I realize this is considerably longer than normal get printed as a
response, which lessons the chance of it getting printed as a letter to
the WSJ editor.  

If anyone would like to use any of the information here for their own
letters, feel free to do so as needed.  Thanks.
Mike

"The only thing in American politics that speaks more loudly than money
is a riled-up citizenry.  So get riled up!"
- Dennis Hayes, "The Official Earth Day Guide to Planet Repair", 2001.
http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw_letter.pdf
http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/mtneuman/tribute_flag.html


--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:31:21 -0600
Subject: Comment on Bicycling Fee Editorial
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dear editor,

I believe the bicycle commuters are justified in claiming "not fair"
about Dane County making them pay a Capital City Trail user fee, when
highway drivers in Dane County pay no such user fees.  When you bicycle,
you don't pollute the air.  You don't add greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere.  You don't add to traffic congestion, or to the"need" for the
state to  further widen the highway system, or build by-passes, or 4-lane
highways to Sauk City.  With the possible exception of the concrete that
is poured to build the new highway to Sauk City, and the new bridge over
the Wisconsin River, all these other "costs" of automobile commuting to
Madison are by no means covered by the gas tax.  The burden of these
costs fall upon all of us, including those vocal community minded
bicyclists who's commutes are made more difficult by ever increasing
levels of motor vehicle use and auto exhaust.

Researchers have from time to time attempted to estimate the total of
these "other costs" of automobile driving that are not included in the
subsidized price of gasoline at the pump. In their study on the real
price of gasoline, the International Center for Technology Assessment
(CTA http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm) identifies and
quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the
internal combustion engine that are not reflected in the retail price
Americans pay for gasoline.  These include:

(1) Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies so that the
oil companies can keep the price of gasoline low for consumers (a subsidy
of $784 million to $1 billion per year); (2) Subsidies that support the
extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products
($38 to $114.6 billion each year); (3) Funding of research and
development ($200 to $220 million); (4) Government expenditures on
pollution cleanup, and liability costs( $1.1 to $1.6 billion) (5) The
cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world ($55 to
$96.3 billion per year); 

(6) The environmental, health, and social costs represent the largest
portion of the externalized cost of gasoline use in the U.S.. The
internal combustion engine contributes heavily to localized air
pollution; in fact, researchers have conclusively linked auto pollution
to increased health problems and mortality.  Other motor vehicle
operation costs positively associated with localized air pollution from
auto exhaust include decreased agricultural yields, reduced visibility,
damage to buildings and materials, water pollution, noise pollution, and
improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars.  

(7) Last but not least, global warming, now positively correlated with
too much fossil fuel burning throughout the world, in coal and gas fired
power plants, in planes, trains, trucks, ships and automobiles, all of
which release greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide which is accumulating
to high and higher concentration level in the atmosphere, yearly.  The
CTA estimates that the environmental, health and social costs of
automobile driving in the U.S. amount to between  $231.7 and $942.9
billion every year, exclusive of the global warming costs.  The total
cost of global warming to the U.S. over a ten year period (to the year
2010) could range from a total of $616 billion to $3.357 trillion.
[Source: Dr. Paul Ekins, Professor of Sustainable Development in the
School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment, Keele
University, U.K., from "Economic Implications and Decision-Making in the
Face of Global Warming", published by the "International Environmental
Affairs: A Journal for Research and Policy," University Press of New
England for Dartmouth University, Vol., 8, No. 3, Summer 1996.]

*For every gallon of gasoline burned in a motor vehicle, 22 pounds of
carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere, where it will remain
upwards of 120 years, continually heating the planet.  Multiply that by
all the cars and miles being driven daily in the U.S., alone, and that
amounts to quite a slug of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere. 
Those who contribute to those amounts are not paying for the future
damages global warming, which scientist now tell us is inevitable. 

Documentation of rising global temperature and their association with
increased greenhouse gas concentrations from fossil fuel burning is
provided in forwarded message which follow.

