HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:03:07 GMT
	<Jym.12Nov1992.0901@naughty-peahen>,<1992Nov16.192427.931@iti.org>
	<1e923iINN7e2@gap.caltech.edu> <28289@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk's message of 17 Nov 92 16:22:13 GMT

In article <28289@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:

	   Well,there's an awful lot of self-indulgence going on here,isn't
   there? Wouldn't it be nice if someone addressed the issues for a change?

 ...


	   And as for Greenpeace wanting to disrupt the process,I just have
   to say that I thought protest was one of these democratic rights.
   Certainly,in the event that one of these plutonium shipments did come a
   cropper -in a storm,on rocks,to a terrorist/freedom fighter/government
   action or whatever,I'm sure everyone will be eager to say that it was a
   silly idea.At the moment,we just don't know what the risks are of this
   happening.

For Greenpeace to make their predictions of disaster a self-fulfilling
prophecy is not to anyones benefit. Greenpeace has the right to
protest all they want but they do not have an unlimited right
to "disrupt the process". In particular they do not have the right
to maneuver however they want in the vicinity of other ships on the
high seas. That in doing so they are the biggest source of danger to
the shipment is rather ironic.
	
*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:34:55 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <Yf2M8Nq00iV3888JQW@andrew.cmu.edu> ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:

 > There have already been assignment of atmospheric rights to a degree.
 > The US has recognized its use of Canada's air; Sweden and Germany are
 > trying to get Poland to stop using up their clean air. Certainly, it
 > would be absurd to take this assignment of rights all the way down to
 > the individual, but whay not at least to the country level ? Or in the
 > US to the state level.  

This entire notion of "state rights" to air is bizarre. The premises
are simply upside down. The air contained by the earth's atmosphere is
simply there, a priori, as an essential precondition to our existence.
While individuals and groups pollute that air and so threaten our
existence, it is a very simple matter indeed to track them down and
impose sanctions on them.

 > I don't understand how these taxes are levied and how they could
 > increase employment. If the government is still collecting the same
 > amount of revenue, then you have to show that the pollution tax is
 > somehow less distorting than current taxes. The only possibility for a
 > net gain is if the reduction in the external costs of pollution are
 > greater than the increase in prices due to the taxes on polluters. 

The assignment of responsibility "all the way down to the individual"
is not at all absurd. The Australian practice is purely and simply
"polluter pays"; if the company is obliged to pass on to the consumers
of its products the costs of keeping its operation clean, that's fine,
without legislative or judicial involvement at all further to their
nominal role as regulatory infrastructure.

The point I must make here is simply in recognition of substantial
costs (*not* "external costs" since each participant is part of the
one single system of production and consumption) involved with human
activities, compared to the superficial costs we have discussed here
on a previous occasion. If the product is considered too expensive
people simply will not care to buy it, and the company will go out of
business.

There is nothing complicated about it.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:59:24 GMT

> > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. writes:
> >Ozone depletion (caused mostly, in the U.S., by auto air
> >conditioners) threatens, and has already initiated, an epidemic of
> >skin cancer, blindness, etc.

 
    Just a few facts......

 Volcanic eruptionsput out 1,000's upon 1,000's more ozone depleting
chemicals than we humans have ever done. Since volcanoes have erupted
for 1 billion years I think our ozone level is just fine.

 Sun creates ozone, you wanna destroy the ozone layer you gotta destroy
the sun. How are you gonna do it?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop
School of Nuclear Engineering         |   when I'm passing by!! They say
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory |   all my flavors are guaranteed 
c/o Purdue University                 |   to satisy!!" Van Halen 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky sci.environment:12773 sci.energy:5473
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:59:30 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov16.192427.931@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>I still want to know where was Greenpeace when Saddam was dumping oil in
>the Gulf and setting the fields on fire?

They were on the sidelines asserting that if Saddam did that, the fault would
be entirely that of the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan)
Subject: Back of the envelope CO2 redux....
Originator: hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Department of Geosciences, University of CA, Irvine
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:24:22 GMT

In reference to my earlier post on this subject, I'd like to point out 
a couple of glaring errors on my part that SIGNIFICANTLY affect the result.

1) I had density as 1 kg/m3, actually it should be 10^3 kg/m3.
2) The volume of the ocean was 1.35 x 10^18 g, not 1.35 x 10^15 g.

This would then increase the total by a factor of 10^6, making the result
1.52 x 10^11 metric tonnes, or 152 Gt.     

There are extreme problems with this, which I will point out so as to not
leave stones unturned.

1) Temperature,pressure and density were considered constant at 298K, 1 atm,
and 1 kg/m3 (figures for pure water at critical temperature)
2) Just the dissolving of CO2 gas was used, there were no chemical reactions
taken into account (unlike in Harte, "Consider a Spherical Cow")
3) Based on net response, chemical uptake of CO2 represents more than 90% of
the total CO2 content of the ocean, and we all know that assumption #1 is 
nowhere near reality (but it sure made calculations simple!)

