HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhurst@amb4.ccalmr.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Summary: Here's what the
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:56:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45733
Distribution: world
Organization: Antinomials Anonymous

In article <27288@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>(Michael Tobis) 
>|> This is a nice interdisciplinary question. My suspicion is that land
>|> use is the bottleneck, and that by the way domestic garbage disposal is not
>|> a significant factor. Am I right? If so, what per capita economic land 
>|> use (with current technologies) is required to support a lifestyle
>|> that most would consider affluent? Is is possible to consider a world
>|> in which there is little use of private long-distance vehicles as affluent?

>I certainly agree.  It takes far more land to extract/manufacture/use
>materials and products than it does to throw them into a hole in
>the ground, and (hazardous household waste aside) the making/using
>creates far more economic and environmental burdens.
>I've often wondered what land area all current and all former
>landfills use in the U.S., for comparison to other land uses. Anyone know?

I recently read that the number of landfills in the country was O(80,000),
perhaps that's the number recently closed, so it might be as high as double.
At 50 acres per landfill (is that a good guess?) that's 6250 square miles,
or a square 80 miles per side.

>Does anyone have good references to discussions of the land
>requirements of different kinds of human activity? (along
>with the relative impact and sustainability).

Hmmm, I have a basis for discussion for the first part, just on general land
use.  Is this what you're getting at?  

About one third of the earth's surface is land, around 34 billion acres.  This
can be classified into 5 types: nonproductive land, forest land, rangeland,
cropland, and urban-industrial land.  The first three have distinctive natural
characteristics developed over time by climate, geology, and fauna.  The last
two are due to extensive modification by human influence.  (What's the % of 
urban land dedicated to cars, around 30%?)

Urban-industrial land is estimated to occupy 3% to 4% of the land area, while
about 10% is under cultivation.  Nonproductive lands are so called because 
photosynthesis is unimportant on them, mostly mountain peaks, snow, and hard 
desert.  They occupy about 15% of the earth's land area.  Forests cover another
30%.  The remaining 40% of the earth's surface is rangeland.

						Jim
PS:  Stats from the book Rangeland Hydrology, by the Society for Rangeland 
Management:
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Articles on companies that pollute?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:37:23 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

pld@fc.hp.com (Paul_Dineen) writes:

>John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: Another research project starting with its conclusions.

>  Excuse me?  Please explain.  They're looking to see if there's a
>  connection between two things.  If there is an interesting connection,
>  they will publish.  My note just said that they would publish, without
>  adding a clause saying that they would publish only if what they found
>  was meaningful, thinking that was obvious.  Was that what you objected
>  to?

   I suspect that John's criticism has to do with the subject line, where
it says "companies that pollute". Deciding that the companies are
polluting sure sounds like a conclusion to me. How about "companies that
discharge waste into the atmosphere or aquatic environment"? Then part of
the research involves deciding whether the waste is pollution or not.
I know: it doesn't make a nice neat subject line, but it is more "objective".

   After all, is ozone considered "pollution"?

>  The fact that the subject is an emotionally charged one, the
>  environment, does not necessarily mean that these particular
>  researchers are going to wildly publish anything they can that might
>  smear members of boards of directors.  Do you believe this connection
>  is too potentially emotion laden, and should not be studied?

   It depends on just how the study is designed :-)


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:52:43 GMT
Subject: UNCED Treaties still open for signing
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

I predict that the US will sign the Biodiversity Convention before it closes
in June 1993. My crystal ball says that this will happen sometime after 
Jan 20, 1993 :-)

------------
Alan McGowen


*************************************************************************

Forwarded from: biodiv-l

Omnipress - Earth Summit Press Release
--------------------------------------

The Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on
Biological Diversity were both opened for signature at the UN Conference
on Environment and Development -- the Earth Summit -- in Rio de Janeiro.
During the Conference, the climate change agreement was signed by 155
countries and the biodiversity treaty by 157 countries (each including
the European Community).  Since the Rio Conference, the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Mali and Fiji have signed both conventions, bringing the
total of signatories to 158 for the climate change convention and 160
for the biodiversity agreement.

