HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Forest Biodiversity and clearcutting act
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:57:31 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>  [ decribes bad forestry bill before Congress ]
>
> ...   My reason for posting this is that I
>seem to remember seeing a post about how forest management policy should be
>taken out of the hands of the foresters and left up to congress.  I think
>this would be a big mistake.  Any comments?

Yeah.

The most important single factor in national forest management
policy, the total cut on public lands, is not in the hands of
foresters.  The harvest is mandated by Congress, and the Forest
Service is then tasked to come up with a plan to meet this
goal.

Responsible foresters in the USFS have for years protested
that the mandated cut greatly exceeds the sustainable, or
even the responsible harvest in many districts.

Alas, the Congressional delegations from timber industry
states seem to agree with the timber industry lobbyists
that short-term profits for timber companies cutting on
public lands override all other concerns, including the
opinions of the foresters employed by the government to
manage this resource.

---
Joel Hanes
From: chhibber@andromeda.rutgers.edu (The Purple Cow)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Decreasing forest land (WAS: Libertarians ... $)
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:44:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Hi people, or should I say rats in a ratrace?

Here you are talking about how we need only trees to support society.
What happened to hunting, camping, boy scouts, trails, etc etc?
Have we dropped to a point where all this means nothing to us any more?  
Yeah, all we need are trees to support society!  YEAH RIGHT!  We need 
forests, campgrounds, national parks etc and ALL WITHOUT ROADS!!  It is about
time humans started to propell themselves!  What is wrong with your own feet?
Have you ever wanted to go away from it all for a little while and sort 
yourself out?  Do you sill want to be able to do it?  Do you care enough
 about your kids to do it for them?  Or do you want to rob them of the 
pleasures too?  And all for what?  Money!  

	It's time to think about the ENVIRONMENT! (ain't that what this
newsgroup is about?)  We have done irreparable damage.  Give the earth
another chance.

	Think of it this way-  If forests are conserved and no automobiles
are allowed in them, the space will multiply.  What takes a day to travel 
in a car will take a couple of weeks on foot.  This means less people
crawling in metallic monsters and ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING NATURE!  
This is never possible from the confines of a car, truck or RV.  


When you take time to contemplate the wilderness, it is not really possible
with a truck roaring by every few min.

Think about it!  Wake up!!!!  Before we all get killed....or fall to a worse
fate.

May God help us!

--
Yes these are *MY* opinions!

-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% This is a sick world we live in today......Keeps me entertained!!!!  --Me. %
%   chhibber@andromeda.rutgers.edu    N2RVJ     chhibber@draco.rutgers.edu   %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:53:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.005534.2375@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
}What is the "homesteading principle?"

First appropriation.  The first person to make land into a capital good owns
it.

Most arguments I've heard along this
}line are arguments that it is "fair" for someone to own the resource, rather
}than that he has a right to do so.  Additionally, I suspect most definitions
}of homesteading involve some notion of "productive use" of the land, but
}productive use seems a relative term.  Productive to whom?  To the in-
}dividual farmer?  The community?  Why does it matter?  What is the dif-
}ference between productive use to the farmer, and self-serving use?  I
}don't see how either results in a *right* to do anything you want with
}the land.

The right isn't depedent upon use.

}>environmentist economists are defending private ownership of natural resources
}>on the grounds that economic rent ensures the most economical use of it.
}
}I don't see how that makes them environmentalists.  The argument would
}have to be that private ownership ensures the most environmental use
}of the resource.

Don't let your fingers do the thinking.  I didn't claim that this made them
environmentalists, I claimed that they were, and that they made this claim.
And "the most environmental use" is an undefined term if different from 
the most economical use.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.environment,rec.mag
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Subject: Czechs request old environmental magazines
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:25:00 GMT


Environmental Information Urgently Needed

A Peace Corps volunteer wrote Whole Earth Review with this request:

"I am ... working as an information resources advisor to the Trnava
District office of the Slovak Commission for the Environment.  One
aspect of my job is to develop and provide environmental information
to the public.  In addition to environmental concerns the Slovaks also
have a great interest in the United States and a very strong desire
to learn English.  Up-to-date information is difficult to obtain and
much of the available information is from government or mainstream
sources.  I would like your readers to send us back issues of this
magazine, and any others they feel are particularly interesting
concerning environmentalism in its broadest sense.

