HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Date: 13 Jan 93 02:15:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <fg4r36#@SantaFe.edu> moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore) writes:
>The Gas Tax is an issue that Greens, and environmentalists in general,
>are going to have to address.
>
>My question is this: the Gas Tax, like any tax on basic necessities
>like food, milk, and so on, will hit the poor the hardest.
>They have the least choice about where to live, and where to work;
>they have the least ability to buy a new, more efficient car;
>mass transit systems often ignore their neighborhoods;
>and they have the least income to spare.
>This makes the Gas Tax _regressive_: i.e. unlike a progressive tax,
>it hits the poor the hardest.
>
>I think the Greens should oppose the Gas Tax unless some measures
>can be added to alleviate this.  But I haven't thought of a good alternative.
>
>I want to hear from other Greens what you think about this issue.
>"Gas Stamps" for the poor?  Demanding that employers pay transportation costs?
>Making sure that the money is spent locally so that the neighborhood
>being charged will be benefitted?  What do you think?
>
>Please, if you don't feel yourself to be Green, don't reply.
>I already know what the a) Libertarian position and b) main-stream
>environmental positions are.  But if you consider yourself to be part
>of the Green movement, help me out!

	I haven't read the section of the California Green Party's platform
that deals with this issue in almost a year, so I won't claim to know what 
it says until I've gone back and reread it.  Anyway, IMO, a good solution
is to implement a gas tax, but then increase the progressivity of the rest
of the tax structure.  One could reduce sales taxes, hike upper-income tax
brackets, or maybe even cut income taxes on the lower end.

	And, of course, re-invest a significant chunk of the gas tax 
revenue in urban rezoning, and a mass transit infrastructure that gets the
petroleum-dependent poor a better way to move around.

>- Cris Moore, NM Greens moore@santafe.edu

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:13:43 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <82344@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.125817.14283@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>
>|In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>|>Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?
>
>|Breeder reactors don't produce waste, they consume it.  There is one
>|small side effect though:  unlike normal reactors which can only
>|meltdown, breeder reactors can blow up like a bomb.  Read _We Almost
>|Lost Detroit_ for more details on the near fatal runaway reaction at the
>|Enrico Fermi reactor.
>
>Wrong.
>I've never seen the book, but I will look for it.
>I've cross posted this to sci.energy in hopes that one of the gurus over
>there will be able to give a more complete answer.

Breeder reactors don't consume waste, they convert fertile nuclides to
fissile ones.  They use the neutrons from U-235 fission to convert
U-238, with a few intermediate decays, to Pu-239.  Or convert thorium to
U-233.  One could also use Pu-239 or U-233 to provide fission too.

They create radioactive waste in proportion to the amount of fission.

They don't blow up.  They can overheat, etc., but explosions are right out.
From: rob@cad4.lbl.gov (Robert J. McNamara)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Hmm...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 02:33:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: rob@cad4.lbl.gov (Barracuda)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.252.177


Hmmm....no posts?  Or is it just my feed?

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
     Rob McNamara - rob@cad4.lbl.gov  - LBL EE CAD/CAE software support
                       Register & Vote Green!

>> New mail from ghwbush@whitehouse.dc.gov - (No Subject Specified)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 06 Jan 93 04:48:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan5.185624.5328@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>What are property rights?
>What is property?
>What property is created and what property is found in nature?
>Who produces the property which is created?
>Is property creation a human right?
>What is a human right?
>Is the act of buying or selling a human right?
>Is a green eco-system compatible with buying and selling?
>Can humans live in a society which sees the environment as a thing
>of beauty and life and not as a commodity to be sold to the highest
>bidder by its owner?

Property is whatever you would complain about my taking from you.
If your house is left open for any passer by to wander in, occupy,
and take from, then I'll believe you don't know what property is.
If you feel a horrible sense of guilt in "hording" your ill-gotten
loot, I will be happy to let you send all your non-property to me
to pacify your soul.  Otherwise, just admit the simple fact obvious
to anyone with a brain: the right to property is as natural and
basic as the right to life.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: GLOBAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:13:07 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

what is this committee?????? 