States that have so far signed only one convention are the
following:

   BIODIVERSITY                  CLIMATE CHANGE
   (not Climate Change)          (not Biodiversity)

   Kuwait                        Kiribati
   Panama                        Malaysia
   Singapore                     United States
   Turkey                        Qatar
   Vietnam
   United Arab Emirates

States that have not yet signed either convention are:

1.   Albania
2.   Bosnia and Herzegovina*
3.   Brunei Darussalam
4.   Cambodia
5.   Czechoslovakia
6.   Dominica
7.   Equatorial Guinea
8.   Georgia*
9.   Grenada
10.  Holy See
11.  Iraq
12.  Kyrgyzstan*
13.  Lao People's Democratic Republic
14.  Saint Lucia
15.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
16.  Saudi Arabia
17.  Sierra Leone
18.  Somalia*
19.  South Africa*
20.  Syrian Arab Republic
21.  Tajikistan*
22.  Tonga*
23.  Turkmenistan*
24.  Uzbekistan*

*  States not present at UNCED

Both conventions will remain open for signature at UN Headquarters until
June 1993.  Countries which have not signed by that date may still
become Parties to the conventions by depositing with the
Secretary-General an instrument of accession.

In order for the agreements to enter into force, they must be ratified
by national legislatures: in at least 50 countries, for the climate
change convention; and 30 countries, for the biodiversity treaty. Thus
far, Mauritius, Seychelles and the Marshall Islands have ratified both
agreements, and the United States has ratified the climate change
convention.

(ref.: unic@peg.apc.org in unic.news "EARTH SUMMIT - CLIMATE CHANGE & BI")



From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:30:49 GMT
Subject: Soil Biodiversity Conference
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

Forwarded from ECOLOG-L:

              CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT / CALL FOR PAPERS

  THE FUNCTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND REGULATION OF SOIL BIODIVERSITY

                         3 - 8 MAY 1993

                   THE SOIL ECOLOGY SOCIETY AND
                    MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
                     EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

   A Conference on the Functional Significance and Regulation of Soil
Biodiversity will be held in conjunction with the fourth biennial
meeting of the Soil Ecology Society May 3-8, 1993, at Michigan State
University in East Lansing, MI.  The chief objective of the meeting is
to present and discuss the current state of knowledge related to the
ecological importance of soil biological diversity at all taxonomic
levels.  Major issues to be addressed will include the functional extent
of soil biodiversity, its regulation and maintenance, and its
significance to ecosystem function.

   The conference will be held at the Kellogg Conference Center on the
campus of Michigan State University; organizers are C.S. Bledsoe, H.P.
Collins, E.R. Ingham, M.J. Klug, and G.P. Robertson.  Format will be a
mixture of invited talks, contributed posters, and discussion groups.
For further information, including registration materials and an abstract
form for contributed papers, please contact:
                    Harold P. Collins
                    W.K. Kellog Biological Station
                    Michigan State University
                    Hickory Corners, MI 49060
                    (616) 671-2212
                    Email: Collins@MSUKBS.bitnet


------------
Alan McGowen
From: wstuartj@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu (W Stuart Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: GIF's of endangered species?
Summary: I need pictures (gifs) of endangered species...
Keywords: gif endangered species
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:25:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Does anyone have any pictures (gifs, macpaint, eps, etc...) of endangered 
species that they could mail me?  I need to make a Hypercard stack of these
species and the reasons why they are endangered.  Can anyone help?

Is there an ftp site which would have files that would be applicable?

Thank-you very much in advance,

Wesley Stuart Jones
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%  Wesley Stuart Jones         jonesw@hasbro.wes.mot.com               %%
%%                              wstuartj@ecn.purdue.edu                 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:01:22 GMT

In article <Bx7ED3.Gs9@cup.hp.com> dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes:
>From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
>>Just leaving the trees to rot is usually not a best economic use.
>
>In nearly all of the Rocky Mountain area, the costs associated with 
>timber sales nearly always exceed the cash generated.  "Best economic 
>use" is to just let them rot.  Usually.

Then we should be working to lower the costs of timber selling, and/or
working to get a higher price for the timber. Business normally tries
to liquidate inventory at a profit of course, but sometimes the best
option is to take a small loss rather than just discard the merchandise
and lose all it's value.

