HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rashty@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Voice of America Station in ISRAEL.
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:01:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Subject : Voice of America in Israel Southern Desert - Jordan Valley.

The American have decided to build up a transmition station for the Voice of
America in the Jordan Valley (Israeli territory), This transmition station was
meant to broadcast to the soviet Union and other eastern-europe countries.
The decision to build this station was taken before the new changes in the
Soviet Union accrued.
In this days this decision is becoming reality since the Bush administration
for some unknown reason want's to continue with this plan, The transmition
station will be 300. meters hight and will release a huge amount of energy.
The damage is both to the people around who are mostly farmers leaving in a
Moshav (some sort of a community life in israel) and also to the nature.

The jordan valley is the main migration root for more than a billion birds who
travel each year from AFRICA to EUROPE, many birds watchers come to observe
this spectacular sine each year and this new transmition station is a big threat
to the birds migration , Think about it that if the birds migration from
africa to europe will be harmed many birds that are rare today will be
disappeared !!!. The second harm is to the area around since the transmition
station is going to be build on about 8000 donams of beuttiful desert land, The
Israeli desert is quit small and very unique, This transmition station is
threatening one of the last places of butty with have in this desert.

I'm calling anyone who has interest to help us with our struggle which is not
a local struggle for my test but an international one on the future of birds
in this region of the world .
The decision to build the station was taken long time ago, This day there in no
reason to build it but the beocreacy make it impossible to stop the decision.
There are a lot of demonstration in israel about this plan but we need an
international help of environment organization to make the u.s government change
the decision and by that save the future of birds, nature and man in the area.
I think that the struggle is not lees important then the struggle about whales
or other animals in other parts of the world.
If you have any hand in an environment organization or you can write to your
representative please do so and help us with our struglee.
For more details write to:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                                                      **** Thanks !! **** |
| Dudu Rashty                Rashty@Vms.Huji.Ac.Il         __o     o__     |
| Computation Center         Bitnet:Rashty@HUJIVMS       _ \<,_   _.>/ _   |
| The Hebrew University      Phone:  +972-2-584848      (_)/ (_) (_) \(_)  |
| Jerusalem 91904, ISRAEL.   Fax:    +972-2-527349       D    u    d    u  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:59:05 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug25.232846.29091@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>>
>The essay applied to commodities.  I'm not sure what the exact defn of a
>commodity is but it would seem that the whole idea applies more to raw
>commodities that do not require extensive processing.  The more processing
>required, the more advantage that can be had from automation and the less
>likely that manual labor could ever be cheaper. The concept might apply
>to the raw input to textiles, however.

Unlikely. Textile inputs, cotton, flax, and synthetics, are dominated
by mechanised systems of production. They aren't just "labor saving"
devices. They are incredible productivity multipliers. Let's look at
open pit mining as an example of what I mean. One man with a box of
dynamite can do in milliseconds what it would take a thousand men 
with picks a week to do. There's no way that you could pay the men
with picks little enough to overcome the productivity advantage of
the man with the box of dynamite.

Gary
From: Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: GATT:RESOURCES (Ladies Garment Wrkrs U; Harpers; Frnds ofthe Earth)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 05:03:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7101/20.0 - Unisa Editorial, Pretoria

On 08-28-92  20:25 misc.activism,progressive co-moderaCAll said to All

 mc> 1.  An article by Walter Russell Mead in this month's HARPER'S  
 mc> MAGAZINE describes GATT as potentially more powerful than  
 mc> the United Nations.  Mead looks at GATT and NAFTA's ability to  
 mc> erode the sovereignty of federal governments and the  
 mc> agreements' potential consequences on the environment, labor  
 mc> unions and consumers.  Source: Walter Russell Mead, "Bushism,  
 mc> Found: A Second-Term Agenda Hidden in Trade Agreements,"  
 mc> HARPER'S MAGAZINE, September 1992, p. 37. 

Why only federal governments?

Are unitary governments more concerned about the environment, or more 
resistant to the powers of GATT.