Michael
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Disgusted (W#as Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:02:19 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <1993Jan12.112444.1@deep-13.gizmo.com>, maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
] alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
] > And the Altamont Pass comes to mind......
] > 
] > Now that's a really disgusting sight.  It's one of the most consistently
] > windy locations in the Lower 48, and the whole pass is lined with windmills
] > and rotors.  And on any randomly-chosen day, you can drive through the pass
] > and anywhere from 50% to 80% of them will be standing idle.
] > 
] > Why?  Because to the fat-cat JERKS who own these wind farms, the power
] > they can generate - and the small amount of revenue they can get from
] > selling it back to PG&E - is worth less than the tax shelter they get
] > by putting these things up, leaving them idle, and taking a net operating
] > loss on them.  They keep just enough of them running to keep up appearances.
] > It's almost as bad as being paid not to raise pigs.
] 
] Are you *sure* about this? I thought the windmills were owned by individuals,
] and not by "fat cats"-- i.e. aren't the windmills owned by persons of limited
] financial means?

We're talking about some pretty serious high-tech windmills here.  Not
just one or two, but row upon row upon row of them.  Both sides of the
pass are covered in them.  It's one of the two largest wind farms in the
U.S, I believe, the other being in the Panamint Valley.

I humbly submit that an individual of 'limited financial means' couldn't
afford to put up even one of these wind turbines, let alone forty or fifty.
We're not talking about a $300 windmill that you order from Sears-Roebuck
and assemble yourself; we're talking about vertical-axis wind turbines
eighty feet high, and two- and three-blade horizontal-axis windmills
with 120-foot rotors.  These things aren't cheap.  They cost anywhere up
to $35,000 each.

My understanding is that the Altamont Pass wind farms are owned and
operated - or not operated, as the case may be - by a relatively small
number of fairly wealthy individuals.


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 09 Jan 93 08:04 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600072:000:172
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  9 08:04:00 1993


>> 1. Land fill space
>
>No problem. Pick any midwestern state. Move the people out and you have all
>the landfill you can want.
 
Kinda sounds like the Serbs in Bosnia...
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 21:51 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600062:000:1183
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 21:51:00 1993


From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen>
Subject: Greens vs. Property Rights

From arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de Thu Jan  7 21:23:52 1993
Received: from faui45.informatik.uni-erlangen.de by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.53 )
	id AA29671; Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:23:49 PST
Received: from bfwser.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de by uni-erlangen.de with SMTP;
	id AA22964 (5.65c-5/7.3q-FAU); Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:21:28 +0100
Received: by forwiss.uni-erlangen.de;
	id AA19244 (5.57/7.3m-FAU); Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:27:25 +0100
From: Mike Arras <arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-Id: <9301080527.AA19244@bfwser.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:21:14 +0100
To: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Status: R

In article <1678600044@igc.apc.org>, you write:
>Interesting idea, but wouldn't it have been easier to avoid producing
>the CO2 in the first place.   Besides, don't you think it's a little
>arrogant of humans to wreck the ecosystems of other living things --
>and perhaps ourselves included -- to fix an ecological mess we created
>in the first place?

	Screw the little bunny rabbits.  If human life is at stake
the animals shall die (period).

Mike
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Date: 9 Jan 1993 03:46:56 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

In article <1993Jan7.125817.14283@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
] In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
] >
] >> In order to get the energy required by all these people [the supposed 
] >> carrying capacity of the earth -- 30 Billion people], we would
] >> have to use nuclear breeder reactors.
] > 
] >Where do you suggest storing the radioctive waste?
] 
] Breeder reactors don't produce waste, they consume it.

Ah, that's not really true.  Although it is a claim commonly made about
breeder reactors.  The other common claim is that breeder reactors
produce more fuel that they consume - also a misleading claim.

The fact is, breeder reactors produce just as much fission byproducts
as a conventional reactor, and they tend to irradiate their surroundings
more (read: more shielding required, more expensive/difficult/dangerous
to decommission) because of the much higher neutron flux they generate.
They don't produce the same amount of radioactive 'depleted uranium'
(i.e. U238) as a conventional reactor, because the essence of a breeder
reactor is that it enriches its own fuel - i.e, U238 in and around the
reactor core tends to get converted to U235 usable as fuel.  The claim
that was made was that a breeder reactor would act as a U235 factory,
so that you could multiply your supply of U235 to enable you to build
vast numbers of reactors.
It actually turns out, though, that they enrich U238 at about the same
rate as they consume U235.  So they produce - or refine - enough fuel
to keep themselves running, but you can't build one reactor then use the
U235 it produces to run two, then four...   ...as was originally claimed.