I had read that the yearly flux was on the order of Gt and I thought that was
an usually large amountof flux for an element. Now I understand. 
Thanks for all the assitance and all the help. I hope this spawned some good
thought.

Bryan Hannegan
halo.ps.uci.edu
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone (A few questions I would like answered.)
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:08:16 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov15.233916.7922@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, hannegan@hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Hannegan) writes:
> 
> There is an interesting arguement put forth in a Nature article by Dr. Ralph
> Cicerone, and collaborators concerning the "environmental engineering of the
> stratospheric ozone layer". I'm at home right now, but I have a copy of it
> in my office and will post the citation if asked. The formation of ozone,
> in the stratosphere and in the troposphere is an endothermic process, that 
> is it takes energy to make it. In nature this energy comes from the UV light
> the oxygen molecules absorb, and it is quite a bit of energy. 
> 
 Since I'm in my office I'll save Bryan some trouble :) - it's _Science_ _254_,
 1191 (1991). They also published a subsequent commentary in _Nature_ _356_,
 472 (1992); Jan Schloerer posted an excerpt from this on the net a couple
 of weeks or so ago.
 The idea (intended more as a stimulus for discussion than as a practical 
proposal, at this early stage) was to dump a few thousand tons of ethane or 
propane into the antarctic stratosphere. These would convert the Cl-containing 
radicals back to HCl, which by itself does not react with ozone. The operation 
would have to be repeated every year, since it does not permanently  remove the
Cl. Cicerone  et al. admit that there are a number of problems with this
particular proposal,  but remark that "exercises like this are essential first
steps in the  responsible exploration of the feasibility of environmental
engineering." 

 Robert
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov6.213704.26864@vexcel.com>
	<1992Nov10.022142.11566@meteor.wisc.edu>
	<1992Nov13.061035.8506@ke4zv.uucp>
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:55:07

Which people does Gary Coffman think are incapable of using a high
level of technology?  Bangladeshis?  Africans?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: vitale@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Phil Vitale)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:33:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Historic levels of methane by bison (was Re: Perot ad and methane from cattle)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: sci.environment

> (Chris Malcolm,  cam@castle.ed.ac.uk)
> People who turn green at the mere thought of horse kidney or goat liver are
> unlikely to go to the trouble of learning how best to prepare bison meats.

Basically you prepare bison meat the same way as you would prepare a dry cut
of beef.  For recipes and other information, you may want to contact the:

		American Bison Association
		P.O. Box 16660
		Denver, CO  80216
		FAX: (303) 292-2564
		Office: (303) 292-2833
	
From an ABA pamphlet:

	"The association was formed in 1975 ... to promote the production,
	marketing, and preservation of Bison, and serve all the people in
	the Bison industry equally."

They apparently offer "active" and "associate" memberships.

I know *nothing* about the organization, other than what I read on their
pamphlet.  The pamphlet came with some bison steaks we sampled last
December.  (I did confirm their office number was still listed in the
Denver phone directory.)


	Phil Vitale   MS:42LX		ARPA: vitale@cup.hp.com
	11000 Wolfe Rd.			PHONE:(408) 447-5530
	Hewlett-Packard, Cupertino, CA  95014
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Browning of America
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:57:14

In article <By0yCF.6oG@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
   When non aboriginals started farming the Great Plains there was nearly two
   feet of topsoil underneath all that waving grass. Most is gonzo now. Now I
   have a serious question which only seems facetious:

	   Can we restore Americas topsoile by collecting human feces, and 
	   composting our leaves, grass and garbage.

	   How much would it cost to do so?

	   How long would it take?

   I suspect if we don't do something like this now or soon, this continent
   may become a famine area in a century or sooner.

   Does anyone have any solid numbers on this.

   Just a Gardener

What is a mere calculation in face of a Gardener's suspicions?
But why not cow manure?  There is a lot more of it than human feces.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Topsoil as a commodity
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 03:24:19 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Nov16000246@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > Some time ago, in the newsgroup sci.environment, I suggested that
 > farmers would be more motivated to take good care of their topsoil
 > if it were a commodity.  Thus a farmer with deep topsoil could sell
 > some to a farmer with inadequate topsoil.  Land with very deep
 > topsoil, e.g. in river valleys, would become more valuable than it
 > is today.  Land with barely adequate topsoil would become somewhat
 > less valuable than it is today.  Land with no or inadequate topsoil
 > would become more valuable, because it could be restored.  Of course,
 > quality of topsoil is not the only component of the price of agricultural
 > land.  Thus where rainfall is suboptimal, water rights may be even
 > more important.

Well, I guess when finally confronted with such stubbornness based on
patently false assumptions about what soil is and what it contributes
to the growing of crops (that is, about the the basis on which farm
land is already valued) as exhibited by our learned resident computer
programmer, in the end a political counter-revolution will usually
erupt to prevent such absurd ideas being put into effect.