As federal versus unitary governments are being hotly debated here in 
South Africa, it would be interesting to know if there is something 
intridically more environment-friendly in the federal form.

 
... Steve Hayes, Missiology Dept, University of South Africa, Pretoria

--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p0.f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Please write for a nuclear test ban
Summary: John McPhee recommended _again_
Keywords: objective book
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:37:31 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Readers interested in this thread may enjoy John McPhee's
excellent book _The_Curve_Of_Binding_Energy_.  McPhee spent
considerable time with a brilliant nuclear weapons desiger
(Taylor?), and describes the national weapons lab culture
and nuclear testing regimen as they existed before the
end of the Cold War.

I usually find McPhee's journalism remarkable for its lack of
perceptible slant -- your mileage may vary.

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson)
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:47:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.185435.3025@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.125508.12570@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>But waiting is the prudent course. The doomsters say it won't help much
>if we start changes now, changes that are guaranteed to kill people. And 
>the optimists say we don't need to act at all. In this case, playing it 
>safe means doing nothing until we are sure of what we are doing.  What if 
>you are wrong? Are you going to say "Sorry guys" to the people of the world 
>whose ecomomy you have disrupted? Are you going to say "Sorry" to the people 
>you killed?

>
Okay, I can't resist it anymore.  I have to jump in.  Is it prudent to do nothing
when there is an unknown threat approaching?  Is it prudent to stand on the
shore because the hurricane might go elsewhere?  The IPCC report shows that
there is a genuine, if not well understood threat.  Thr prudent course would
be to do something.  What something?  It is clear that lessening CO2 
emissions will lessen the threat of climate change.  How much will it lower the
threat?  Hard to say.  It will lower it, howevere.  And what is this silliness
about killing people.  While major economic change in the 3rd world could
cause this, most CO2 emissions come from the 1st world, the U.S. specifically.
This is where the actions are justified now.

>
>God, what incredible arrogance you have in casually dismissing the deaths
>of millions based on the same, so you say, flimsy evidence of climate
>models that you want to use to drastically restructure the economic and
>energy face of the world.
>
>Gary

The deaths of millions of people?  How ridiculous.  Please show me something
that proves how a leveling of CO2 emissions in the 1st world will kill
millions of people.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:42:35 GMT

[Followups directed to talk.environment.]

In article <31AUG199223103328@zeus.tamu.edu>, mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>	This has to be one of the worst researched, worst thought out,
>	and worst argued things I've seen this year.

I guess you don't read much, then.

>	The "best in class" idea is, at the least, juvenile, and is
>	nothing more than some idiot playing wishful thinking with
>	statistics. Of course, it's not presented as a stand-alone
>	proposal. It is used in a half assed attempt to justify the
>	the 40mpg CAFE standards (CAFE being a childish idea
>	to begin with).

Well, gosh, can't argue with those facts.  It's juvenile, idiotic, half-assed,
childish...  But seriously, Mitch, do you have *substantial* problems with
these things?

>	CAFE has never really been very effective, and at times has
>	been counterproductive. Several times in the early 1980's,
>	the Deteroit automakers were faced with building a fleet that
>	exceeded CAFE standards. What did they do? They built tens of
>	thousands of extra economy cars to get the fleet average gas
>	milage under the CAFE limit. Of course, these extra cars didn't
>	sell, but it was cheaper to lose the money in the excess production
>	than to pay the gas guzzler tax. This excess production is,
>	of course, wasteful both economically and environmentally.

I have a hard time believing it was cheaper for automakers to build economy
cars they couldn't sell (!) than to pay the guzzler tax.  Can you back up this
claim?

>	Further, CAFE policy does little to confront the real problem
>	with cars --that they are used at all.

`CAFE is childish--the best policy is to stop using cars.'  Now who's being
naive?