They *also*, however, produce vast quantities of weapons-grade plutonium.
A fast reactor (or 'breeder' reactor) is the most efficient way yet known
of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

(Anyone smelling a rat yet?)


-- 
      "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."  --  Thomas Jefferson
    ......................................................................
    Phil Stracchino : phils@sti.com : alaric@sti.com : The Renaissance Man
      PGP 2.0 - Freeware public-key data encryption.  Get it and use it!
           Finger alaric@sti.com for PGP 2.0 info and my public key
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 08:43 PST
Subject: DEMOCRACY AND CONSENSUS
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1678600053:000:2591
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 08:43:00 1993


>>Ah, but in theory, he *is*, in a democracy.  Or hadn't you heard?
>>The problem with this theory is:  What about the man who *wants*
>>to exploit and dominate those around him?

>Nonsense.  "Democracy" is where each man's life, liberty, and property
>are subject to the whim of 51% of the people in his country.
>Democracy and Freedom are not only unequivalent, they are mutually
>incompatible.

Greens emphasize "grass-roots" democracy and "decentralism".  This
means that local communities can decide on decisions that effect
their local communities.  In local communities, democracy can take
the form of consensus building in small groups.

The consensus model, which Greens generally strive very hard to follow,
assumes that all people have voiced their concerns about a particular
decision and that the group would not go forward with the decision if
there are any "blocking concerns".  A "blocking concern" is when someone
has such deep problems with a certain position that they feel it is
in their own and the group's best interest to stop the group's decision
against the will of the majority.

People who advocate consensus process believe that all people have a
portion of "the truth" but no one has it all, and that the best way to
reach a good decision is to listen to everybody.  Advocates also believe
that separating the individual from the whole is a false dichotomy, and
believe that what is best for the group is also best for the individual.
What The Greens mean by democracy is clearly not a "tyranny of the majority",
which you seem to suggest, nor is it the current way that legislators
stake out intrasigent positions from which to do rhetorical battle.
Rather, it is involving as many people, at as local a level as possible
in the process of setting agendas, deciding the rules of debate, and
seeking the wisdom that each has to offer.

Lest you think I am dreaming up my own utopia, I am very aware of the
problems of Consensus Process at any but the local level.  The Greens
deal with this all the time.  However, it is my experience that this
is a workable model, especially in local groups, when everyone is
commited to it.  In groups that are not necessarily open to all, but
rather their representatives, The Greens (at least the charter of
the G/GPUSA) allow locals chapters the freedom to dissent from any
decision made at a higher level.  (This is our commitment to the
"grassroots".)  We also encourage members who have different views
from the majority to organize as caucuses so to give them the political
space to advance their minority views.

Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Re: Disgusted (W#as Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!)
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:24:44 GMT
X-Posted-From: vango.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
> ] Jan Steinman discussed the unequal support of certain types of energy
> ] but it goes even further.  Wind power generation is already economically
> ] competitive where its windy, espicially in the upper plains and solar
> ] technologies are improving extremely fast.
> 
> 
> And the Altamont Pass comes to mind......
> 
> Now that's a really disgusting sight.  It's one of the most consistently
> windy locations in the Lower 48, and the whole pass is lined with windmills
> and rotors.  And on any randomly-chosen day, you can drive through the pass
> and anywhere from 50% to 80% of them will be standing idle.
> 
> Why?  Because to the fat-cat JERKS who own these wind farms, the power
> they can generate - and the small amount of revenue they can get from
> selling it back to PG&E - is worth less than the tax shelter they get
> by putting these things up, leaving them idle, and taking a net operating
> loss on them.  They keep just enough of them running to keep up appearances.
> It's almost as bad as being paid not to raise pigs.

Are you *sure* about this? I thought the windmills were owned by individuals,
and not by "fat cats"-- i.e. aren't the windmills owned by persons of limited
financial means?  Mightn't there be some relationship between the maintanence
status of a particular windmill and it's operational condition?