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:22:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.012422.28509@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.230816.5394@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>
>>The basic dichotomy seems to be that Gary believes that the commons
>>are there for anyone to use as they wish and they must be compensated if
>>this use is prevented.  Others of us believe the commons are already
>>a collective property and that if someone wishes to degrade them for
>>their personal gain, then that person should pay the rest of us for
>>the degradation they are causing to the commons.  Or, since we are
>>the property owners, we have the right to prevent the degradation.
>>
>>I would claim that Gary's position is that an individual may seize
>>collective property for personal use and then demand payment when
>>those who already "own" it don't want its value or services degraded.
>>Gary might claim (others certainly would) that there is no such
>>thing as collective property, but this contradicts the true
>>situation and (IMO) is simply an attempt to fit reality into ones
>>own perceptions and models.
>
>You are misrepresenting my position. What I'm saying is indeed that
>the commons is treated as if it had no owner, *and* that that makes
>it impossible to assign it a meaningful value. My contention is that
>to properly assign costs, we must capitalize the commons and distribute
>it's costs and benefits among those who benefit and lose from it's use
>or disuse. That brings it's value down to the individual pocketbook
>directly where cost decisions are best done. The government is not an
>effective surrogate for individual economic decisions.
>
>Gary
>
Well, you didn't respond directly to the point about collective
property.  I could infer from your last sentance that you reject
collective property because "the government is not an effective
surrogate for individual economic decisions."  While this is true,
I would respond that individual economic decisions are not an
effective surrogate for the collective.  Your methods have the
effect of taking property from the collective and giving it to
individuals and then forcing the collective to buy it back - 
all for the purpose of assigning a value to it.  What is the goal
here?  To protect collective property, or determine its value?
If the propert is collective and society wants to preserve it,
then it does not need to determine a quantitative value.  This
is only necessary when society wishes to "take" individual
property, as in the case of eminent domain to build a freeway.
Do you feel that protection of clean air is analogous to
eminent domain?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: <None>
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:05:18 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <27809@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
> Not to mention
> how fussy US carnivores are, being most unwilling to eat anything
> except the muscle meat of the cow, sheep, or pig. 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.
> -- 
 Bison meat is sold in Colorado, in supermarkets as well as specialty markets.
 It is quite popular, although expensive. I've had both steaks and burgers.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 01:44:28 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <STEINLY.92Nov3112214@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu writes:

 > I claim that taxonomists are intrinsically incapable
 > of correctly estimating the speciation rate. The inferred
 > equilibrium rate can be estimated to be of the order of
 > one per year, but any new species discovered will either
 > be classified as a sub-species or as a old but previously
 > undiscovered species; that biodiversity is poorly represented 
 > by species counts anyway; that biodiversity has plateaued since
 > the last major extinction and the current extinction pressure
 > and habitat fragmentation may lead to a new burst of speciation,
 > increased biodiversity and more robust ecosystems; and that the 
 > resilience of current ecosystems has been grossly underestimated
 > in the first place...

Yes indeed. A major catastrophe may well bring a new burst of
speciation, and so on. Whether it will favour any new or existing
primate species as perhaps represented by humans I believe is the
source of concern among the humans here, isn't 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: 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
	<JMC.92Nov9200148@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov10.051311.13738@meteor.wisc.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:06:56

The figure I read is that California's normal consumption of water is
35 million acre feet per year, and the population is now just about 30
million.  I would suppose this doesn't count rain on the fields, since
I don't see how that could be accurately known.

1 acre foot = 10,296 barrels = 1233 m^3.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: How to mill rubbish paper?
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:36:58 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov12.035824.21952@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>, mgqlu@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Max Lu) writes:
=I have been engaged in a study of pulverizing domestic refuse and can not find
=a mill/grinding machine to break paper into powder. Any advice or info would
=be greatly appreciated.

Why would you want to destroy usable fiber rather than recycling it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 05:13:11 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov9200148@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Hydroponic production of tomatoes in greenhouses use a factor of 29
>less water than field production.  Something may limit us to 20 billion,
>and I rather hope it would be esthetic, but it won't be lack of water.
>California uses a bit more than 1000 m^3 of water per person, but
>then California exports a lot of food.