"You show me pollution, and I will show you people who are not paying
their own way, people who are stealing from the public, people who are
getting the public to pay their costs of production.  All environmental
pollution is a subsidy."
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in Forward to "Beyond Earth Day", by Gaylord
Nelson, with Susan Campbell and Paul Wozniak, University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, WI, 2002. 

"The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have
done thus far creates problems which cannot be solved by the same level
of  thinking in which they were created."  -- Albert Einstein

Michael Neuman
4334 Waite Circle 
Madison, WI 53711

266-5428 (weekdays)
238-6866

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:11:23 -0600
Subject: [POC] Jan through Oct 2002 Global Temperature was 2nd Warmest of
Record
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The lower than average temperatures in the U.S. for the month of October
were not enough to bring down the near record setting temperatures
elsewhere in the world in October.  For the combine months of January -
October, it was warmer than normal everywhere.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES: JAN - OCT  2002:

The months of January-October 2002 were the 2nd warmest Jan - Oct  of
record.  The global land and ocean surface temperature average
(January-October 2002) was the second warmest such 10-month period in the
1880-2002 record, 0.57�C (1.03�F) above the long-term mean and 0.08�C
(0.14�F) cooler than during the El Ni�o year of 1998 

The recent return to record or near record temperature departures is
evident, and globally averaged surface temperatures (land and ocean) have
been warmer than the 1971-2000 average for the last 78 consecutive months


MONTH OF OCTOBER 2002:

The global average land and ocean surface temperature was 0.45�C (0.81�F)
above 1880-2001 average, ranking as the fourth warmest October in the
period of record 

Microwave Sounding Unit Data:
Temperatures in the lowest 8km (5 miles) of the troposphere were 0.10�C
(0.18�F) above average during October 2002 Lower tropospheric and lower
stratospheric temperature data are collected by NOAA's TIROS-N
polar-orbiting satellites and adjusted for time-dependent biases by NASA
and the Global Hydrology and Climate Center. 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/oct/global.html
1990 - 2002 WARMEST PERIOD OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD KEEPING:

* The top five warmest years in the observed record, in descending order:
 1998; 2001; 1997; 1995 and 1990.  Eight of the 10 warmest years in the
122 year-period of record since 1880 have occurred since 1990.  There
have been 21 straight years of above average global temperatures.   

Source:  National Climate Data Center, NOAA

-----------Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 19:57:01 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Climate Change in 50 Years Henceforth

This study shows that there will be continued warming in the next 50
years even if GHGs are reduced considerably; but that continuing with the
current U.S. "business as usual" scenario, where GHGs continue to
increase rapidly, "leads to an accelerating rate of global warming,
raising global temperature to levels that have not existed during the
past several hundred thousand years".    

The projected global temperature  in 50 years if no major reduction
strategies are employed would be an increase of 1.8 degrees F. to 3.6
degrees F above present readings..  Should the increase be 3.6F, that
would amount to roughly 7 times the rate of temperature increase in the
last century, which was about 1F.

If the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and
if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human
health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 1.35F, or 2.7 times
the temperature increase in the last century. 

 "But that scenario will not be easy to achieve", says the lead
researcher on the study, Jim Hansen.  "It requires that the world begin
to reverse the growth of true air pollution (especially 'soot' and the
gases that control surface ozone, including methane) and also that we
flatten out and eventually begin to decrease CO2 emissions." 

According to the NASA report, "the GISS "SI2000" climate model provided a
convincing demonstration that global temperature change of the past
half-century is mainly a response to climate forcing agents, or imposed
perturbations of the Earth's energy balance."

The study was funded through NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(GISS), N.Y, and was published in the Journal of Geophysical
Research--Atmospheres.   It was identified by NASA as the product of a
collaborative effort of 19 institutions, including 7 universities,
federal agencies, private industry and other  NASA centers. 


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies

Reply via email to