HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Customers Ripped Off by Mt. Piper Power Station
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:13:41 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <Greenpeace.29Jul1992.10pmA@naughty-peahen.org> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>  
>CUSTOMERS RIPPED OFF BY MT PIPER POWER STATION: GREENPEACE   
>  
>According to a major 1989 report to the 
>Electricity Commission, there is a whole power station's worth of 
>energy available from cutting energy waste at less than the cost 
>of opening a new power station. 
>  
>"This report has now been gathering dust for three years. It's 
>scandalous that customers will have to pay more than they should 
>for basic services like heat, light and power simply because the 
>Electricity Commission doesn't want to adopt more economical ways 
>of meeting customers' needs. 
>  
>Mr Boyle is in Sydney to preview the findings of a worldwide 
>study, carried out by the Stockholm Environment Institute, which 
>shows that a combination of energy efficiency improvements, clean 
>renewable energy technologies and some fuel switching can meet 
>the energy needs of all regions of the world, including 
>Australia, at the same or lower cost than continued reliance on 
>fossil fuels. 

This parallels the posts I have been making about energy efficiency
in the U.S.  Apparently the same myopia and inertia infect power
suppliers in other parts of the world, too.  Does anyone have an
address for the Stockholm Environment Institute?

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam)
Subject: electoral platforms on transportation, cars, bikes, air, etc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:04:28 GMT
Organization: Panix, (New Yawk City)


	I am looking for details from the platforms of any and all
of this years presidential candidates that specifically relate to
transport policy, federal funding of highways versus other modes
of transportation, a pro-auto or anti-auto stance, enforcement of
the clean air act (amendments of 1990), support of bicycling as
alternatives to use of autos (especially in urban areas), and any
other related or relevant data that could be available.

	So, if you know of where any information relative to the
above - as expressed by any of the 1992 political campaigns ... OR
in regards to messrs Bush, Quayle, Clinton, or Gore, please email
me what you have or where I might be able to get copies of same.

	advance THANKS to netland.
-- 
***********************************************************************
* Danny O'Bedlam  = dfl@panix.com = cmcl2!panix!dfl = Danny Lieberman *
* PO Box 3131 Church St Station, New Yawk, New Yawk, 10008-3131 (usa) *
***********************************************************************
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Cruise line dumping
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:34:46 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <rHR-9+_@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>
>I ALWAYS drive the speed limit (on those rare occasions when I drive).
>Saves mongo on the gas bill (and pisses off the rest of the speeding
>motorists to boot).

Have you actually *tested* this savings? Or are you just mindlessly
repeating a claim you were told? I've kept careful records and find
that one of my vehicles gets better gas mileage at a speed higher
than the national limit and the other doesn't vary more than 3%
ten miles either side of the limit, though it's mileage peak is around
47 MPH. Three percent is $0.60 a week. I wouldn't call that "mongo" by
any stretch of the imagination.

Gary
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2957 sci.environment:9950
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:50:26

A mere scientist should hesitate to intrude in this learned dialog
about political and economic system is best for the environment, but
what if old growth forests don't consume CO2 but are in equilibrium
with the CO2 in the atmosphere?


--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: balzebub@vesta.unm.edu (Mike Decker)
Subject: what drives global warming?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:14:07 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Keywords: global warming



Is global warming self-perpetuating?  I understand global warming 
to be caused by an increase in the gases in the atmosphere.  Does 
anyone know what gases make up the atmosphere?  Several things
put gas into the atmosphere all the time: factories and cars are 
two big contributors. 

I also remember a James Burke show in which he talked about the effect
that higher temperatures have on phytoplankton...
higher temperatures --> more phytoplankton.
more phytoplankton --> more oxygen being produced 
more oxygen being produced --> higher temperatures...  
It's cyclic until temps are too hot for the phytoplankton to
survive, then they die off, gases lessen, and the earth becomes cooler.

But isn't oxygen a relatively small portion of the gas in the air? 
I don't understand how phytoplankton can effect global warming so much, 
unless something else happens when the temp. rises, as higher evaporation.

Anyone care to comment?