>	The best way to reduce CO2, NOx, and other auto emissions
>	is to use tax policy to increase the price of gasoline.
>	As gasoline prices increase, so will the demand for high
>	fuel economy. As gas prices increase, people will drive
>	their cars less. Also, as prices increase, people will be
>	more willing to use alternate means of transportation,
>	like bicycles, trains, walking, etc. 

But what's wrong with CAFE?  And why not use *both* CAFE *and* gas taxes to
encourage efficiency and discourage driving?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:47:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <l9l3n0INN760@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>If we take
>reasonable measures and they have no impact, we're no worse off than if we take
>no actions

Only if the "reasonable measures" have zero cost.  If they have non-zero
cost and no impact, we wasted the money.  If they have non-zero cost and
a negative impact, we really wasted money.  How much do "reasonable
measures" cost?
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
Date: 2 Sep 1992 20:23:51 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

Isn't it possible that the original poster:

*  Was using very dry humor (that has escaped most responders).

*  Just wanted to see if anyone would bite if he threw out
   some over-ripe bait and watch the flailing about.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: 01 Sep 92 06:27 PDT
Subject: Re: Gore's Radical Ecology
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1483100113:cdp:1483100114:000:126
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!wafcdc    Sep  1 06:27:00 1992


ill make a difference in the coming administration, and deserves our support.

For a Green and Peaceful Planet,

Steve Holmer
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Environmental Records
Keywords: Bush, Clinton, record, election
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:46:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article (Steve Pennypacker) writes:

>     From the Sept/Oct 92 issue of Sierra Club Magazine....

>                         Nuclear Energy

>George Bush: His National Energy Strategy calls for dramatically increasing
>the number of U.S. nuclear power plants, and Congress has approved his 
>proposal to limit public input during the licensing process.

Better now than never.  Everyone who wants lower CO2 emissions line
up here.

>Bill Clinton: Promises to "avoid increased reliance" on nuclear energy.

Everyone who wants to freeze in the dark line up here.

Why is this called environmental "record"?  It's a politician's promise
for Bush and a keep the status quo for that conservative Clinton.

[Who, of course, has a "record" only in Arkansas.]
From: hemmadst@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Srikant Gurudas Hemmady)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: FTP sites for envtl/ecological systems simulation softwares ????
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:32:55 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati


Hi:

I would like to know if there are public domain softwares
for ecological/environmental systems simulation available
by FTP.

Thanx

- Srikant
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:24:21 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug25.075350.14473@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc151@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Fisler) writes:
>
>Now this is very interesting. Mr. Crisp, echoing the
>Bush/Quayle/Ailes line, slams Clinton's record on the
>environment and Clinton is later endorsed by the Sierra Club. I
>wonder... who should I believe: Bush, Quayle, and Crisp or the
>Sierra Club. Tough decision. (Note: This is only the second time
>the Sierra Club has endorsed a presidential candidate.)

Ok, fess up, who was the first? 

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:04:46 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: George F. Will on Gore's environmental book
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: Gore, environment, George Will

In article <1992Sep04.055305.16201@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>In article <67603@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock) writes:
>>
>>"Al Gore's Environmentalism a Caricature of Contemporary Liberalism"
>>                        by George F. Will
>>                       The Atlanta Journal
>
>And a zillion other papers.  Will is the most widely syndicated columnist
>in the USA, with twice as many placements as his closest competitor.  
>
>>...  Clearly Al Gore's book "Earth in the 
>>Balance" is wastebasket-worthy.
>
>And so on.  George Will has become the most reliable spokesperson
>for the Bush Administration in all the mass media.  Lee Atwater once
>boasted that his greatest accomplishment was placing fax machines in
>the offices of the nation's fifty most widely read "journalists"
>so that the Reagan White House could more easily and thoroughly
>determine what the story of the day would be.  Will got the first one.
>It's no surprise the thing's still working.

