Karl P. Platt on fri 4 jul 97
> Acid Rain is less of an issue because of the impact of regulations on
power generation, >not despite of them.
Ok. Show me your evidence.
>Ok, I am NOT a scientist... I believe that the accurate argument would
be for you to prove that "global warming is NOT happening."
My friend, you're not a logician, either. I'll let this go.
>Since two thirds of the US population lives in the urbanized east, what
>do we do?
Simple. Take care of yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. You can
deal with the spooge as a fact of life, collectively comsume less or
move. Farmland may be scarce in Philly, North Jersey or NYC, but to
suggest that it is scarce in general is dinengenuous. South Jersey is
pastoral, get out of Philly 30 miles and you're where the most
environmentally correct people around live. The US has no problem
meeting its food needs and is a net exporter of food.
>Build on our limited farm lands, cut down our forests, pollute our
rivers, streams,
>and lakes, drain our wetlands, overload our infrastructure?
OK, what you've left here are:
A. We all move to caves
B. Live Naked
C. Live only in the desert
D. Never Eat
E. Never Drink
F. Never excrete
This reveals the homophobic (yes, homophobic) nature of too many
environmentalists. They are scared of people -- terrified. To the point
of making statements which, if taken to their logical conclusions,
suggest that the answer to the problems they perceive is the eradication
of the Human spiecies. However, I don't see them lining-up before the
gas chambers to show they way. There may be another motive --
McGreenpeace dues? I dunno.
>So, since I live in Montgomery County, Maryland,
>one of the most affluent in the country, I can ignore the problems in
>Washington, DC?
You do. I suppose you could _really_ take action and move there. Can you
say Mayor Barry? Neither can I. Better to stay in the burbs and let
those people alone. DC is a great example of how well the Feds manage
urban problems, eh? DC is the paradigm for how they do anything --
managing air quality is no different.
>Can I also ignore the problems of developing
>nations? Of minorities and women? Of the poor and undereducated?
I suppose you could. It's your call. However, I'd suggest that the
biggest problem they have is the people trying to "help" them.
>Karl, I think that a balanced approach provides for the best solutions.
>Environmentalist have an agenda, and they can and often are wrong, but
>we all know that corporate America have an agenda, and they can and
>often are wrong. So, do we ignore the issue?
There is no more corporate America. They're American only when it's
convienient. They've all left or are leaving. How many PCs or
hard-drives does IBM _manufacture_ in the US? How many printers does HP
make in the US. How many shoes does Nike make in the US? At what rate is
the finished-car production from "US" car factories in Mexico increasing
annually? How many telephones were produced by AT&T in the US last year.
How many were produced in China by people who make $1.00/day? How many
people did AT&T ditch last year? 40,000 was it? Why? It's easier to
exploit people and buy governments elsewhere -- which isn't at all to
suggest that the US congress or the White House don't have their price,
too.
So where does this leave the potter trying to feed their family? These
people don't have the option of packing off to Indonesia. The real issue
here is whether or not the extremists (yes, these people are very
extreme) at the EPA are competent to suggest that dusty roads (clay
mines?), wood kilns, lawn mowers or other exceedingly trivial items are
truly a factor in determining air quality. In point of fact, the biggest
sources of airborne spooge are cars. Period. Park the cars and there's
no spooge in the air. What this demonstrates is that the EPA has the
balls to terrorize the disorganized public and small business with
regulations that have intended effects which are well below the levels
of activity considered in Quantum Mechanics, however, before the
automakers or oil companies -- who are the real losers in such a scheme
- the EPA is but a eunuch.
