as new
issues are published.
 
 
In the subdirectory /pub/ECIX
 
ecixtc      - Tables of contents for the ECIX project newsletter
climdigtc   - Tables of contents for the ECIX Climate Digest
tiempotc    - Tables of contents for Tiempo
 
In the subdirectory /pub/ECO
 
ecotc       - Tables of contents for all issues of ECO to date
 
 
If you are not familiar with our file distribution service, send a
note to ecixfiles@igc.apc.org and I will send you an information
file.
 
 
******************************************************************
Lelani Arris                            * Project Director 
EcoNet:    larris                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  larris@igc.apc.org   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 1061 
Telephone: 403-852-4057                 * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0 
Fax:       403-852-5173                 * Canada
******************************************************************
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (Shailendra Save)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Neutralizing hurricanes
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:40:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ole.1992Sep10.174052.27119
Organization: CDAC, WA

In article <1992Sep10.051801.22738@edsi.plexus.COM> grimmund@edsi.plexus.COM (Grimmund Blackwing) writes:
>
>I can conceed that it may be very possible for the human race to 
>take preventative measures against hurricanes, perhaps even 
>destroying them once started.  I question whether or not we will 
>be able to predict even the simplest of the long term ecological 
>effects of such action.  Like it or not, hurricanes are an 
>intregal part of local ecosystems and the entire northern 
>hemisphere's weather systems.  Though blowing up an oil tanker in 
>just the right spot may seem like an interesting idea, wouldn't 
>preventative measures in construction and evacuation on the 
>mainland be a bit more ecologically conscious?
>
>doctor@edsi.plexus.com


  Yes, if you could mobilise 300,000 troops in 24hours, why is it 
not possible to do the same in moving out 1/2 the number of civilians
out of an area in twice that amount of time?

  If we can afford to pay 60billion in one war over 15 days, why is 
it taking twice that time to cough up 3 billion in getting aid to the
hurricane disaster victims?

  The world is a crazy place, just learn to live with it.

  -S
  ssave@ole.cdac.com
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Spotted Owl (Re: The Human Niche
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:30:11 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Sep14.184658.12764@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>I think the endagered species act is a clumsy tool, but I think we should
>accord every species the right to an environment in which it has some chance
>of survival. It doesn't seem reasonable that the survival of the Spotted Owl
>should be based on whether it is classified as a species or a subspecies.

It looks likely the Spotted Owl will be split. The Northern Spotted
Owl of the Pacific North-West will be recognised as separate species from
the Southern(?) Spotted Owl of Mexico and the Southern US.

This shows why protection of subspecies under the (misnamed) Endangered Species
Act, as was done with the Northern Spotted Owl, is necessary even if
conservation of subspecies is not considered important.

It is logical to assign conservation priority to species according to
their degree of taxonomic uniqueness. Formulas have proposed for this.
It would be easy to assign subspecies priority under such schemes.
In practice, such schemes are of limited interest because species can not be
conserved in isolation, in general it is ecosystems that must be conserved.

Such a scheme could be used to decide whether heroic rescues programs such as
that for the California Condor are worth the huge cost. There is the nagging
thought that the money spent on the California Condor would save a lot
of Madagascan rainforest. But in practice few conservationists (me included)
would be willing to give up on the California Condor.

Andrew Taylor
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: population load question
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:14:33 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Sep6.160027.11632@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.165811.9405@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.171421.5807@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>>>I hope you display more rigor in your physics than you do in this
>>>posting.  For starters, define "carrying capacity".

>>Carrying capacity, n. Number of people who can live in a sustainable way
>>in arable land areas of the earth's surface in reasonable comfort with
>>reasonable nutrition.

>Ah.  With *what technology*?  Only current technology?  Technology of
>1000 years ago?  1000 years from now?  Your definition of "carrying
>capacity" is so imprecise as to be useless.

OK, how about...

Carrying capacity, n. Number of people who can live in a sustainable way
in arable land areas of the earth's surface in reasonable comfort with
reasonable nutrition, at a given technology level, (where technology
is broadly defined to include social, economic and governmental structures)
sharing the planet with a large diverse self-sustaining population of 
other species.

If the world turns out to be overpopulated at current technology levels
(my own conclusion is that it is, but not yet overwhelmingly so), then we are
sticking our necks out that technology growth will continue at a rate
comparable to population growth. Sort of like deficit financing. It only hits 
the fan when there is a recession, and the growth that was assumed is suddenly 
missing.

You may counter that technological growth has been far more steady than
economic growth, but this reassures me little. It is clear to me that
the technologies that we need to improve to stabilize the environment are
not engineering or agricultural but social and economic techniques, and
increasingly so. In such fields, the record of our species is much
less impressive. The existence of technical methods has little value if
the mechanisms for implementing those methods is absent. 

mt
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bwong@beach.csulb.edu (Bradley Wong)
Subject: New GPO BBS
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:30:37 GMT

BBS offers access to federal data

InfoWorld 9-7-92

The Govt. Printing Office last week opened a bulletin board to
provide PC users inexpensive access to federal agency data.
GPO's Federal Bulletin Board offers files from the Dept. of
State and Energy, plus the EPA, with more agencies available
soon. The average file costs less than $10 to download. 
The BBS can be reached at (202) 512-1387.