HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 06:24:30 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Dec31.175104.17984@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:

 > In article <725777050snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> and a previous article,
 > gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
 > |> The notion of a single objective environment we together must look after
 > |> better is absolutely untenable, when plainly one's subjective social,
 > |> built and natural environments are merely a part of the wider context
 > |> in which one finds oneself. 
 >  
 > Eep. This is another hazard of an education in social science rearing its
 > ugly head. The worst hazard, in fact.
 >  
 > I think this radical relatiovism is the single most dangerous idea currently
 > receiving any serious attention. It is inimical to the whole program of science
 > and also to the prospect of getting our problems under control and reviving
 > the moribund ideas of optimism and progress.
 >  
 > It's also demonstrably wrong, but only demonstrably to people who have the
 > patience to examine the demonstration, which is physical science itself.

Mikey, please *do* proceed with your demonstration, as patiently and
as thoughtfully as you wish over the next five years if you feel it
necessary. I anticipate it with a profound relish as finally bringing
the potential of sci.environment to fruition, if you are indeed capable
of leading such a debate.

Else you merely seek here to impose your own version of scientistic
mysticism inaccessible to all except your own *true believers*. I am
yet quite deeply intrigued by the unrelenting propensity of those in
this group to claim scientific standing in order to repudiate my own
as unrelenting plea for a reasoned and thoughtful inter-disciplinary
discussion based on real data and substantial field experience.

I am weary of the personal attacks made here, so go ahead any time you
want and I also shall keep archives. If you want some breathing space
to research and prepare your case, or need to take time out to more
clearly define your vocabulary, or validate the premises from which
you wish to proceed, or indeed find others to assist you, no problem
whatever.

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:19:50 GMT

>As was pointed out in the responses from my fellow DC area citizen,
>James Acker, the Bay area is above average in this regard.  Transit
>access is not as universally available elsewhere.  Consider Los
>Angeles.  Also, being near a transit line does not mean that such

I used transit & bicycled to work in LA. It can be done, IF YOU CARE.

>transit can be reasonably used for all trips.  A number of the
>respondents have illustrated trips for which mass transit is nominally
>available but not a practical alternative.  From my limited experience
>in the Bay area, it appears that transit lines follow a greater
>fraction of typical trips thatn they do here. 
 
So rent a car for those rare trips. Still cheaper.

>There appears to be a contradiction in approach here.  Dr. Vandeman is 
>approaching the problem of poor development by choosing to live near 
>transit, (a choice which, as has been pointed out by a number of 
>correspondents, is not available to all) rather than by political 
>action.  On the other hand, he approaches the problem of transit 
>methods through political action rather than personal choice of 
>transit methods. 
 
Whatever works.

>The local civic association to which I belong has opposed high-density 
>commercial development in areas not convenient to mass transit.  The 
>county-wide civic association to which I belong has opposed (with some 
>success so far) the construction of a "bypass" east of DC that would, 
>in fact, serve as a focus for automobile-oriented development.  

Good!

>Directing any development into corridors where mass-transit access can 
>be arranged is an essential step in the process of developing a 
>well-used mass transit system with public support.
 
Of course. But one can STILL avoid car ownership, if one tries, just like
we sacrifice to maintain good relations with people. We feel that such 
sacrifices are worth it.

>>>It depends what you need time for.  If you need the time to read, 
>>>fine.  But you can't do shopping, run household errands, or pick up 
>>>the kids from day care while you are sitting on mass transit.
>> 
>>I didn't say transit is Utopia, only that it is viable. These things
>>can be done without driving, e.g. by bicycle (incl. trailer).
>
>This answer misses the point.  The question is _time_.  The original 
>response was to the suggestion that time spent riding mass transit 
>could be used productively, whereas time spent driving could not be.  
>The point, which this answer fails to address, is that for many 
>people, the few things that can be done on mass transit are not those 
>for which time is needed. 

I didn't miss the point. I SAVE time by not owning a car. Ivan Illich
explained that long ago. I avoid the time it takes to work to pay for a
car....
From: small@misty.boeing.com (steve small)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:40:28 GMT
Subject: has anybody heard of this letter?
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane BCS Support
Newsgroups: sci.environment




I read a very brief newspaper article a couple of weeks ago describing
an open letter signed by about 200 prominent scientists from around the
world (a number of them Nobel winners) which was soon to be sent to world
political leaders.  Apparently the letter predicts catastrophic consequences
in a few decades at most if fundamental changes in environmental policy are
not made soon.

Does anybody have available the text of this letter or know where it can
be obtained?  Is it worth posting?
 
---				
          Steve Small                                                 
          Manufacturing Research & Development                        
          237-0960	94-26	small@b-mrda  small@misty             
                                                                     
If we knew what the hell we were doing, then it wouldn't be research.