"I was surprised at first just how eagerly these types of materials are
greeted, and how thoroughly and creatively they rae used.  Even sending one
or two issues will be greatly appreciated.  Mail can be sent, surface,
to me:
      Ann M. Hokanson
      Okreshny Urad Zivotneho Postredia
      Kollarova 8
      Trnava, Czechoslovakia               (address good for next 2 years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claimer: I proofread for Whole Earth Review. Info on the magazine and various
current Whole Earth Catalogs is available from    wer@well.sf.ca.us
All mistakes found anywhere in them are my responsibility, to some extent :-)
-----------------------------------------------------hank@well.sf.ca.us-----
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2918 sci.environment:9846 alt.politics.marrou:137
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:32:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <spears.47@bobcat.lmc.edu>, spears@bobcat.lmc.edu writes:


> While I second the vote for the Nature Conservancy as one of the most
> successful of environmental organizations, I bet the staff of TNC would
> agree that their organization would be almost unworkable WITHOUT the help
> of state and governmental agencies to manage and protect the land after
> they have acquired it.  In almost every instance of land purchase that
> I've read about (and I'm a member), TNC donates the land to some
> governmental agency with stipulations about how the land may be used.
> Without this option, TNC would have to devote a large portion of its
> budget to property upkeep and protection, and be a far less effective
> organization than they are today.  I don't know about Ducks Unlimited,
> but I bet they work the same way.

I thought that Nature Conservancy gave the land to the government to
avoid having to pay property taxes.  I thought TNC managed and maintained
the land themselves.  In other words, the problem working with the
government solves is one the government created in the first place.

On a related note, in Sunnyvale, California, where I live, there was a
person who owned a bunch of orchards.  This person also owed a bunch of
property taxes on them, so he(?) attempted to sell a portion of the
orchards to developers to pay the taxes.  All of a sudden the local
community activists decide that they like the orchards, so they tried to
quickly change the zoning laws so that nobody could develop on this guy's
land, which of course made it worthless, which of course meant he
couldn't pay his taxes.  I don't know what eventually happened, but it's
pretty hard to beat the irony of the situation since the guy had no
intention of developing the orchards.

thant
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Guilt of the West
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:55:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Jul29.184512.13509@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>If I were from a country like Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam,
>Cambodia, the Phillipines or Puerto Rico, I would personally attend to
>your assassination. 

If revenge is your motive, it would seem to me that others deserve this
fate more than I.  If your conjectures about my opinions of the "Guilt
of the West" cause you to get this angry, you certainly ought to stay
away from right-wing publications of opinion.  Would you like me to
give you a subscription to NR?  Seems to me you would burst an aorta.
How 'bout the recent discussion of immigration in the AS?

>However, since I originate from a nation that did the same thing to
>India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, most of Africa and parts of the middle
>East, I'll just admit my complicity in it all.

Just what actions did you take to make you feel so guilty?  Or, what
actions did you fail to take?  Why are you an accomplice?  Were you
fooled by the lies of politicians?  Did you fail to take the time
to personally go investigate the situation?  Why haven't you begun
your mass murder campaign to rid the world of a million dangerous
people like me?  Do you have power over poor students that will cause
them to hate themselves?  Yes, I guess I'm deliberately insulting.
You're such a fool, you're making me angry.
    
>Let me
>assure you that $4/gal is not the end of the world, and on the
>contrary, could be the start of the real one.

$4/gal wouldn't bother me personally, but the US standard of living
would go down quite a bit and I assume that the "poor" people in
the US would suffer the most.  Since the current market price is
$1.15 or so, who would get to keep the $2.85 difference?  The UN?
Why would this be the start of the real world?  Your ideas really
are wrong-headed.  You ought to be in politics.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 23:32:04 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul29145701@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>British exploitation of their colonies was more than compensated for
>by the introduction of railroads, capitalism and a proper legal system.

I'm glad you think so. You might like to ask around on this one.

>As for Paul Barton-Davis's guilt feelings, I started to write [ ... ]

I wouldn't bother writing anything until you know the difference
between guilt and disgust, John. As for middle-class, since when were
you privy to my class background ? 

>Somehow I doubt the sincerity of Barton-Davis's claim that the left
>Britain for political reasons.  It's possible, but I still doubt it.

I'll deal with this privately, if at all. 

>As to the United Nations, the democracies dominated the UN when it
>was first formed, about through the end of the Korean War.  