Actually, I don't think George Will is anybody's mouthpiece but his own.
He was calling for  George Bush to step down prior to the RNC.  He recently
attacked the Bush campaign for its slimy tactics.  Say what you like about
his conservative views and his book reviews, but never make the mistake of
believing those views are anybody else's but his.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "It isn't pollution that's harming our environment.  It's
                the impurities in our air and water that's doing it."
                ---J. Danforth Quayle
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jamesh@castle.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Date: 23 Aug 92 16:50:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <JMC.92Aug20232000@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Conceivably they could, but more likely there was greater abundance
>and reduced costs of extraction.  I think the facts of the matter can

Think for a moment John. Reducing costs for extraction could mean
reducing the wages which you pay to the workers who extract the
resource. With a growing labour force, you could do this more easily
than with a stable or shrinking labour force. In a third world country
with large majority of the population struggling to meet their basic
needs, it would be easy to find a workforce that would accept very low
wages for back breaking work, and indeed this happens. The governments
in the countries are too busy trying to service their debts(and too
dependent on their debtors) to do much about it as well. 

>stimulate me to go to the library and look them up.  By reduced
>costs of extraction I mean a reduced number of man hours.  How

You could also reduce wages, and if there are people who will accept
those wages the effect on prices would be the same.

If you want more information on the third world crisis, look no further
than Susan George's books 'A Fate Worse than Debt' & 'The Debt
Boomerang'.Also worth reading is 'Poverty & the Planet' by Ben Jackson of
the World Development Movement, which gives lots of details on how the
poverty of the third world countries is destroying their environment,
sustained by current practices and damages the world economy.

James

-- 
  James Hammerton,2nd year Computer Science at University of Edinburgh
  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.castle   Or: jh@uk.ac.ed.dcs
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Subject: Re: Recycling Used Motor Oil in New Jersey
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 05:13:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

I thought you were supposed to take it to White Castle.
 
Greg
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:20:51 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <l9icl9INNerh@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <3626@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>
>>The balance between the sources of new atmospheric CO2 and possible
>>"sinks" for that new CO2 is so far out of balance that even drastic
>>changes cannot make much difference over the next 50 years.
>>
>>Therefore a more gradual approach can certainly be dismissed as hopelessly
>>ineffectual.
>
>Yes, but an inadequate plan is better than none at all.  If we can't get a full
>solution, we might have to settle for a partial solution.  While we argue for
>the full solution we need to be doing *something*.

Ack! The activist's cry, "Don't just stand there, do *something*. Even
if it's wrong, even if it's harmful, even if just standing there is the
best choice, *do* something. We must make *progress*, even if we are 
progressing in the retrograde direction."

If an action promises certain, but perhaps small, negative consequences,
and promises very uncertain, but perhaps larger, positive consequences,
it is often wise to refrain from that action until the probabilities
are better understood. This is the essence of the environmentalist agenda
with regard to business actions. It applies equally well the other way
round.

Gary
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:24:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug26.034714.1379@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>The deaths of millions of people?  How ridiculous.  Please show me something
>that proves how a leveling of CO2 emissions in the 1st world will kill
>millions of people.

Many are currently starving to death in Somalia.  Could the 1st world
have done/do more to save them?  If the GNP of the 1st world were
seriously reduced, would we find it possible to say "we can't afford it"
the next time?

But no, I don't want to claim that a "leveling" of CO2 emissions would
cause a serious reduction in GNP.  We still have 2 discussions: 1) a mere
leveling as an ineffectual response as opposed to 2) a serious response
that might have serious economic consequences.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:57:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <l9icl9INNerh@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>Yes, but an inadequate plan is better than none at all.  If we can't get a full
>solution, we might have to settle for a partial solution.  While we argue for
>the full solution we need to be doing *something*.
>Dave Sill

I disagree.  "Doing something" that is obviously inadequate is a waste of
resources in my opinion.  Far better to use the resources "constructively".
Perhaps the government could spend some money trying to educate "the
voters" on the subject of why nuclear power plants are the best short-term
solution.  But that would require a lame-duck president with quite a mandate.
Or a Congress of scientists instead of lawyers.

Mike McCants