HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:34:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsisrv.1992Nov6.143446.15221
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Brian K. Yoder (brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us) wrote:

:  think it is important to point out that the most important issue in all of
: this is that the environmentalists want to impose POLITICAL strategies on
: the use of these resources, while the rest of us want to see individual
: freedom to trade and contract to do so.  That's why you see little Hitlers
: like Al Gore pushing this idea so much...he wants to rule over everyone's
: private lives, and environmentalism is the perfect vehicle for this.
: 
: Read his book if you don't believe me.
: --Brian

	I did read his book, and you must have (just like the recently-
archaic J. Danforth Quayle) only skimmed the liner notes and then
imposed your own prejudices on what you believe Gore said.  To equate 
someone like Gore with Hitler is slander and wholly unjustified.   Gore's 
premise is that the core of our economic system has ignored the fact
that economic growth has taken place with no regard for the environmental
cost, and that this should be taken into account.  Only in our
recent industrial society have we ignored our debt to the land and the
Earth whose resources made our prosperity and technology possible, and the
only way to restore the "balance" is to set new guidelines and establish
new goals which recognize the environment as important to the quality 
of our lives.  
	Control?  Where was control when hazardous chemicals were
dumped in Love Canal?  I'll bet that many of the residents there wish 
that the government had controlled their private lives a little better,
and not allowed houses to be built over a hazardous waste dump.
	Control?  Do you think that maybe a little better evacuation
plan after Chernobyl might have reduced the dangers to the surrounding
populace, with health effects that may not be evident in 10-30 years?
	
	The sad example of the human race is that individual freedom
to trade and contract the resources of the environment has led to 
serious environmental degradation of the global ecosystem, which
if you would just open your narrow-minded eyes would be perfectly 
evident.  To those who can think, like Gore and unlike you, it is obvious
that our entire political and economic system must be altered to 
address this pressing issue, just as in the Cold War all of our efforts
were devoted to stopping the spread of Communism (which is the analogy
Gore uses).

	Try reading the book AGAIN.  I'll help with the hard words.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

(Reply via e-mail -- due to a business trip I will be gone for a week 
and unable to answer postings after Friday afternoon)
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Bison meat (was Re: <None>)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:04:36 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov7175444@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Very likely, the distribution of bison meat is restricted to a few
>states, because the supply is small.  If it is popular enough at
>prices that are profitable, doubtless the supply and the area where it
>is sold will be expanded.
>
>How much extra does it cost?

At one local store it is about 20% extra for the lean cuts.  How does
the fat content vary?
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: leet@ucs.orst.edu (Tae Jin Lee)
Subject: test
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Distribution: ucs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:34:13 GMT

This is a test!!!
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: angel@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Angel)
Subject: cow flatulance question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:04:44 GMT

Several people have held this up as a waste of taxpayers money,
or made jokes about it, etc.  I was wondering who is doing 
this research, who is the funding agency and how much money
is devoted to it.  Please send email to:

angel@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

Thank you.
Jim

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<13045@optilink.UUCP> <27809@castle.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov7.140518.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:54:44

Very likely, the distribution of bison meat is restricted to a few
states, because the supply is small.  If it is popular enough at
prices that are profitable, doubtless the supply and the area where it
is sold will be expanded.

How much extra does it cost?
--
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: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Date: 9 Nov 1992 06:00:38 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 <1992Nov3.203220.5129@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> What we want is to arrive at optimum useage of resources, not neccessarily
> at maximum use of resources, with the people gaining the benefits paying
> the costs. Clean air, for example, is not free. To gain that benefit for
> some, others must forego actions that would benefit them, such as closing 
> a factory and losing their jobs. This cost must be distributed fairly to
> those who benefit.

You're assuming that we start with the position that eveybody has a right to
pollute.  Were we to start with the position that everyone has the right to
clean air, then we'd take the position that those who've been polluting owe
those who breathe the air compensation for the theft they've been engaged in
all along.  Remember Coase's theorem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ae277@yfn.ysu.edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Re: How to mill rubbish paper?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:03:20 GMT


There is an entire industry devoted to salvage and re-use of waste paper.
As far as I know, all practical methods of reuse require WET re-processing
of the waste paper. When wet, most paper can be easily separated into
fibers, most of which are useful.
  As a precondition, this requires that you separate the paper from
the other components of the waste unless you have a use for contaminated
paper that you will make.
 -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:14:17 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <1992Nov6.163716.26393@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu
(Michael Tobis) writes:
|> 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 suspect this would turn out to yield a spectacular increase in the
|> sustainable population. Am I right?)
|> 
|> mt

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?