Xref: sparky sci.environment:13941 sci.econ:9538 sci.anthropology:1621
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Development policies
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:21:02 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <BzxFn2.FIM@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
|> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
|> 
|> > Some choice between incompetence and greed you offer.
|> 
|> This statement strikes me as getting to the emotional core of the 
|> socialist vs. capitalist issue.  I think the choice can be
|> resolved as follows.  The global economy is a very different milieu
|> than the hunter-gatherer tribe.  In the latter, people often have a 
|> lifelong, face-to-face relationship.  They can perform altruistic 
|> acts with the (perhaps unconscious) assurance that such altruism 
|> will, more often than not, benefit kin or be reciprocated down the line.  
|> I'd be interested in Gil elaborating on this!
|> 

The dynamics of "altruism" don't change because their effects are
propagated through a "large, complex" system.  It's easy:  if you make
it your business to place more in than you take out, the net balance
will grow, given that others practice that.   If you make it your
business to place less in that you take out, the net balance will
shrink, given that others practice that.

Now here's the quiz.  You're a rational game-theoretic type.  Which
strategy will you pursue, given that you don't know how the other 5
billion are going to play?  Which you choose, is a function of how you
perceive yourself, not how you perceive others.

|> 
|> Let's keep local ethics local, and not make false comparisons of
|> the "greed" of multinational corporations in an abstract market
|> to the greed of an individual in a small, face-to-face community.  
|>

Corporations too are fictions.  They don't exhibit greed per se. 
Individuals working under that "cover" are greedy.  It is the same greed
practiced around the world and through the ages.

|> In the global economy, the rational self-interest of competitive
|> market agents has demonstrated itself by far the best method for 
|> growing the global economy while preserving the global environment.  
|> 

Yawn.


Paul Collacchi
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13807 talk.environment:5207
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Rainforest Alliance, Who Are They ???
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:30:10 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mmm@cup.portal.com's message of Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:45:50 PST

> Do they [the Rainforest Alliance] assault legal industrial
> operations with pipe bombs studded with nails?

=o= They do not.  This shouldn't be too surprising, given that
there have been exactly zero

                      0 -- count 'em -- 0

incidents of an environmental organization doing such a thing.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14168 talk.politics.misc:65891 alt.activism:19943
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:16:08 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

John McCarthy) writes:
|> Mike Polen says:
|> 
|>      Japan is a highly nationalistic company.  Corporations and
|>      the government work hand in hand.  Unlike the US, you can
|>      not draw a distinctions between the two.  If a company or an
|>      industry wants the government to support their plans against
|>      outsiders, they've got it.
|> 
|> This seems exaggerated to me.  Japanese companies compete with
|> each other, sometimes in the face of more intrusive regulation
|> than in the U.S.  If the U.S. copies this mythical Japan, we are
|> in real trouble.

Try the following example.  In Japan, Honda and Nissan can join forces
in manufacturing, development, etc. and they can do it with government
support and funding.  In the US, GM and Chrysler can not build a joint
plant but GM and Toyota can.

We are already in trouble.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:10:51 GMT

>	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?

It doesn't matter. There will always be a high end of wealth. Besides,
my proposal really has nothing to do with wealth, but rather paying
for auto use. If everyone decided not to own cars anymore, there would
be no more use for it. Its primary purpose is not to redistribute wealth,
but as stated, to protect the environment.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Who ignores science?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:25:54 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Dec29.221736.2992@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>That did seem curious to me.  I assumed they were actually referring to
>subspecies.  

Thats not right either. At least some, and I suspect all, of the relevant
subspecies have extensive ranges outside the Tongass.

This doesn't mean these animals should not be conserved. Indeed, I gather
from one of Jim Hurst's postings the Forestry Service is required by
law to do this.  A report from their own biologists indicating they are
not doing this is presumably very embarassing.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:21:34 GMT

Mike Vandeman (mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM) wrote:
: ---: Re: A Simple Way to Save the Economy, and the Planet, Too!
: ---: Gentlemen:
: ---:      Believe it or not, there is a simple way to save our economy,
: ---: restore social equity, and save the planet, with one act!


	See, I thought you wrote something about "social equity".
Just checking.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Alaska and Sheep+
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:26:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec29.032600.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

There must be a balance between, private ownership/usage. Land in Trust. LAnd
Available to the Public (parks and such), and Corporate Use. 

True some pople in Alaska are out for the quick profit, but we also have alot
of people who are only part time Alaskans, namely they maybe have some
business/organization here in Alaska but they truely live in Seattle/Dallas and
such.. Take in case Alaska Airlines, Alascom, Arco, Many Environemtal Groups,
Some State/Federal Representatives and such.. They forget about us who live
here, work here, and maybe die here.

Land in Trust: Why must it be Alaska only or Western US only, why not turn some
of that land that is still there, private and such in the Eastern US and turn
it into preserves/or back inot land that is nearly pristine..

Even our State Governemtn cares more for Tourism and the LArge Corps than they
do for the private fol.. They make laws for corporate/private business that
don't make any sense.. Such as the Dairy Farms across from Anchorage which from
the beginning were doomed to failure. 

Question is when do we balance land preservation and GNP. When do we realize
some of the problems with have with being behind other countries is becuase we
care more for land preservation, animals rights, and many other thnigs than 
the individual land owner.. 

MAybe Im speaking out of my back side.. we shall see.. Im tired and a little
drunk (mildly high (meaning mildly drunk in the local lingua)).

Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
One crazy Gusik.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: has anybody heard of this letter?
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 10:15:31 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <78571@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:

 > It has always amazed me how just because somebody starts putting Phd.
 > after their name, they begin to feel they are experts in all fields.
 > Unless these so called scientists have their degrees in meterology, their
 > opinions are worth no more than yours or mine.

Yes, this is a bit of a worry. We have a Professor here who heads a
very significant environmental lobby group under the protection of his
tenured academic salary, I found myself taking some time to come to
terms with.

Turned out he is a physicist whose scholarly interest is in developing
and commercialising alternative technology gadgets . . .

Humph!

--
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:14172 sci.energy:6539
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:06:11 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Dec31.164918.22167@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.024353.15278@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>>
>>I couldn't see solar and wind supporting a country of 10-20 million or more,
>>and I wouldn't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off the 
>>country's entire capacity of solar panels.
>
>I woudln't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off a
>containment structure.

I'll second that.

Containment structures are robust concrete walls tens of feet thick.

I sure wouldn't want to be ANYWHERE where there were typhoons that could carry
off containment structures.

Fortunately there are no such places on this planet.  If we inhabit Jupiter
i'll rethink this.


However, solar panels are designed to occupy area and need to be light enpough
to steer.


-dk
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Population growth and cultural destruction (Re: Nasty ...
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:06:40 GMT

In article <724817119snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>But I also have problems with Dean's notion of "culture" which serves
>no more purpose in this thread than to fuel Steinn's replies.
>
>Dean, the processes taking place are of *social* destructiveness, not
>cultural; that is, the stresses placed on a group make reasonable and
>coherent *association* among them difficult, and the first thing that
>happens is that people start drifting apart in their efforts to have
>their increasingly primary needs met.
>
>I have argued with you before that cultures are sticky in the extreme
>and almost impossible to destroy until the *whole* society is either
>wiped out or completely indoctrinated over a period at least exceeding
>five full generations. All you have to do is overlook one old granny
>who has passed her cultural forms on to her daughter, who passes them
>on to her daughter in turn, in order for the whole society to actively
>reconstitute their entire culture within only *one* generation of their
>renewed association.
>
>To destroy a culture, that is, either every single individual must be
>killed, or every single individual must be imprisonned separately and
>subjected to *total* indoctrination in a sustained program carried out
>over about 150 years. No dominant society has ever achieved that; quite
>to the contrary such efforts are known to create such a global outcry
>of revulsion that the actual effect is to strengthen and invigorate the
>culture instead. The Jewish peoples represent the classic example.
>
>Even the burning of 9 million witches over three hundred years during
>the Dark Ages failed to wipe out witchcraft.

I would agree with this.  The cultures aren't destroyed, though the
ability of most of the people to live by it is prevented for the
time being.  I commented about the breakup of the community 
structures in Ladakh, which, according to the author, are more
important that the family in Ladahi culture.

>
>--
>Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
>Independent Consulting Ethnologist                  Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
>PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  (+61 9) 399 2401
>   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *


-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:14159 talk.politics.misc:65870 alt.activism:19939
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: pollution from woodburning fireplace
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:35:44 GMT
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec30.104335.8089@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987 ~BHOSVWZ#097) writes:

>I have found that good wood (oak or maple) has a quite pleasant smell,

I agree. I usually enjoy the outside air when people are using their
fireplaces.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:03:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.193947.17122@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>
>A third comparison might have provided an additional practical
>perspective, namely, what would the CO2 emissions be if we continued
>with something approximating our current mix of energy sources.

The studies that were mentioned for the high and medium case were
created just for that purpose.  Since all of the results of these
studies were not detailed, I am not sure how the mix was seen to
vary over time, but CO2 emissions were provided for each case
without being modified for nuclear or efficiency strategies.
>
>Making comparisons based on a growth scenario always seems a little
>shaky.  Also, the 1% per year increase in energy efficiency (absolute?)
>sounds great.  There is certainly room for improvement.  But has anyone
>actually considered what it would take on an aggregated basis, including
>all the usually externalized costs.

I would agree that growth models for future decades are shaky, but they
are all that is available, outside of intuition, for policy-makers.
The study said "effectiveness" and I interpreted this to mean energy
intensity as a function of GNP, but you may be right.  There is a
UCS/NRDC study that makes aggregate cost estimates for a variety of
energy scenarios.  Which externalized costs are you referring to?
>
>The transportation component might be the easiest to do, although by no
>means trivial.  

These studies were for electricity, so unless ZEV's become popular (and
I am not aware of any such assumption), it is a different issue.
>
>Automobiles (smaller, lighter, lower HP; _NOT_ EV's, for they suffer; hmmmm?
>Trucks
>Buses
>Trains
>Planes
>.
>.
>The weighted fractions would need to be estimated and the effects
>accumulated.
>
>I would vote for energy efficiency, conservation, and prudent
>planning....and replacement of fossil fuel power generation at a rate we
>can achieve.  The fossil hydrocarbon resources are finite, and it seems
>a shame to turn them into carbon dioxide and water; they may have better
>uses.
>
>russ
>
I will look up the other numbers you were interested in.


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13824 talk.environment:5220