-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----
Michael Decker				"Of all our priveledges, the liscence
Internet: balzebub@carina.unm.edu	 to breed is the one most grossly 
Bitnet: BALZEBUB@UNMB			 abused" -- Edward Abbey 
-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Please help stop offshore oil
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:57:42 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul10110853@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul10.161020.29932@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> mark@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Mark Webster) writes:
>
>OK.  Let everyone remember that the Sierra Club and other environmental
>organizations make proposals with no thought of their possible harmful
>effects and are not to be trusted in comparison with oil companies,
>which are obliged to come up with assessments of the possible harmful
>effects of their proposals.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

It seems to me that the primary responsibility for studying impacts is
with whoever is requesting a change in the status quo.  In this case,
it would be those who propose drilling.
If environmentalists suggest some cleanup procedure for
some long-standing pollution problem, then they would be obliged to
study the impacts of the cleanup.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Leasing land (was Re: What, if anything, is a wetland?)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 13:05:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <TSF.92Jul24110046@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>
>I'm sure that with a million dollars and creative chemistry (and lots
>of generated pollution), the plastic in my keyboard could be
>transformed into something resembling crude oil.  Who decides how
>close to the original state the keyboard needs to be returned?

That's why I said it gets turned into plastic pellets that get turned
into another keyboard.  Weren't you reading?

>I've lost track of the purpose of this proposal.  It seems to lead to
>the destruction of a perfectly good keyboard.  Why is this a good
>thing?  Apparently the original state is better than the new state
>just because it is the original state?  Why?

If it's a perfectly good keyboard, there's no reason to get rid of it.
Why are you trying to get rid of a perfectly good keyboard?  (You
seem to be confusing things, I might as well too.)

>   You don't.  You get what utility you can out of the ditch while you are
>   leasing the land.  When you leave you are required to bring the land back
>   to its original state, or pay to have that done.  Ie, you fill in the 
>   ditch and replant the ground with whatever kind of plant you removed (or
>   at least some native plants) to make the ditch.  If you don't expect
>   to get enough utility out of the ditch, don't dig it.
>
>And if the next person who leases the land needs a ditch in the same
>place for the same reason I needed it, then the ditch gets filled in
>and redug?  Why bother?  What's the point?

If the next person wants a ditch there, they will accept responsibility
for it and they will reimburse you for the security deposit you paid
the community when you dug the ditch.  This is worked out when you
sell the property.  If the next owner wants the ditch to remain, it
never gets filled in.  If the next owner doesn't want the ditch, you
fill it back in or the community uses your deposit to fill it back in.

The same with leased property now, if you put in a window air-conditioner
that the landlord doesn't like, you are expected to remove it when you
leave, unless the next tenant decides they like it.  Then they tell the
landlord, and buy the unit from you and leave it.  

Ken
>--
>Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
>When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
>When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
>When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
>Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.


Xref: sparky talk.environment:2923 sci.environment:9868 alt.politics.marrou:142
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:04:05 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>ecosystem, extinct?  And what if it is the result of process which results
>in an economic gain that is greater than the economic loss due to the
>environmental damage?  An example of such "poisoning" might be the
>logging of old-growth.  In such a case, classic Libertarian solutions
>do not protect the environment.

Old-growth logging is as profitable as it is because the government
subsidizes it big time.  They sell the rights to it at far under
market price, they build roads for the companies to get to the timber
(more miles of roads than the interstate highway system), and does
anything else they need.  They do all the hard work, then the logging
companies move in and just do the logging, and sell at a huge profit.
-- 
Cauterize:  Made eye contact with a woman.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: what drives global warming?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:27:38

In article <f_qm-8_@lynx.unm.edu> balzebub@vesta.unm.edu (Mike Decker) writes:

   Is global warming self-perpetuating?  I understand global warming 
   to be caused by an increase in the gases in the atmosphere.  Does 
   anyone know what gases make up the atmosphere?  Several things
   put gas into the atmosphere all the time: factories and cars are 
   two big contributors. 

   I also remember a James Burke show in which he talked about the effect
   that higher temperatures have on phytoplankton...
   higher temperatures --> more phytoplankton.
   more phytoplankton --> more oxygen being produced 
   more oxygen being produced --> higher temperatures...  
   It's cyclic until temps are too hot for the phytoplankton to
   survive, then they die off, gases lessen, and the earth becomes cooler.

   But isn't oxygen a relatively small portion of the gas in the air? 
   I don't understand how phytoplankton can effect global warming so much, 
   unless something else happens when the temp. rises, as higher evaporation.