----------------
Heisenberg may have been here.......
kinoko@junction.net on sun 6 jul 97
Karl P.,etc, I would urge everyone to read the latest issue of Scientific
American...the excellent article dealing with nitrogen,its availability and
its use as fertilizer. I would also suggest that the end of WW2 left a large
number of ammonia producing plants idle,which had been used exclusively for
the production of explosives. These plants were pt to work producing ammnia
for nitrogen fertilizer. Certainly not for any humanitarian reasons but
simply to continue a level of profit the owners had become used to. Previous
to WW2,subsistance farming required the utilization of animal,vegetable and
human wastes as fertilizer and,to a great extent limited crop production. In
nova Scotia,(as example) most of the people either went into the military or
went "down to Boston States" to work,leaving their small farms which had
supported them quite well for centuries,to lay fallow through the war. At
the end of WW2 Nitrogen fertilizers became readily available and the small
holdings became quickly depleted. This has led, in many cases to a
continually increasing use of nitro-fertilizers. I would suggest that,it is
not the individual kiln fired with wood that poses the problem,but the
overall pollution from every source. Surely, potters can give-up wood-firing
as evidence of their human responsibility. Don
M.>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Acid Rain is less of an issue because of the impact of regulations on
>power generation, >not despite of them.
>
>Ok. Show me your evidence.
>
>>Ok, I am NOT a scientist... I believe that the accurate argument would
>be for you to prove that "global warming is NOT happening."
>
>My friend, you're not a logician, either. I'll let this go.
>
>>Since two thirds of the US population lives in the urbanized east, what
>
>>do we do?
>
>Simple. Take care of yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. You can
>deal with the spooge as a fact of life, collectively comsume less or
>move. Farmland may be scarce in Philly, North Jersey or NYC, but to
>suggest that it is scarce in general is dinengenuous. South Jersey is
>pastoral, get out of Philly 30 miles and you're where the most
>environmentally correct people around live. The US has no problem
>meeting its food needs and is a net exporter of food.
>
>>Build on our limited farm lands, cut down our forests, pollute our
>rivers, streams,
>>and lakes, drain our wetlands, overload our infrastructure?
>
>OK, what you've left here are:
>
>A. We all move to caves
>B. Live Naked
>C. Live only in the desert
>D. Never Eat
>E. Never Drink
>F. Never excrete
>
>This reveals the homophobic (yes, homophobic) nature of too many
>environmentalists. They are scared of people -- terrified. To the point
>of making statements which, if taken to their logical conclusions,
>suggest that the answer to the problems they perceive is the eradication
>of the Human spiecies. However, I don't see them lining-up before the
>gas chambers to show they way. There may be another motive --
>McGreenpeace dues? I dunno.
>
>>So, since I live in Montgomery County, Maryland,
>>one of the most affluent in the country, I can ignore the problems in
>>Washington, DC?
>
>You do. I suppose you could _really_ take action and move there. Can you
>say Mayor Barry? Neither can I. Better to stay in the burbs and let
>those people alone. DC is a great example of how well the Feds manage
>urban problems, eh? DC is the paradigm for how they do anything --
>managing air quality is no different.
>
>>Can I also ignore the problems of developing
>>nations? Of minorities and women? Of the poor and undereducated?
>
>I suppose you could. It's your call. However, I'd suggest that the
>biggest problem they have is the people trying to "help" them.
>
>>Karl, I think that a balanced approach provides for the best solutions.
>
>>Environmentalist have an agenda, and they can and often are wrong, but
>>we all know that corporate America have an agenda, and they can and
>>often are wrong. So, do we ignore the issue?
>
>There is no more corporate America. They're American only when it's
>convienient. They've all left or are leaving. How many PCs or
>hard-drives does IBM _manufacture_ in the US? How many printers does HP
>make in the US. How many shoes does Nike make in the US? At what rate is
>the finished-car production from "US" car factories in Mexico increasing
>annually? How many telephones were produced by AT&T in the US last year.
>How many were produced in China by people who make $1.00/day? How many
>people did AT&T ditch last year? 40,000 was it? Why? It's easier to
>exploit people and buy governments elsewhere -- which isn't at all to
>suggest that the US congress or the White House don't have their price,
>too.
>
>So where does this leave the potter trying to feed their family? These
>people don't have the option of packing off to Indonesia. The real issue
>here is whether or not the extremists (yes, these people are very
>extreme) at the EPA are competent to suggest that dusty roads (clay
>mines?), wood kilns, lawn mowers or other exceedingly trivial items are
>truly a factor in determining air quality. In point of fact, the biggest
>sources of airborne spooge are cars. Period. Park the cars and there's
>no spooge in the air. What this demonstrates is that the EPA has the
>balls to terrorize the disorganized public and small business with
>regulations that have intended effects which are well below the levels
>of activity considered in Quantum Mechanics, however, before the
>automakers or oil companies -- who are the real losers in such a scheme
>- the EPA is but a eunuch.