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

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:28:26 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <149180026@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>McCarthy writes:
>
>>I'll bet the numbers 2 billion, half a billion, etc. are just
>>picked to reflect a person's level of emotional commitment to
>>population reduction and have no relation to any calculations
>>of what level of technology can support what population.
>
>You are absolutely right John. The difference beteen 2 billion and
>1/2 billion is not based on what population some "level of technology"
>could support -- it's based on what level of biodiversity that 
>*population* level could support, and 2 billion will support a lower
>level than 1/2 billion. 2 billion humans, with a US standard of living
>as currently provided, would still cause a mass extinction event, and
>even with lower impact technologies there would probably still be an 
>appalling toll. My 1/2 billion -- still a *huge* population for an
>animal as large and as high on food chains as humans -- would give the
>biosphere a much better chance, and it is difficult to believe that it
>would be too few humans to maintain a high standard of living. Probably
>it is still many more than are really needed for that.

I am with John here. I would really like to see some objective argument
for the numbers. I have been convinced by arguments in this newsgroup
that the impact per individual is not simply related to affluence. It is
clear to me that much of what we are doing is catastrophic, and in this 
I presumably disagree with John. But I do not see where you get these
numbers without an assumption that impact per individual human is nearly
fixed. Do you have some basis other than intuition?.

>The issue -- even from an anthropocentric viewpoint -- is *not* "what 
>level of technology can support what population". It is:  what kind of 
>world do you want to bequeath our children? What biotic richness, what
>potential for utility and enjoyment and awakening of spirit do you want
>to deny to them forever for our own immediate convenience? *That* is 
>the question which determines what the population goal should be, not 
>the one McCarthy asks.

I agree that this is the question, and I'd like you to state how you came
up with your answer. I for one think that our most destructive practices
can be substantially eliminated without much impact outside a few specific
"industries". Design of pleasant urban environments and clean and efficient
transportation systems which do not fragment the environment with concrete
slabs, combined with carefully allocated wildlife corridors through
currently agricultural regions would allow the current human population to
be easily supportable in comfort while stabilising the condition of the
ecosphere. 

Even if we accept that affluent humans will always be as destructive as
they are now, it is not clear where your numbers come from.

mt
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov (Peter Yee)
Subject: NASA and EPA Administrators sign agreement [Release 92-192] (Forwarded)
Originator: yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov
Reply-To: yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov (Peter Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:31:07 GMT

Bill Livingstone
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                               October 30, 1992
(Phone:  202/453-1898)


RELEASE:  92-192

NASA AND EPA ADMINISTRATORS SIGN AGREEMENT

	NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin and Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator William K. Reilly today signed an agreement to broaden
cooperation between the two agencies.

	It addresses environmental research, pollution monitoring and other
activities where the research capabilities of NASA can support EPA's mission
to protect the environment.

	"This agreement renews NASA's commitment to safeguard the planet
on which we live and to employ its technical expertise and experience to
help solve problems here on Earth," said Goldin.

	EPA Administrator Reilly said, "I look forward to collaborating with
NASA on environmental research and technology development.  This
agreement is going to bolster EPA's on-going efforts to monitor the health of
our natural resources and the ecological systems that sustain us."

	"EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, for
example, will especially benefit from this agreement.  Our scientists use
satellite imaging to secure the data we need to evaluate environmental
conditions and trends, the effects of pollution and other information critical
to making better decision," Reilly added.

	The agreement pledges each agency to share information and facilities.
It enables the exchange of personnel and joint development of research plans
and projects.

	Subjects of likely cooperative activities include Earth and
environmental science and measurements, pollution monitoring, global climate
and environmental change, technology transfer, and aerodynamic and fuel
efficiencies.

	Agreement on specific cooperative activities will be detailed in the
"Implementing Arrangements" authorized by the memorandum of
understanding signed today.

	The first implementing arrangement is being drafted by scientists of
the two agencies.  In conjunction with NASA's Mission to Planet Earth and
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, the two agencies
will establish a Joint Technical Working Group to identify and recommend
projects in Earth and environmental science and measurements.  These
projects could address global environmental monitoring.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:27:41 GMT

In article <-1364861071snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>How about some data from somebody?
>
Sounds like its time for more ECOCENTRAL's from Alan.

>--
>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 * *


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:14 PST
Subject: --Call for 'Green GNP' Numbers
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601888:000:2364
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Nov 10 18:14:00 1992


/* Written  6:10 pm  Nov 10, 1992 by tgray@igc.apc.org in igc:en.energy */

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP CALLS FOR
'GREEN GNP' CALCULATIONS
 
The London-based World Wide Fund for Nature (WWFN), in a news
release July 22, called on governments to "reform their national
income accounting practices to reflect the costs of environmental
damage and the loss of natural resources."
 
A WWFN-sponsored publication, The Methodology for the Calculation
of Sustainable National Income, which the group said "offers an
important approach to measuring environmental degradation and
resource depletion in monetary terms," accompanied the release.
"Adoption of this methodology by appropriate authorities at
national and other levels can bring about a fundamental change in
the way the environment is treated," said Kevin Lyonette, Director
of Conservation Policy for WWFN.
 
The current system of calculating national accounts ignores
environmental degradation and resource use.  "It counts, for
example, environmental repairing or [pollution control]
expenditures as contributions to GNP," Lyonette said.  "This
conceals the environmental costs of economic activities, encourages
unsustainable activities, inflates a country's GNP, and distorts
the true value of a country's wealth."
 