   Anyone care to comment?

   -----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----
   Michael Decker

Either you or James Burke is mistaken.  Oxygen is 20 percent of the
atmosphere, and is not going to be much changed by the photoplankton,
because to produce oxygen they must take in CO2, and CO2 is only
.03 percent of the atmosphere.  I can't make sense of the causal
chain you put up even with changes.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:21:09 EDT
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>  Mark Kubiske
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Decreasing forest land (WAS: Libertarians ... $)


>> in <92202.230702MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> MEK104@asuvm.psu.edu writes:

> and  <1992Jul21.191131.21944@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  pauld@cs.washing
on.edu writes:
...............
>>Just don't forget that a >>very significant life form that forests support
is us.  Its a simple fact >>that we need forest products to survive as a
society.

>Not true.  We need trees to support us as a society, not forests.

If forests do not support our society, then presumably we could do OK
without them?  Personally, I don't think so.  Our society derives much more
from forests than wood fiber.  I never thought I'd be arguing the point with
someone as environmentally aware as yourself.


>>Don't be alarmed that the forests are disappearing (North America, I'm
>>talking about), because they aren't.

>I'm afraid they are.  The tree count might be constant, or even increasing,
>but the acreage of actual forest, as opposed to tree farms, is decreasing.

I guess I see a difference between disappearing, and decreasing.  You're
right, though, total forest acreage in the United States has decreased since
1952 by about 5%.  One projection is that it will decrease by another 4% by
the year 2040.  But during the period of 1952 to 1987, forest acreage
actually peaked in the early '60s.  This suggests that there is an ebb and
flow of total land area under forest cover at any time.  I would like to
point out that the projection is a net decrease of 4%, and forest acreage
may well peak again in the future (my source dows not give this
information).  With this in mind, a projection to a different year, say
2020, may indicate a net increase (no data for this, I'm just interpreting
the report that I have cautiously).

A second point about all of this is that of the total forest land in the US
(as of 1987) about two thirds was timberland, and a third was not in timber
production.  The percent of timber-producing forest is somewhat less today
since more and more forest land is taken out of timber production by
congress.  So there is a good portion of US forests (Nationl forests,
specifically) that will never be cut, therefore the forests are not
disappearing.  Forest preserves are good to a point.  We need to maintain
some of our forests in a relatively natural state for a whole host of
reasons - this is to the credit of some of the more moderate environmental
groups (e.g.  The Nature Conservancy) as well as the USFS, the BLM and the
SCS, in additon to the numerous state agencies.

The statistics cited above is from a peer reviewed article "Changes in
Private Timberland" by R.  J.  Alig and D.  N.  Wear in the May,1992 Journal
of Forestry.

If you look this article up, I suggest you also read "The Reforestation
Challenge" if you have any misconceptions about what timber companies do for
forests.


Mark.
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Decreasing forest land (WAS: Libertarians ... $)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 02:34:58 GMT

In article <92203.192109MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>  Mark Kubiske writes:
>
>If forests do not support our society, then presumably we could do OK
>without them?  Personally, I don't think so.  Our society derives much more
>from forests than wood fiber.  I never thought I'd be arguing the point with
>someone as environmentally aware as yourself.

You're not. I was simply (if implicitly) making the point that most of
what we get from forests that isn't derived from timber is either now,
or in the future, derivable from other sources, mostly because they
are used in relatively small quantities. Although I can imagine artificial
manufacture of wood, we use it in such large amounts, that I tend to
believe that its more economically viable to simple grow it on tree farms.

If you're talking about things other than products (like hiking,
salmon spawning, animal habitat), I appreciate that, but they haven't
done much to save the Scottish forests, or the Eastern forests, or the
taiga that passes through north of here, or the temperate rain forests
just to the west.

	[ interesting stats ]

>The statistics cited above is from a peer reviewed article "Changes in
>Private Timberland" by R.  J.  Alig and D.  N.  Wear in the May,1992 Journal
>of Forestry.

I'll look it up.

>If you look this article up, I suggest you also read "The Reforestation
>Challenge" if you have any misconceptions about what timber companies do for
>forests.

I haven't detected a distinction in your posts between forests and a
group of trees growing close to one another. Do you see one ? I really
can't think what timber companies do for forests, certainly not the
forests of the PNW, although its clear what they do for land being
used for tree farms. Just as horticulture provides great benefits to
the plants under cultivation, I'm sure that timber companies do a
great deal to enhance growth conditions for trees.