>
>----------------
>Heisenberg may have been here.......
>
>
*****************************************
*****************************************
** Don and Isao Morrill **
** Falkland, B.C. **
** kinoko@junction.net **
*****************************************
*****************************************
Fay & Ralph Loewenthal on mon 7 jul 97
Karl Platt wrote sources of airborne spooge are cars. Period. Park the cars and there's
no spooge in the air. What this demonstrates is that the EPA has the
balls to terrorize the disorganized public and small business with
regulations that have intended effects which are well below the levels
of activity considered in Quantum Mechanics, however, before the
automakers or oil companies -- who are the real losers in such a scheme
- the EPA is but a eunuch.>
Right on Karl, that is exactly what I was trying to point
out and which I have done in the past. The best way to
win an argument or debate is to show the alternatives
that are available, and even those that everybody sneers
at. The large corporations do not give a hoot as far as
our environment is concerned. I would not put it past
them to suppress inventions that could give us clean air,
rain etc, but would not benefit their profit line.
Lets keep a balanced perspective so that we can all try
to influence the legislators to look past their wallets.
Ralph in PE SA.
Andreas C Salzman on tue 8 jul 97
----------------
.....and the acid rain will do "what" to my glazes?....
Gregory F. Wandell on tue 8 jul 97
Good Afternoon Clayart!
To continue the discussion.......
Greg Wrote ...... Acid Rain is less of an issue because of the impact of
regulations on
power generation, not despite of them.
Karl wrote Ok. Show me your evidence.
Try these publications. After you are done reading these and you need
more, please ask.
Environmental Externalities in Electric Power Markets: Acid Rain, Urban
Ozone, and Climate Change by John Carlin, Energy Information
Administration, Monthly Energy Review, November 1995
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 1987 to 1992, Energy
Information Administration, November 1994
Rethinking the Urban Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution,
National Research Council, 1992
Environmental Externalities and Electric Utility Regulations, National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 1993
Climate Change 1995: The Science of Global Climate Change, Contribution
of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T.. Hougton et al, 1996
Global Emissions of Nitrogen and Sulfur Oxides in Fossil Fuel
Combustion, 1970-1986, Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association , February 1992
Human Cycling in the North Atlantic Ocean and its Watersheds: Report of
the International SCOPE Nitrogen Project, Robart Howarth,
Biogeochemistry, October 1996
Chaotic Climate, Wallce Broecker, Scientific American, November 1995
Consequences of Climate Warming and Lake Acidification for UV-B
Penetration in North American Boreal Lakes, David Schindler et al,
Nature, February 1996.
Also, try this web site out for some interesting energy related
statistics for the United States and the world:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo97/homepage. This page contains the
text, tables, graphs for the Annual Energy Outlook, 1997 published by
the Energy Information Agency.
=========
Greg Wrote: Ok, I am NOT a scientist... I believe that the accurate
argument would be for you to prove that "global warming is NOT
happening."
Karl wrote: My friend, you're not a logician, either. I'll let this
go.
So, what part of courtesy don t you understand? There is no reason why
you need to be insulting and offensive. Just because we are thousands
of miles away from each other and in front of a computer screen,
disagree on some issues, does not mean that we can disregard civility.
==========
Greg Wrote: Since two thirds of the US population lives in the
urbanized east, what do we do?
Karl Wrote: Simple. Take care of yourselves and leave the rest of us
alone.
Come on, that is not a solution to anything. No matter where we are, no
matter what we do, our actions impact each other. We are inextricably
linked to each other and it should be obvious that isolationism is not
an answer.
===========
Karl wrote: Farmland may be scarce in Philly, North Jersey or NYC, but
to suggest that it is scarce in general is dinengenuous.