For further information, contact Susanne Briggs, WWFN-United
Kingdom, phone 011-44-483-426444, or Someshwar Singh, WWFN-
International, phone 011-41-22-364-9566.
 
===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org            UUCP: uunet!cdp!tgray
From: lambert@stein.u.washington.edu (D. Lambert)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.engr.civil
Subject: Re: Info. needed on Landfill Leachate Modelling Packages....
Keywords: Info. needed on Landfill Leachate Modelling packages....
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:40:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


Dear Murali,
 
The HELP model is what you are looking for.
I did find an order form to obtain the program at no charge from the 
USEPA. They also offer several other programs developed at taxpayer 
expense. I intend to order the entire package which will consist of 
15 high density diskettes (either 3.5" or 5.25"). I am not sure if 
the EPA will send the disks to a foreign address but here is the 
information that I have.
 
The software is provided at no cost. Please return this form and the 
correct number of high density diskettes needed to:
 
U.S. EPA / Center for Environmental Reasearch Information (CERI)
Software Distribution Center
26 M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
 
Telephone (513) 569-7314 ... FAX (513) 569-7566
 
Name:
Title:
Company:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Telephone:
 
I would like to receive the software and user documentation for:
__ Vegetative Cover Expert System, V-CES - 2 disks
__ Final Cover Expert System, F-CES - 1 disk
__ Leachate Collection Expert System, L-CES - 1 disk
__ POTW-Expert, Wastewater Treatment Plant Advisor - 1 disk
__ Flexible Membrane Liner EXpert System, FLEX - 1 disk
__ Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance Modeling System, HELP - 3 disks
__ Geosynthetic Modeling System, GM - 1 disk
__ SCOUT is a small multivariant data analysis tool - 1 disk
__ Drinking Water Treatment Plant Advisor, DWTA - 1 disk
__ Waste Analysis Plan Review Advisor, WAPRA - 1 disk
__ GRoundwater Information Tracking System/STATistical Analysis, GRITS/STAT - 2 disks
 
 
The form continues with workshops, and requests for beta testers. More detailed
information on the above systems can be obtained from the EPA/ORD bulletin 
board system at (513)569-7610, Or the ORD/Center may be called directly at
(513)569-7314 voice (513)569-7566 FAX.
 
 
The current revision of the HELP model is 2.05 but I understand that version
3.0 is ready for release but has not been put into production at this
time.
 
 
Good Luck
 
Lambert

p.s. If someone out there knows of an anonymous ftp site with these programs
available we would like to hear from you.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Theodore Roszak article on "Ecopsychology"
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 05:35:24 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov6.073433.12001@news.Hawaii.Edu> cravener@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu writes:

 > The "new" discipline so floridly alluded to in the essay you
 > posted is not needed ... the functions are already well served
 > by community mental health. 

Of course it is.

 > Moreover, it seems to me that it behooves to attempt to educate
 > more broadly rather than with increasing narrowness... this 
 > dividing up of knowledge into tiny subsections is uncivilized. 
 > It is education adapted to the semi-able, so that all may have
 > a college education. Let the technicians divide the universe 
 > into easily digestable bits, and the scholars attempt to comprehend
 > and synthesize more broadly.

Wonderful! Perhaps finally we might succeed in having the technicians
keep the wider context in mind, rather than fighting over all those
"easily digestible bits".

Their method I find somewhat reminiscent of buzzards squabbling over a
scene of rampant carnage while the rest of us strive to point out that,
hey, nothing is even close to death quite yet!

--
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: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:23:44 GMT

In article <1dkuq6INNeh6@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.203220.5129@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> What we want is to arrive at optimum useage of resources, not neccessarily
>> at maximum use of resources, with the people gaining the benefits paying
>> the costs. Clean air, for example, is not free. To gain that benefit for
>> some, others must forego actions that would benefit them, such as closing 
>> a factory and losing their jobs. This cost must be distributed fairly to
>> those who benefit.
>
>You're assuming that we start with the position that eveybody has a right to
>pollute.  Were we to start with the position that everyone has the right to
>clean air, then we'd take the position that those who've been polluting owe
>those who breathe the air compensation for the theft they've been engaged in
>all along.  Remember Coase's theorem.

Gosh - I'm in agreement with Carl!

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Subject: Re: Rainbow fish.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: sci.aquaria
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:03:15 GMT

In article <17866@autodesk.COM> drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake) writes:
>> Does anyone have some information on where I can find rainbow fishes?
>If anyone has information, especially something relevant to northern
>California, please post it.

Try San Francisco Aquarium Society.  Every once in a while local rainbow 
fish breeders will bring in a number of unusual raibows.  

Another source is the Rainbowfish Study Group of North America. 
-- 
Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path
Xref: sparky sci.aquaria:1583 rec.aquaria:8649 alt.aquaria:5665