However, I don't really see this as the point. The question is not
whether we want trees - we clearly do - but whether we want forests.
Weyerhauser's farms out here are generally much more productive on a
wood fiber per-acre basis than the forests they have been replanted
on, and I think that's great - we use wood a lot, and it makes sense
to cultivate it in the most efficient manner possible. What I question
is the *replacement* of large (as in 80-90%) sections of forest with
tree farms. The forests here have apparently survived for thousands
of years without contemporary forest management; I suspect that such
practices would do little for the forest, even if the trees were to
grow much better.

-- paul
-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership (!!)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:54:08 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul28125208@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.183126.4370@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>   From your perspective.  There still is a small minority in western
>   culture (and I think its growing) who are willing to accept a
>   significant decrease in material standard of living to get out of
>   the "rat-race" and all its stresses and pressures.  While starvation
>   will never be a trivial problem, I am not aware that it was significant
>   in native American societies, and we still have some in our society.
>
>Dingo, I'm sure you followed this on sci.env - maybe you saw the
>Malthus quote on native American conditions that John posted - but
>I assure you that starvation was significant in native American
>culture, and that current US conditions are not of the same order,
>bad as they may be. The "counter-culture" movement can only work
>(IMHO of course) _because_ it is marginal to society, I'd assert
>that they're effectively parasitic on the industrial society they
>want to reject.

There are many threads on sci.env that I don't have time to read.
I would assert that these counter cultures serve as a pressure valve
for many people who do not prefer the rat race.  They may also be
a "negative feedback loop" when our culture gets overloaded.  That
some counter culture people still live partly in our culture does
not make them parasitic.  That some people falsely claim to
represent a counter culture does not mean that those who do are
parasitic.
>
>   The emphasis on success, wealth, achievement, etc. that exists in most
>   western (and plenty of other) cultures is not true of all cultures.
>   Out technology gives us a clear physical, but not moral,
>   hegemony over other cultures.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Some people think they're really clever			*
>*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: DOE Plans to Build New Savannah River Reprocessing Facility
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:01:25 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul27.171004.2605@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.073315.10830@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>No one can predict the political state of the world in 2018. 
>
>But it might be nice if we tried to plan it and assert our
>capabilities as rational objects instead of just engines of creation
>driven by circumstance. Throughout history, plenty of people have
>sought to predict 20 years into the future, and in so doing have
>shaped the lives of the contemporaries and children, both for better
>and for worse. Is Mr. Coffman advocating that we just throw out
>political hands up in the air, and get on with tinkering with the
>technology ?

What I said was that we would be foolish in the extreme to discard
a *proven* deterrent to world war when the political winds may make
it's spectre return by 2018 (or earlier). Plenty of people have 
tried to predict political futures six months in advance. Plenty
of people have had rude awakenings when their prognostications
proved wrong. Ask Gorby or H. Ross Perot.

Gary
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:14:11 EDT
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment

in <1992Jul22.061453.916@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:


>...Well, if you're in the lumber business, and you reached the point where
>you couldn't expect to move on to a different forest after you'd clearcut
>those you have now, ...

I know this wasn't the purpose of your posting, but it appears that you have
some misconception about how the timber industry opperates these days.  In
the early 1800's your hypothetical would have been quite accurate:
cut-out-and-get-out was the rule and timber barrons raced each other to get
to the next stand of timber.  That kind of thing doesn't go on any more - to
any noticeable degree at least.

>...  if you realize that as your competitors cut the last of their forests,
>the lumber in yours will become more valuable.  There are feedback loops in
>privately owned productive resources that simply don't occur when you've
>got a government deciding what will and won't be cut.  Especially when the
>government can be lobbied into giving away the resources to the first
>person who's ready to step in and liquidate them.

From my perspective you came close to hitting one of the problems.  I think
congress often tends to muck things up when they place conditions and
restrictions on forest management policy.  For example, if the USFS wants to
maintain a certain tract of land in timber production rather than designate
it as wilderness, congress will often place harvest quotas on that tract.
The result is timber harvest for the sake of the quota and not necessarily
what the market demands or what is ecologically sound forest management.


Mark
Newsgroups: talk.environment