Perhaps McCarthy, by the tone and content of his various submissions
to this International forum, might have felt at home employed by Stalin
to assist in instituting a system of agriculture based on as ridiculous
a strategy as is exhibited here. If you want to US to end up within 50
years suffering the chronic mass hunger of its cities the now ex-Soviet
cities suffer still today, please do proceed with trucking soil all over
your country instead of investing the time and energy improving cropping
capacity and growing food by more efficient methods.

In the meantime, if you really do want to encourage farmers to take better
care of your topsoil, I suggest that you might simply make fewer demands
on both them and it.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:28:49 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov17123157@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Why shouldn't it be easier for these people to adopt advanced technology
>than it was for the countries that developed it in the first place?

Technically it should be easier, but economically these countries don't
have the wealth of the countries who developed the technologies. That
is a strong impediment to implementation.

>Haven't they already adopted some advanced technologies?  They all
>have motor vehicles, radios and telephones, for example.

Not all by far, and few who do have access to these technologies can
get full use of them due to poor infrastructure. Bad or non-existant
roads hinder auto use. Poor network connectivity hinders telephone
use. Some things are easier to implement than others. For example,
radio communications and light aircraft are primary ways of communicating
and travelling in many developing nations, and in some developed nations
such as the Australian Outback. The reason is that these technologies
require a less extensive infrastructure in place on the ground. Their
use is limited to the more affluent, and to governments, for the most
part, but full use can be made of them in an area with limited infra-
structure.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:39:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.074014.9157@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

|> No I'm assuming we start with a position that no one has a right to use
|> a resource they don't own, or lease, and that there can be no such thing
|> as effective collective ownership. Thus clean air freaks don't get their
|> lungfulls for free, and neither do factory owners get a waste receptacle
|> for their waste for free. 
Everybody should pay for their benefits of the air, OK. But who should they
pay to? Each other? 

 Unless you can define an owner to the air your grand market
scheme fails miserably. The air is, whatever you claim, effectively collective
property today, and whoever should suddenly claim to own it would
get my vote for being the biggest thief ever.

In my opinion the problem is, in principle, quite simple:

1. The air is collective property (or if you prefer it unowned). Thus anyone
   destroying it should pay.
2. Much of the damage is delayed or never idintified as due to air pollution.
2. The damage from pollution is widespread and it is usually impractical to
   determine exactly who should receive what, i.e. the bureaucracy and legal
   processess would swallow most of the money if an absoutely fair system was
   used.
3. We need a government that must have money to operate. Well, some may disagree, 
   I guess, but I consider those fanatics.
4. It thus seems natural to use pollution taxes. This would allow other taxes
   to be reduced thus distributing the money among the population. As these 
   taxes are often income related (in Sweden at least) it would reduce 
   employment costs, thus hopefully increasing employment, more than compensating 
   for the lost jobs due to extra costs for the industry.

The real problem is determining the level of these taxes. One way might
be to determine an acceptable pollution level and adjusting the tax to reach it.
This is less optimal than setting the cost equal to the marginal cost of
the pollution, but probably somewhat easier to implement.

The REAL problem, of course, is convincing people that this is the right way 
to go! :-)

-- 
"Goood planets are hard to find."    Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Alaska Wolf Hunts
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:20:48 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Nov21101928@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > I don't think it is fair for someone from the University of Alaska
 > to be allowed to give that as a return address in arguing with
 > someone from the University of Georgia.  It should be a contest
 > of rhetorical skill, and claiming authority from having actually
 > seen the animals in question should be forbidden.

Ah, now we have in one your statement of intent for the Internet, and
clear insight into your modus operandi, McCarthy.

No clear identification of the source of authority, no drawing on real
experience to inform the discourse, no presentation of facts; merely a
test of rhetorical skill!

Is *that* how you managed to get your chair in whatever-it-is, the
reason we see no substance to your constant political blithering?

HUMPH!

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: mikep@carina.unm.edu (Mike Prine CIRT)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Temperature data wanted
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:13:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.skjqp_=
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


	I am looking for a listserver or anonymous FTP site containing monthly,
weekly and/or daily temperature data for major cities in the US. In particular
I'm looking for data on Albuquerque New Mexico. While average temperate data
will suffice, min and max temperatures would be better. The period of interest
is the last three years 1989-1992.
	Just incase someone thinks I want the data to prove/disprove global
warming, I don't. I'm trying to correlate my natural gas consumption with local
weather conditions. I also want to use the info as a baseline to see what 
gains I achieve by doing work on the insulation and various additions to
increase the solar gain.
	While I read this group on a regular basis, I would appreciate email
in addition to a posted reply so I don't lose it. Thanks
-- 
Michael Lee Prine	 IRC (Information Resource Center) consultant
Internet: mikep@hydra.unm.edu, Bitnet: MIKEP@UNMB, Phone: 1-505-277-8135
--
I get most of my electricity, at home, from the sun. It's a hobby,