As I said.
							     After
>that, the Security Council was stalemated until the collapse of
>communism when it again became dominated by the democracies.
>After the Korean War, poisonous Third World politics came to dominate
>the General Assembly abetted by the communists.  

I love it. Our politics are "strategic", theirs are "poisonous".
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.

>Finally exactly what countries do you claim were "screwed over by the west"
>and in what way?

How precisely do you want this ? If (sub)-continent is a fine enough
resolution, then Africa, India, S. America and the Pacific will do for
starters. How ? Indigineous political systems destroyed or warped;
natural resources shipped for a pittance to Europe or the US; nuclear
testing dumping fall out; air and naval bases taking land and then
producing noise and restricting freedom of movement; industrial
development jump started by capitalists who collected and exported
most of the profits; should I go on ? 

Or do you want me just to list UN (non-)decisions that supported such
activities, even when a majority of UN members opposed it, but were
unable to bring matters to a vote (let alone "a just war") due to the
"strategic" cooperation of the Security Council members ?

>Specifically, what about Puerto Rico?  Do you demand its independence
>from the U.S. in opposition to the great majority of its inhabitants.

No. I demand nothing. I ask only that the other side of US
involvement in its colonies become as much a part of the story as any
benefits it may have bought them. Puerto Rico is almost certainly a
much more comfortable place for most people than it was before the US
started futzing with it. That's nice - I just would have liked the
people who lived there given the chance to make their own decisions
when they still could, rather than once they had become intoxicated on
the same ideas that most of us are.

-- paul 
-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:13:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Jul29.233204.23999@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>I just would have liked the
>people who lived there given the chance to make their own decisions
>when they still could, rather than once they had become intoxicated on
>the same ideas that most of us are.

So, the problem is that "The West" "forced" our ideas of morality on
the Third World nations.  And once we did, they liked them so much
that they became intoxicated on them and could not return to their
old ways even when they gained nominal independence.  I think the
"Rise of Islam" proves that nations can return to their old ways.
Of course their old ways don't have much respect for the freedom of
the individual, but that out-moded morality has been doomed to
failure by the theoreticians for a long time now.  Individuals don't
need freedom, they must work for the greater glory of The State.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Recycling Costs and Libertarian Candidates
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:22:22 GMT

My city has a recycling progam. I have to seperate waste into three 
categories.

This morning a news item discussed recycling programs. It showed many tons
of reccyled materials being dumped in land fills. There is not sufficient
demand for the recycled materials.

I am angry.

Why is there no demand for the recycled materials?
Why is one required to seperate waste to be hauled to a land fill?
Who is paying for what?
If all costs of useage of new materials and of recycled materials, inluding
disposal, collection etc. which would be cheaper?

What would the libertarian candidates do about this situation, now not
in some distant future?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: ribosom@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Magazine/Idea
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:27:59 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

You can help force magazines to use recycled paper for their
printing. How? Every magazine I have recently read contains
several 3X5 postage paid subscription cards. By simply writting
"PRINT YOUR MAGAZINE ON RECYCLED PAPER" across the address
section and droping the card in a mailbox you will initiate
a cascade of favorable events, for example...

         1.     The magazine will be informed of your opinion
         2.     It will cost the magazine the price of returned
                 postage. This will get their attention.

At around 15 cents for each returned card it will not take an
extended highly-organized campaign to quickly make the point
that in the long run RECYCLED is ALWAYS cheaper. I am interested
in hearing arguments which the publishers could use to lessen
the effectiveness of this tactic, all of the ones several
friends and I have come up with did not withstand scrutiny. I am
also interested in anyone who would like to join in a targeted
effort to test the response of a given publication.

Chuck Merryman
chuck@fangio.ucsc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 14:05:05 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Relative honesty
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <JYM.92Jul22094813@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> Mr. Dyer should be commended for his candour; many of the
>> anti-nuclear folks are still promulgating the notion the
>> the production of electrical power by nuclear energy cannot
>> be profitable.
>
>=+= This just shows (once again) that you aren't listening to
>what the anti-nuclear folks are actually saying.  I have never
>met anyone in the anti-nuclear movement who wasn't aware that
>people were reaping enormous profits from nuclear power.
>
"Anyone"?   Why, even on Usenet, the haunt of the most-informed people
in the universe, there are occasional protestations to the contrary.

>=+= Of course, this is only true because of such things as
>massive government subsidies, various tax breaks given as
>incentives for building nuclear power plants, utility regu-
>latory bodies whose duties include *guaranteeing* a profit
>for utilities, and a total lack of accountability for any
>mishaps or long-term problems.

The details of these "massive government subsidies" that are
nuclear-specific seem to be vague.

  - Incentives?  $$$ amounts in FY-1992?

  - Profit guarantees that are not normal State Utility Commission
       practice for all public utilities?

  - A _total_ lack of accountability for mishaps?  Does this mean that
       Price-Anderson insurance pool is running in the red?

Perhaps there is a need for further contemplation of the merits of cant
in public dialogue.
From: ecologycntr@igc.org (Ecology Center Fund)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: rape of nature
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:24:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:JMC.92Jul27235127@sail.stanford.:-141044947:cdp:1483100109:000:113
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecologycntr    Jul 28 09:24:00 1992


John, do you mean to say that when you hear of rape, your first thought
is of the pleasure of the rapist?

chris
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:07:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <keQjpNi00UhWM2SXEc@andrew.cmu.edu> jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua Alan Knauer) writes:

>This newsgroup is
>intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
>the earth...

NO!  This newsgroup is so that counter-evironmentalists will be able to
monitor what the ecofreaks are up to.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: spears@bobcat.lmc.edu (Gene Spears)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: Lees-McRae College, Banner Elk, NC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:57:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.155829.25572@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:


>Perhaps the most successful environment organization out there is The
>Nature Conservancy.  Although they don't complete avoid government (in
>particular, they partner with them when convenient) they function
>primarily through the normal means of property rights.  The Nature
>Conservancy quite simply purchases land to protect wildlife and
>ecosystems, using privately donated funds.  Ducks Unlimited, another one
>of the biggies, does similar things for wetlands.  In other words, there
>are plenty of examples out there of where the private property model is
>working.


While I second the vote for the Nature Conservancy as one of the most 
successful of environmental organizations, I bet the staff of TNC would 
agree that their organization would be almost unworkable WITHOUT the help of 
state and governmental agencies to manage and protect the land after they 
have acquired it.  In almost every instance of land purchase that I've read 
about (and I'm a member), TNC donates the land to some governmental agency 
with stipulations about how the land may be used.  Without this option, TNC 
would have to devote a large portion of its budget to property upkeep and 
protection, and be a far less effective organization than they are today.  I 
don't know about Ducks Unlimited, but I bet they work the same way.

Gene Spears
spears@bobact.lmc.edu
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2915 sci.environment:9836 alt.politics.marrou:135
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 17:56:55 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: NEWS: DOE Plans to Build New Savannah River Reprocessing Facility
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <Greenpeace.19Jul1992.9pm1@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
> 
>DOCUMENT OBTAINED BY GREENPEACE REVEALS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PLAN
>TO BUILD NEW NUCLEAR REPROCESSING FACILITY AT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 
>                               
>   Greenpeace Calls for Planning of Plutonium Factory to Halt     
>                             
>ATLANTA June 26, 1992 (GP) A Department of Energy (DOE)
>document obtained by Greenpeace under the Freedom of Information
>Act reveals that the U.S. Department of Energy has quietly begun
>planning for the construction of a new reprocessing facility at
>the Savannah River Site (SRS).
> 
>     The new facility, called the "Canyon Consolidation
>project," would replace two aging reprocessing buildings, the
>F- and H- canyons, which are currently out of operation due to
>extensive problems.  Reprocessing is the extraction of plutonium
>and uranium from nuclear fuel, or other irradiated materials,
>removed from nuclear reactors.  Plutonium at SRS has been
>reprocessed from "target" elements exposed to the nuclear
>reaction in the K-Reactor and other on-site reactors.
> 
stuff deleted
> 
> (GP) Clements added that "Operation of this facility will only
>lead to discharge of more high level nuclear waste, for which no
>method of safe disposal exists.                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^   
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If one accepts, for the moment, this generic silly statement, consider
the implications of the GP statement found below:

>     Greenpeace feels that plutonium should be treated as
>nuclear waste and disposed of, rather than being purified and
>stockpiled.  

So if we take GP at their word, they would rather dispose of nuclear
waste containing:

  a. hundreds or thousands of critical masses of plutonium-239
  b. a substantial energy resource

and in the bargain, convert high-level waste disposal with a integrated
hazardous life of centuries to a transuranic waste with one of hundreds
of millenia.

We should be encouraged by their knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.