Tomatoes aren't at issue. Do the hydroponic methods apply to grains and
legumes? In the grand scheme of things tomatoes are luxuries.

As for the 1000 m^3/yr., for now I have to defer to the authority of
serious people who have been thinking about the issue. The debate at 
the seminar was between 1000 and 2000 cubic meters of water per capita
per annum worldwide agriculture use. If your figure for California
is correct, this would seem to call those numbers into doubt. 
However, it occurs to me that California is a net exporter of
agricultural products by value but may (??) actually be an importer by mass.
Also, are you referring to total agricultural water usage including 
precipitation, or only to extraction from large scale irrigation projects?
 
mt
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:17:38 GMT

In article <4NOV199217052654@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.205726.5358@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes...
>>In article <2NOV199200480379@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>>>[ snip, snip, snip, snip ]
>>>> 
>>>People living in a city can attest to
>>>how bad the air is.  Some cities must ban autos because of daily pollution
>>>emergencies.  This in the name of "PRODUCTIVITY"?  I particularly don't
>> 
>>This isn't really true. Some politicians do ban autos because they *want*
>>to reduce the pollution levels, but must is too strong a word, implying
>>that there is no choice. In fact, twenty years ago autos emitted 10 times
>>as much pollution as today and they were *not* banned from cities. So
>>the politicians are making a conscious political choice to damage their 
>>tranportation systems for marginally cleaner city air. That political
>>choice *may* also be a good economic choice, but without proper assignment
>>of costs to beneficiaries, and giving them a market choice of paying those
>>costs or foregoing the benefit, we don't know.
>
>In Mexico City, smog levels exceeded WHO standard on 312 days in 1988.  School
>children were given all of January, 1989 off because they couldn't leave their
>houses.  I don't have the exact number of days per year, but autos are
>regularly banned from the city. (They *must* do it, they *have no choice*.)

Sorry that's still not true. It may be true that to meet WHO standards
they have to ban autos, but the point is that meeting WHO standards is
a political *choice*. I also suspect that in January of 1989 school
children *did* leave their homes after being given the month off, and
probably spent more time outside than if they had been in classrooms.
If that's true, closing the schools was a *symbolic* act.

>Since you seem mainly motivated by money, here's a fact: economic losses from
>reduced crop yields caused by air pollution range between $1.9 bil and $5.4
>bil, depending on whom you believe.

Money is the counter we use to measure economic activity and material
well being. If there's a better quanitative measure available, I'm willing
to consider using that. Now as to economic crop losses, let's contrast that
with the economic value of vehiclular transportation. Last year trucks
carried goods, the transport of which was worth roughly $4.5 *trillion* 
dollars. That means that if they were responible for *all* the crop damage, 
that would still only be .12% of the value of transport.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rdp7784@yak.COM (Randy Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Historic levels of methane by bison
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:00:25 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

>In article <JMC.92Oct28234322@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:   
>There are about 100 million cattle in the U.S., and the number is              
>declining slowly.  It is hard to imagine that there were more than             
>a few million bison, because the same land is better optimized      
>for cattle than it was for bison...                                            
                                                                               
Tom McHugh (The Time of the Buffalo) estimates there were 30 million            
bison on the Great Plains in the U.S. and Canada.  He mentions that            
others have produced population estimates as high as 70 million.                

The largest number of cattle grazing in the 17 western states was in
1884 where it peaked at 35-40 million (Range Management: Principles and
Practices, Jerry Holechek).  In 1990, that number was down to 11 million
in 14 western states (U.S.D.A. Cattle Inventory Reports).
From: pld@fc.hp.com (Paul_Dineen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Articles on companies that pollute?
Summary: articles on companies that pollute
Keywords: pollute,board of directors,articles
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:11:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: fc.BxIqv4.8I0
Organization: HP CLO/CoLL, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


 Does anyone have references to articles on large companies that release
 toxic/carcinogenic substances into the atmosphere?

 My wife a grad student a Colorado State University here in Fort
 Collins, Colorado.  She is participating in a research project on
 boards of directors of large corporations.  One thing the researchers
 want to examine is the links, if any, between the members of boards of
 directors of such corporations.  They are intending to publish the
 results of this research.