You are exactly right Karl. The United States has a wonderful abundance
of natural, productive and renewable farmland. What we have been able
to do since the turn of the century is miracle. My point was not that we
lack farmland, but that if we build over it, it ceases to become
farmland.
Have you been to Lancaster, York, Montgomery, or Bucks county outside
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania recently? More and more land is being
converted into housing, offices, industrial plants, highways, shopping
malls, etc. Just drive down Route 30 (east) between York and Lancaster
and you will see what I mean.
===========
Karl wrote: They are scared of people -- terrified.
I agree Karl, there are extremists that believe that. However, here s
some interesting statistics (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
International Database, 1996):
The preliminary estimates for the total world population for 1996 is
5.772 billion people.
The average annual growth of the world population has fallen from 2.2%
in 1963 to 1.4% in 1996.
If the birthrate does not fall any further, in 50 years the total
population will be 11.4 billion. In 100 years, the total population
will be 22.86 billion. That's a lot of people to provide for.
I think that the only viable solution for the future is sustainable
development and judicious and intelligent use of our natural resources.
===========
Karl wrote: DC is the paradigm for how they do anything -- managing
air quality is no different.
I seem to recall that it was the locally elected government that blew
it, not the Feds.
=======
Greg wrote: Can I also ignore the problems of developing nations? Of
minorities and women? Of the poor and undereducated?
Karl wrote: I suppose you could. It's your call. However, I'd suggest
that the biggest problem they have is the people trying to "help" them.
Hmm, so again your answer is do nothing? Not a very compassionate. I
guess that the Pope should recall Mother Theresa; the US and Europe
should pull out of Bosnia; no more grain shipments to North Korea, etc.
==========
Karl wrote: There is no more corporate America. ....snip .....
When was the last time you used a computer program that was not
developed in the US? The last time you received a medical treatment
that was not developed in the US? When was the last time that you used
a medication that was not developed in the US? When was the last time
that that you used a computer chip that was not designed in the US?
=========
Karl wrote: So where does this leave the potter trying to feed their
family?
According to you, we ignore them and hope they will go away.
=========
Karl wrote: In point of fact, the biggest sources of airborne spooge
are cars. Period. Park the cars and there's no spooge in the air.
Here s some statistics of interest (Source: Annual Energy Outlook,
Energy Information Administration, December 1996):
Total Energy Consumption in the United States, 1995
Petroleum 34.92 quadrillion BTUs
Natural Gas 22.18 quadrillion BTUs
Coal 19.95 quadrillion BTUs
Nuclear 7.19 quadrillion BTUs
Renewable Energy 6.30 quadrillion BTUs
Other 0.39 quadrillion BTUs
Total 90.93 quadrillion BTUs
Total Energy Consumption for the Transportation Sector in the United
States, 1995
24.4 quadrillion BTUs
Total Energy Consumption For The Industrial, Residential And Utility
Sectors In The United States, 1995
66.53 quadrillion BTUs
I agree that cars are the single largest source of spooge in the
United States and most likely the world. To say that parking the cars
will solve all our problems is simplistic. Fully 73% of the US
energy-related consumption (and pollution) is not transportation
related, but industrial, utility and residential.
============
Karl wrote What this demonstrates is that the EPA has the balls to
terrorize the disorganized public and small business with regulations
that have intended effects which are well below the levels of activity
considered in Quantum Mechanics, however, before the automakers or oil
companies -- who are the real losers in such a scheme
Wow. Good point.
=============
Well, enough afternoon fun for me. Until next time Karl, cheers!
Greg
Fay & Ralph Loewenthal on fri 11 jul 97
Greg, I feel you are missing the point, when you quote
these quadrillions of BTU's. The point is that one can
control the emissions from a chimney, whether it be a
power plant or wood kiln. Industry can be made to meet
certain standards. The auto and oil industry seem to
have some sort of control on the legislature and they
are being let off the hook. Millions of millions of internal
combustion engines spewing out poisonous gasses all
over the world are almost impossible to control. Not only
are these engines ineffecient, but also noisy and dirty.
If only the all transport industries would change their
outlook and open their minds to alternative power
sources we could all breathe easier (pun intended).
Ralph in PE SA.
| |
|