Has anyone ever visited the windmill farm? 

am I all wet?

flapping in the breeze.max
mmonningh@igc.apc.org

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: NOT LEFT NOR RIGHT BUT UPFRONT
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:36:09 GMT


   Forgive my intrusion but there are a couple of points raised here
that need clarification. One is the reference to unions always wanting
more. I assume American Labor Unions are the target here. If you can
spare the time I'd suggest you study the matter somewhat, your
ignorance of the subject is apparently profound. American Labor was
as exploited as any disenfranchised class anywhere until the 1930s or
so. Their protest wasn't to gain a higher standard of living but to
simply make a living, to get their kids out of the sweatshops, to get
some kind of compensation for injury and death on the job. Can you
really believe the anti-labor propaganda, that's become so
fashsionable among Corporate America? If you don't understand the
Labor Movement, you need to get a refund for your tuition at whaever
VoTech you graduated from.

   A second point, related to the first, is, why are you against
material prosperity? Would you have us return to the 19th century,
living in hovels owned by the company that employs us, indebted to the
Company Store, putting our kids to work at 9 or 10 years old just to
earn enough to feed your family? Would you have us live at the mercy
of those without mercy? Can you explain why material prosperity is
evil, why I should guilty for wanting it? On these two points alone
you've lost most of your credibility. 

Bill
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 15:45 PST
Subject: Re: Let's Discuss Biology! (was Re: LET
Nf-ID: #R:1993Jan7.161820.27158@netcom.com:1270945804:cdp:1678600057:000:369
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 15:45:00 1993


> Nothing personal, Dale, but you've just hit a sore spot with me.
> It's statements like this that make me wish we had more biologists in the
> Green Party/movement.  A lot more.

I plead guilty here.  I am no biologist, I just try to read and understand
everything I can get my hands on.  Then, listen to the experts.  Hope you
will continue to keep us honest.

Dale
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:42:10 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

My name is Dean Myerson and I am an engineer in Boulder, Colorado.  I have
been a member of the Boulder Green Alliance for a little over a year.  
Unlike in California, where the Greens could use a petition drive to
become a party, in Colorado you must get 10% of the vote in a 
gubernatorial election.  Fat chance, especially when we are focused
on community issues.  We will become a political organization within
weeks, however.  This lets our candidates run under the name of
Colorado Green Party, instead of Independent, but we will need to
use petitions to get them on the ballot.  We were recently
involved in the 500 Years of Resistance activities and are getting
more involved in energy issues.  Boulder is a real activists town
so it has been hard to get a strong group with so many single issue
groups around, but I think that the broad range of issues that the
Greens address is important.  Not just another environmental group.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Disgusted (Was Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:25:20 GMT

In article <1iu4oqINNddn@smurf.sti.com> alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn) writes:
>Now that's a really disgusting sight.  It's one of the most consistently
>windy locations in the Lower 48, and the whole pass is lined with windmills
>and rotors.  And on any randomly-chosen day, you can drive through the pass
>and anywhere from 50% to 80% of them will be standing idle.
>
>Why?  Because to the fat-cat JERKS who own these wind farms, the power
>they can generate - and the small amount of revenue they can get from
>selling it back to PG&E - is worth less than the tax shelter they get
>by putting these things up, leaving them idle, and taking a net operating
>loss on them.

In other words, the maintenance on those windmills is more expensive
than the energy they "produce".  This is a "competitive" technology?

>Bluntly, my opinion on these wind farms is if the selfish, grasping
>S.O.B's who own them now won't operate them, take them away and give
>them to someone who will.  Invoke eminent domain and let'em take *that*
>as a tax deduction instead.

All the tax breaks do is reduce the capital and marginal costs.  Would
someone who didn't get those breaks run them more?  I doubt it -
they'd be losing even more money than the "fat cats".

BTW - "eminent domain" isn't a tax deduction (or credit).  It is a way
of forcing people to sell things to public entities.  Said public
entities still pay market rates for what they buy.

I'm sure that at least some of the cats will be happy to sell, so if
you really want to run windmills at a loss, go for it.  It doesn't
take any govt involvement.  All you have to do is put your money where
your mouth is....  (If this isn't worth doing with your money, it sure
isn't worth doing with public money.)

-andy
--
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens