Re: Re Cost of conservation
At 02:30 PM Sunday 5/20/2007, Deborah Harrell wrote: I used to know how much flatulence we humans produced, but I have long forgotten that! sigh Yet another thing to look up... http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/humor/fart.html http://tafkac.org/medical/death_by_flatulence.html -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:31 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation So I'm not sure how I feel about using corn for ethanol; is there really an advantage from the carbon standpoint? And what about the increase in price for people-grade food that this is apparently already causing? I think I heard (NPR? Frontline?) that there's a negative impact from production of some biofuels as well...like cutting down rainforest to plant palm oil trees. The only way that biofuel would be a real addition is if we could harvest the part of the cycle where plants naturally decay, and carbon dioxide is naturally produced. Even so, it would only be a small help. If gas goes to $8/gal, I will have to significantly increase my fees OK, that was a little whiny; still, I think it's not fair to raise gasoline prices _that_ much, because really marginal folk who have to drive for work, or are forced to commute long distances b/c they can't afford to live near work (frex actually a problem in some ski resort areas, where companies are subsidizing housing for food service and cleaning personnel). That's just the tip of the iceberg of the effect on people...if we are actually going to eliminate 80% of the US's present carbon footprint. The gas tax is _supposed_ to cause adjustments in the economy. When people cannot afford to commute to work, they'll move. They will lose money on their house and houses in town will go through the roof. But, that's what suppose to happena massive shift in the economy to reduce energy consumption. I talked about a 10 year process to keep this from being a step function, and allowing people to plan for it. I think those who drive gas-guzzlers, like luxury SUVs (what an oxymoron!) ought to pay a VAT-type penaly tax, rather than everyone subsidizing their fuel hogs. How would a gas tax have everyone subsidizing fuel hogs? The fuel hogs would pay a lot more tax than the fuel sippers. It would tend to get people to replace fuel hogs with fuel sipperswhich is a good thing. But, it wouldn't be enough. Let me quote an analysis I did off fuel consumption numbers from about a year ago. It's from a post of mine on 7-9-06, in the Re: An Inconvenient Truth thread: quote For the US to comply, it would have to reduce its emissions by 25% from the 2004 levels...and probably about 28% from the 2006 levels. But, let's just take the 2004 levels. That's an enormous amount. To see how big it is, let's look at various changes and see how much they would help. Let's look at the automobiles. Big trucks, such as semi's and dump trucks, consume about 20% of the motor vehicle fuel usage. The rest is used by SUVs, pick ups, autos, motorcycles, and that sort. Motor vehicles use about 44% of the petroleum used. Petroleum represents about 40% of total energy use. (natural gas is 23%, coal is 20%, nuclear is 8%, hydro is 4%, wood, waste, etc. is 4%, and other renewables are 1%). Thus, auto and SUV use represent about 14% of the totalor about 17% of the fossil fuel use. Let's say that, tomorrow, SUVs, pick up trucks, and the like disappear and are replaced by automobiles. That would replace a fleet with an average mileage rating of 16.2 mpg with a fleet with a mileage rating of 22.4 mpg. It would also reduce consumption of fossil fuels by about 2.2%. That's not even 10% of what is needed to meet Kyoto. end quote Going back, let's say Tom and Tim both drive 20k miles/year. One has a car that averages a real 40 mpg, the other has an SUV that averages a real 12 mpg. The first one pays $2500/year in additional gas taxes, while the second pays $8333/year. How is the first subsidizing the second. The real point, of course, is to cut down the gas use. Tim could save almost 6k/year buying a fuel efficient car, if he has to drive the 20k miles/year. He'd save more if he drove lesswhich is the idea of the tax. Finally, I didn't take your posts as snippy, Debbie. I realize I was pushing some when I pointed out how you would have to change your life if we were only to take the modest steps to drop our carbon footprint 25% (Kyoto). Dropping it a factor of 5 would be overwhelming...not just 3x harder. It would affect everyone significantly. That's the pointthe cost is much higher than those who argue for massive reductions are willing to admit. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
I wrote, and as usual thought of many things I ought to have written as well, once I got in the car phththt! : much snipped home decor. I will have to find sites on the growth of Home Depots etc., and the logging of rare hardwoods... Of course, there is a consumer-driven quest for sustainable wood products that IIRC is called Certified Forest Products (I'll have to check that); these are available at several of the home building suppliers (I'll have to look _that_ up too) , and there was decent checking of such materials (IIRC plywood, lumber and even hardwood flooring) before they could be stamped/branded CFP. (well, actually it's the bacteria in their guts that produce methane and hydrogen sulfide gases etc) I used to know how much flatulence we humans produced, but I have long forgotten that! sigh Yet another thing to look up... ...wouldn't use up perfectly good people-grade grain either. So I'm not sure how I feel about using corn for ethanol; is there really an advantage from the carbon standpoint? And what about the increase in price for people-grade food that this is apparently already causing? I think I heard (NPR? Frontline?) that there's a negative impact from production of some biofuels as well...like cutting down rainforest to plant palm oil trees. If gas goes to $8/gal, I will have to significantly increase my fees OK, that was a little whiny; still, I think it's not fair to raise gasoline prices _that_ much, because really marginal folk who have to drive for work, or are forced to commute long distances b/c they can't afford to live near work (frex actually a problem in some ski resort areas, where companies are subsidizing housing for food service and cleaning personnel). I think those who drive gas-guzzlers, like luxury SUVs (what an oxymoron!) ought to pay a VAT-type penaly tax, rather than everyone subsidizing their fuel hogs. Debbi who will not get to much research today, as next lessons are in an hour Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=graduation+giftscs=bz ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
You ignored my general call for less planned obsolesence and picked on only one example, that of home decor. Did you expect me to discuss every area of consumption in detail? I picked an example where fashion just gave one example. Debbie, I try to get to specific when I discuss things. I don't always have the time to find hard numbers, and they are not always available, but I find little growth in understanding resulting from the trading of generalities.unless of course they are well verified and precise generalities like the theory of gravity. :-) When I think of fashion, I first think of clothes...and then think of furnishing/décor trends. My understanding of the difference between lower middle class fashion and upper class fashion is not that upper class men and women have just a lot more stuff (although they do have more stuff), but that the main difference is that the upper class people have better stuff. Lower middle class people buy shirts at Wall-Mart for $10...rich people buy shirts from designer boutiques at $200. I'll agree that someone in an upper class household is more likely to have 100 dresses in the closet than someone from a lower middle class household. But, even upper class people don't buy dresses and throw them away the next year. They are cheap enough to give them to a consignment shop or let Goodwill pick them up. My Zambian daughter, Neli, picked up a nice woman's business suit for $80 from Goodwill when she needed something nice. Planned obsolescence was, in my day, usually a reference to cars and appliances that are made to fall apart, so you have to buy another one. But, if you look at cars, for example, you see that they last longer than they did 40 years ago. Only our diesel Rabbit died before 100k miles...and that was almost 25 years ago. Now, there are a number of people who do buy a new car every year. But, they don't throw their old cars away...they sell them. As long as someone uses the cars, it's not wasted. What people often refer to now, when they speak of planned obsolescence, is the tendency to throw something away when it breaks, instead of getting it fixed. But, that's a different phenomenon. Many items, such as TVs, are so cheap and reliable now that it doesn't pay to have a trained person spend hours trying to find and replace the bad component. I will have to find sites on the growth of Home Depots etc., and the logging of rare hardwoods to supply furniture, decking and so forth -- If you look at the trends, you will find a lot more use of treated pine instead of rare hardwoods at Home Depot, etc. I didn't find numbers on redwood harvesting, yet, but I know that the average picnic table, 4x4, etc. when I was a kid was made of redwood, while it is now made of treated pine. forests in Indonesia and the Amazon basin are being illegally and unsustainably logged so that somebody can have a mahogony table with matching sideboard and chairs etc. Mahogony tables and sideboards are not usually bought one year and thrown in the dump five years later because they are out of fashion. Plastic chairs that are cheap and easily break are thrown out. I'm not arguing that there aren't examples, such as rare wood harvesting, where consumption will have to be cut down significantly because we are running out. I'm arguing that this is not a general trend, as people 30 years ago were arguing. Commodity prices, on the whole, have gone down in real dollars during that time. Cows do indeed produce quantities of methane, as do all ruminants (well, actually it's the bacteria in their guts that produce methane and hydrogen sulfide gases etc.); reducing meat consumption, in addition to being healthier for the individual person, would definitely be healthier for the planet. Using range-fed instead of feedlot cows wouldn't use up perfectly good people-grade grain either. But, range feeding is a sensible use of land only for marginal land that cannot grow cropsor if there is so much land we don't need to worry. I don't think we need to worry about using people-grade grain for cows, when we have, in the span of a few years, increased our use of corn for fuel from a small fraction of the crop to half the cropwith only a minor impact on food prices. If gas goes to $8/gal, I will have to significantly increase my fees - which many of my clients couldn't then afford, as riding lessons are already cancelled for financial reasons (just this Monday past, in fact, one single mom apologized that she can't continue because she's had to take on a second job -- of course I told her that I understood times were difficult and I hoped things got better for her) - or get an office job, which would probably precipitate a return of major depression, with nasty consequences for me. And...$8/gal gas will just be a modest start if we really want to have no increase in the production of greenhouse gasses. The US's share would be
RE: Re Cost of conservation
At 11:31 AM Thursday 5/17/2007, Dan Minette wrote: [snip] What people often refer to now, when they speak of planned obsolescence, is the tendency to throw something away when it breaks, instead of getting it fixed. But, that's a different phenomenon. Many items, such as TVs, are so cheap and reliable now that it doesn't pay to have a trained person spend hours trying to find and replace the bad component. My recent question about security screws is directly related to this phenomenon: it is mid-May and the temperature has been in the 80s for several days already (although a front knocked yesterday's high down into the 70s and last night's pre-dawn low to around 50, making sweatpants and a sweater the uniform du jour rather than the shorts of recent days), so it's time to put out the fans. Those which have been used for awhile (like part or all of last year) tend to have accumulated dust and cat and human hair around the motor and shaft. In some cases I can clean some of it out with some kind of long probe and forceps and then use the straw provided on the can to squirt WD-40 into the works to get it going well again. In other cases, that doesn't seem to be enough and I need to take off the grill on the back to get at the motor and works. However, some of them are held together with the aforementioned security screws (in one case, alternating Phillips-head and Allen security screws). While I suspect that the company would say that the reason for using security screws is to keep kids from getting the back off the fan and sticking their fingers in to get mangled or shocked, I also suspect that they are happy that by using such screws they make it more likely that most people who might try to fix them themselves will have to throw them away and buy a new one . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
I have only a few minutes, so can't reply fully, but I'm going to call you on these, Dan: DDT has been discussed here previously, and net-impregnation has been cited as cost-effective and reasonably safe (I either posted or re-posted a WHO site on that months ago). But I think that Charlie trumps me on this subject, so I won't address it further. You ignored my general call for less planned obsolesence and picked on only one example, that of home decor. I will have to find sites on the growth of Home Depots etc., and the logging of rare hardwoods to supply furniture, decking and so forth -- forests in Indonesia and the Amazon basin are being illegally and unsustainably logged so that somebody can have a mahogony table with matching sideboard and chairs etc. Cows do indeed produce quantities of methane, as do all ruminants (well, actually it's the bacteria in their guts that produce methane and hydrogen sulfide gases etc.); reducing meat consumption, in addition to being healthier for the individual person, would definitely be healthier for the planet. Using range-fed instead of feedlot cows wouldn't use up perfectly good people-grade grain either. (I eat about one pound of cow, pig _and_ chicken, combined, per week, except during holidays, when I entertain or eat out with friends.) If gas goes to $8/gal, I will have to significantly increase my fees - which many of my clients couldn't then afford, as riding lessons are already cancelled for financial reasons (just this Monday past, in fact, one single mom apologized that she can't continue because she's had to take on a second job -- of course I told her that I understood times were difficult and I hoped things got better for her) - or get an office job, which would probably precipitate a return of major depression, with nasty consequences for me. More WRT projected diseases later- Debbi Resistance Is Not Futile Maru Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
Since I was out of pocket for a bit, I thought I might let this lie instead
of responding late. But, since Dr. Harrell has brought this up, I decided
to respond.
See, you don't get it. I'll try to explain more clearly:
There is *already* resistance. There wasn't, but in any area which
once had spraying, there is now resistance. Once resistance appears
in a population, it remains in that population at a low level, and
selection being the force it is, it only takes a tiny selection
pressure to raise that to a common or high level.
I realize that this sort of thing does happen. I guess what I don't get is
how this has happened in areas where the data appear not to indicate it.
For example, let's consider South Africa, where spraying was discontinued in
'96 and reintroduced in '01. I would like to refer to two pages at the
South Africa Department of Heath websites:
http://www.doh.gov.za/facts/stats-notes/2004/malaria.htm
http://www.doh.gov.za/facts/index.html
From a chart on the first page of the 1st website, we see that malaria cases
were relatively low through 91 (with 5 year intervals, we don't know when
the rise was between '91 and '96), and in '96, showing a jump. The peak
year was 2000, after which cases dropped.
For those who don't see the website, the cases were under 5k/year before 96,
about 30k in '96, about 65k in 2000, and dropping to about 13k/year in 2003.
Since then, it's remained below 13k. In fact, referencing the second
website, it fell to about 7k in 2005. It rose again to 12k/year in 2006,
but the 2007 winter season, the peak for malaria, has been less than 40% of
the 2005 numbers...so it doesn't seem that 2006 was the start of at trend.
We also see at the first website that the timing of the rise and fall of
cases coincided with the elimination of DDT spraying and the reintroduction
of DDT spraying.
there are, do they outweigh the benefits?
This is the point: in areas where DDT has not been used in many
years, then you maybe have one or two shots with DDT before it's
useless again. So, if you want to do wall spraying, you need to use a
cocktail, of *at least* 3 insecticides, at least 2 of which should be
novel.
I may be misinterpreting what you mean by many years and one or two
shots, but it sounds like a year or two of effectiveness after a decade or
two when it wasn't used. DDT wasn't used in South Africa for 5 years
('96-'00 and the utility of DDT spraying has been shown for more than 5
years after than (01-06 and the rainy season of '07). As a result, I would
argue that the data from South Africa is inconsistent with the hypothesis:
that ship has sailed. I don't know how many more decades that indoor
spraying can be used effectively, but it is likely to be significantly
longer than massive spraying is effective. From the data I've seen, I'd
guess decades. But, that's just a guess...we need to continue to analyze
data to know.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 05:11 PM Tuesday 5/8/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: IOW, the dose makes the poison? Water in excess is toxic. Which just supports my statement. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'm arguing for is a hard nosed cost/benefit analysis. I don't see that in the POP site that I quoted. The fact that there are problems with using DDT doesn't make overstating the risks valid. It's the mirror image of if a little is good, a lot is better falacy: if a lot is bad, any is bad. IOW, the dose makes the poison? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 05/05/2007, at 4:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. That isn't why it stopped being used, Dan. Two reasons - first it persistent in the food chain and the long term ecological implications were regarded as untenable, but second, and this is something that non-biologists seem to have a lot of difficulty really comprehending, mosquitoes got resistant to it. Its efficacy was already dropping. Just as the malaria parasite has become resistant to most of the reliable drugs, the _Anopheles_ mosquitoes became resistant to several of the cheap reliable insecticides. DDT is used still, in impregnated nets. That's the only place it really has in the current antimalarial arsenal. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
To:brin-l@mccmedia.com CC: BCC: Subject:Re: Re Cost of conservation Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:26:07 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation On 05/05/2007, at 4:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. That isn't why it stopped being used, Dan. Two reasons - first it persistent in the food chain and the long term ecological implications were regarded as untenable, but second, and this is something that non-biologists seem to have a lot of difficulty really comprehending, mosquitoes got resistant to it. Its efficacy was already dropping. Just as the malaria parasite has become resistant to most of the reliable drugs, the _Anopheles_ mosquitoes became resistant to several of the cheap reliable insecticides. DT is used still, in impregnated nets. That's the only place it eally has in the current antimalarial arsenal. Maybe the specificity of my statement wasn't clear. The points you made with respect to resistance to DDT is not unknown to meI'd be surprised if it didn't happen. Carpet bombing use of insecticides does create those sort of problems. I also have no arguement with worries about the effects of such use on the environment. But, I was talking about resistance to a specific type of programspraying of walls. If you look at a South Africa program on the World Banks site: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/SOUTHAFRICAEXTN /0,,contentMDK:2128~menuPK:368095~pagePK:2865066~piPK:2865079~theSitePK: 368057,00.html http://tinyurl.com/2nr6t5 you will see my suggestion as one of three parts of a comprehensive program. This has a marginally high chance of promoting DDT-resistant mosquitos, but I think we agree that it's not much compared to the widespread, indiscriminate use that leads to resistance. One notes an important difference between South Africa and African countries that do not use this type of programSouth Africa is the most prosperous Sub-Sahara African country. (Nigeria has a lot of oil revenue, but not a good ecconomy). As a result, it is far more likely to take actions in the interests of its own people than countries dependent on aid from foreign government and NGOs. As an aside, this article indicates that at least some NGOs are changing their viewpointsand signing onto programs like the one that I've been reccomending. That's a very hopeful signand I hope that 10 years from now we can talk about the problem with a knee-jerk reaction against anything involving DDT being a past problem, with malaria deaths reduced to a fraction of what they are now. So, from my perspective, I see three general viewpoints on this issue. One was that held, say, 50 years ago, which was focused on the immediate positive reaction to using chemical insecticiedsand generally being if a little is good, more is better. The second is a focus on the dangers of the use, with the only acceptable level of use being zero. The third is an understanding of cost/benefits. You have presented very solid arguements against case 1...and I do not have any conflict with those points. My arguement is that a subset of environmentalists by giving false and misleading information, are contributing to the problems with malaria. I tried to chose my words carefully, and I think _ontributing to_ captures the nature of the problem. I also gave references to statements that I see as problematic. What I'm arguing for is a hard nosed cost/benefit analysis. I don't see that in the POP site that I quoted. The fact that there are problems with using DDT doesn't make overstating the risks valid. It's the mirror image of if a little is good, a lot is better falacy: if a lot is bad, any is bad. I don't place you in the third camp...and I don't see myself at all in the first. Your arguement seems to accept DDT impregnated mosquito nets as a worthwhile...and a reasonable tradeoff. I'm adding indoor spraying as a useful step...and do not endorse widespread outdoor spraying, let alone carpet bombing sprayingwith development of DDT resistant mosquitoes as the main reason for my opposition to widespread outdoor use. Where we seem to differ is on the validity/value of indoor wall spraying. I don't see the problem with this, and have seen persuasive arguements for the usefulness of such spraying. The only arguement that I see against this is the fear that it would be the camel's nose under the tent. So, my question is: if the amount of DDT is actually limited to the amount needed for wall spraying, are there any significant dangers to this use? And if there are, do they outweigh
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 08/05/2007, at 1:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you will see my suggestion as one of three parts of a comprehensive program. This has a marginally high chance of promoting DDT-resistant mosquitos, but I think we agree that it's not much compared to the widespread, indiscriminate use that leads to resistance. See, you don't get it. I'll try to explain more clearly: There is *already* resistance. There wasn't, but in any area which once had spraying, there is now resistance. Once resistance appears in a population, it remains in that population at a low level, and selection being the force it is, it only takes a tiny selection pressure to raise that to a common or high level. Where we seem to differ is on the validity/value of indoor wall spraying. I don't see the problem with this, and have seen persuasive arguements for the usefulness of such spraying. The only arguement that I see against this is the fear that it would be the camel's nose under the tent. So, my question is: if the amount of DDT is actually limited to the amount needed for wall spraying, are there any significant dangers to this use? And if there are, do they outweigh the benefits? This is the point: in areas where DDT has not been used in many years, then you maybe have one or two shots with DDT before it's useless again. So, if you want to do wall spraying, you need to use a cocktail, of *at least* 3 insecticides, at least 2 of which should be novel. Spraying does have a place. So do measures like general sanitation - it's the rubbish and pools of standing water where mosquitoes breed that need to be minimised. So to do drug therapies have a place. So to do vaccine trials, gene therapies, sterile male releases and GM mossies. Yes, wall spraying has an important place. But DDT is not a long term solution in any form of spraying, because that ship has sailed. Charlie ...who may have an idea of what he's talking about as he has worked in one of the world's premier malaria research labs... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5 May 2007 at 19:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am saying that, by spreading misinformation, environmentalists have made significant contributions to bad decisions. Environmentalists tend to be trusted a lot more than governments and companies worldwide. I didn't search the 'net for figures, but I've seen themand I'm sure I can find them if need be. Thus, when they say DDT is a big danger, a significant fraction of the world believes them. In such an environment, since there is no risk to the UN bureaurcats, WHO funding, or EU bureaurcats that result from children in Africa dying of maliara, the safe choice is to not actually oppose DDT, but fund less effective operations. Sigh. Most of these places allready have a marginally viable ecosystem. DDT, used properly, is not much of a threat. However, this effectively means not only providing DDT, but providing the people to spray it. This is much, much harder. The moment you provide a pesticide which is effective and no threat to humans, otherwise, it will be sprayed widely. And that, and the resultant ecosystem damage, has frightening potentials for area which are allready marginal. So no, the alternatives, which don't need trained people to spray every drop, are not less effective. And no, I'm not a treehugging backwards-looking loonie either. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cost of conservation
On 5 May 2007 at 20:04, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: That's not really a help. The power comes from mostly fossil-fuel burning power stations, It doesn't have to. Here in Texas, we lead the US in wind power production and we do have nukes.nukes that are being expanded as we speak. If you want to get away from fossil fuels and oil cartel influence, then automobiles are a good place to start. (Even though they account for only 10% of carbon emissions.) Yea, in one area perhaps. Globally? Um. Sure, I'm pro-nuclear power. and the car performance really suffers. Where do you get that idea? In every aspect but range, electrics offer superior performance. And range is on it's way to being conquered. Until the performance is comparable it'll suffer in terms of perception. Even then, the problem is that it needs charging - you start needing things like swap-out replacement battery packs if you're going on a long trip. That gets expensive. Hydrogen-leeching fuel cells now, that extract hydrogen from petrol (and can thus use the existing infrastructure), to get roughly twice the efficientcy...THAT is a tech to push development of IMO. The problem with fuel cells is that they are expensive, glitchy, and certain to be problematic for your average end user. I like fuel cells, but I see a lot of high hurdles for them to overcome. Currently, sure. But fast progress is being made. And using hydrogen direct is a pain for the end user, yes, that's why as I said the hydrogen-leeching ones... Impurities in fuels can ruin them. You have to deal with the process leftovers (What do you do with the leftover carbon from your daily commute?). A minor adaption (a waste pipe) at fueling stations. My father works at the company which services a lot of the fueling stations in the UK, and he thinks it'd be a minor adaption as well. And the hydrogen- leeching designs are significantly less vulnrable to fuel impurities. The worst thing about the kind of fuel cells you are promoting is that they are only a little better than ICengines and you are still importing oil. Except they're practical on a mass scale. This is my acid test. With funding, they're no more than two to a worst four years from being viable. Then, you blanket mandate their usage in new cars. Short timescale, real effect, and a marginal price bump for new cars. (Probably less than that for catalytic converters) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Sigh. Most of these places allready have a marginally viable ecosystem. DDT, used properly, is not much of a threat. However, this effectively means not only providing DDT, but providing the people to spray it. This is much, much harder. But, it's been done fairly effectively. It doesn't have to be done oftenonce a year per house will do an enormous amount of good. It's been done in places like Indonesia and South Africa with great sucess. Let me focus on one particular country where I know something about the infrastructure: Zambia. My daughter Neli is from there, has worked as an IMF intern there, and her family is fairly well connected to the church structure there. We've talked about AIDs prevention, a much tougher problem, and she's indicated to me that getting the church infrastructure involved is essential for AIDs prevention. She's also familair with the extensive NGO effort there, and elsewhere in Africa. She has been and is involved with American organizations involved in aid in Africa. If I ask her about whether/how such a spraying plan could be implemented, would you accept her understanding (based on her understanding the social structures within her country as well as the actions of governments and NGOs), or would you argue against that insight. If you can assume that the people will accept that their safety is increased by having their houses sprayed, then I think setting up the mechanism for once a year spraying would be straightforwardas long as the NGO supervises the operation and works with local groups. I bet Neli could plan such a program in a few months. It's within her skill set. The moment you provide a pesticide which is effective and no threat to humans, otherwise, it will be sprayed widely. And that, and the resultant ecosystem damage, has frightening potentials for area which are allready marginal. DDT has been used widely around the world, including the US. From what I've seen, there are mixed indications that DDT may pose a risk to raptors. There had not been a major impact on the US ecosystem from DDT So no, the alternatives, which don't need trained people to spray every drop, are not less effective. OK, so the significant amount of data on it's sucessful use in countries where it is used is meaningless because? And no, I'm not a treehugging backwards-looking loonie either. I didn't think you werebut I just don't understand why claims of potential future damage that are not science based should outweigh actual preventable human deaths that run to a million/year. This technique has worked in S. Africa recently, and the POPs who insist on alternate techniques have not put forth evidence indicating harm to the environment as a result. If one can make the assumption that, if such damage occured, they would not hesitate to publicize it, then one can take this silence as indicating that they cannot find such damage. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Dan Minette wrote: Let me focus on one particular country where I know something about the infrastructure: Zambia. My daughter Neli is from there, has worked as an IMF intern there, and her family is fairly well connected to the church structure there. We've talked about AIDs prevention, a much tougher problem, and she's indicated to me that getting the church infrastructure involved is essential for AIDs prevention. Here in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the campaigns about AIDS [why do you write AIDs?] prevention are evolving, even with the active opposition of the church. But only time will tell if they will succeed or fail. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Original Message: - From: Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 21:44:47 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation On 5/4/2007 7:53:47 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 01:42 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. snip I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? Martin Using it saves human lives. Banning it cost human lives. Banning it says that obviously the eggs of a few raptors in California are more valuable than the lives of myriads of little black human babies in sub-Saharan Africa. I don't think it is a binary question at all. DDT, like many other chemicals can be used safely (WRT wildlife *and* humans) if it is used judiciously and not just dumped on the landscape as a general pesticide. That's a very reasonable position. I would agree with it, pesticides should be used judiciously. But, banning is fairly binary, which is the problem that I was adressing. The POP coalition misrepresents the science in their arguement to eliminate DDT. My fear is that they are not lying; they are letting their politics influence their evaluation of the scientific evidence. Who does that remind us of? :-( It seems to me that the real problem is the greed of the chemical industry, they promote ariel spraying of pesticides and other unsecure methods. Except that the alternatives to DDT are more expensive, harder to duplicate, and are not commodities. That tends to favor bigger profits for the bigger companies. A secondary problem is the desire of farmers to protect a greater share of their yield from pests. Both of these examples reveal a mindset that unjudiciously causes large amounts of useful chemicals to leak into areas (of the biosphere) that are owned by others and/or are beyond human control. That does happen. In the US, I'd guess that most of the problems are legacies...which can cost companies billions to rectify. For example, our favorite whipping boy, Haliburton, accidently took on many billions in asbestos costs when they acquired Dresser Industries. They didn't cause the problems themselves, but they bought the cost of remediation when they bought Dresser. They lost billions on that deal.probably enough to have bankrupted Dresser. In short, the cost of preventing contamination has the be huge for the risk of lawsuits to be worth it for a company.or the company has to be small enough so that the risk rewards of bankrupcy vs. getting by with it is acceptable. Elsewhere, such as China, the problem remains serioussince the government is closely tied to the polluting industries. I'd still guess that smog is a more serious problem there, but other toxic chemicals are a problem. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
As for Bangledesh and the like -- the fear is not of a multi-decade rise in sea level, but of a typhoon or hurricane surge that is higher than those in the past. The increase in height need not be much, just enough to cause survivors to leave the coast rather than stay. That's true...but the evidence supporting global warming causing stronger hurricanes is far weaker than that supporting global warming. It's mixed at the moment, and very open to interpretation. A large number of good scientists fall on both sides of this debate. Past observations have shown that when hurricanes pass over warm core ocean eddies and are located in atmospheric conditions favorable for strengthening, they will often strengthen ... Surface waters of at least 26 [degrees] C are necessary for hurricane intensification, but do not alone lead to hurricane development ... Yes...but heat differential and wind sheer are also critical factorsand models indicate that heat differential should stay fairly constant and that shear will rise with temperatureswhich inhibits the formation of large hurricanes. If the glaciers melt and less rain is held in place, more water flows during the rainy season and less during the sunny season. Changes in glacier melting patterns, and changes in rainfall patterns are problematicwith the latter likely to be the greatest source of migration/impact on human lives. From what I've read, the models differ on just how this will play out, but the odds on things staying close to the same are very slim in all models. After changes in rainfall, changes in vegetation growth patterns due to changes in temperatures will probably be the greatest impact. From what we've seen and modelled, the tropics will be the least affected, winter temperatures will be affected more than summer temperatures, and night lows will be affected more than daytime highs. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
On 5 May 2007 at 9:59, Dan Minette wrote: As for Bangledesh and the like -- the fear is not of a multi-decade rise in sea level, but of a typhoon or hurricane surge that is higher than those in the past. The increase in height need not be much, just enough to cause survivors to leave the coast rather than stay. That's true...but the evidence supporting global warming causing stronger hurricanes is far weaker than that supporting global warming. It's mixed at the moment, and very open to interpretation. A large number of good scientists fall on both sides of this debate. ...Changes in temperature at sea level have a strong effect. What effect, well. I know what I believe from the actual results we're seeing. Yes...but heat differential and wind sheer are also critical factorsand models indicate that heat differential should stay fairly constant and that shear will rise with temperatureswhich inhibits the formation of large hurricanes. Yes, and that supports the real problem - it rains more than ever in many situations being observed today. But, the rain stays at sea. This is from observations over the last decade... AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 4 May 2007 at 19:53, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 01:42 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. snip I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? Martin Using it saves human lives. Banning it cost human lives. Banning it says that obviously the eggs of a few raptors in California are more valuable than the lives of myriads of little black human babies in sub-Saharan Africa. And disrupting the eco-system of sub-Saharan Africa by untrained use of DDT has the potential of making the region substantially less liveable if it affects certain critical and weak links in the eco-web in the area. That's my problem with it - DDT is appropriate to use only when applied properly. And it won't be, in the area. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cost of conservation
Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:22 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cost of conservation 2) Loopholes are always found. The popularity of the Suburban turning into the SUV craze is an example of this. It was exempt from the mileage requirements for cars because it was a truck...as are SUVs. Closing all such loopholes would require very complicated legislation, which would also apply in unforeseen waysoften working against conservation. Would you give an example of that last statement? I personally favor taxing the snot out of luxury SUVs as there are much more efficient ways of getting groceries. Allowing company fleets tax breaks for having luxury SUVS is plain stupid. Now if you have a business which requires you to drive over unpaved/unimproved roads, like well-drilling or construction (not uncommon in the West), it is necessary to use *real* utility vehicles. Well, I cannot anticipate just how people will find loopholes...well no-one can. If they could, then legislation could be rewritten. Instead, let me point out how loopholes have worked in the past and put together a general feel for how they might in the future. In '92, we were looking at replacing our mini-van. The heart of what we needed was a vehicle we could use for long (3500 miles on the road) trips back to see family on vacation. Mini-vans were running 24k, while larger converted vans were running about 18k. There are a number of reasons for the price difference, but part of it was mileage regulations. The mini-van got about 20 mpg, while the van got about 12. We chose the van as the more economical choice, even with the mileage thrown in. It served us better also, but my mind was definitely on the cost. This was at least partially due to the fact that mini-vans counted for EPA mpg ratings, and vans didn't. You want to tax the snot out of luxury SUVs. How do you define one in such a way that you don't either hit working trucks that need to be the size they are or provide a loopholes for the next generation of SUVs? The tax will prove a per-vehicle incentive for work-arounds that it equal to the value of the tax. The market for light trucks (which is the category that includes SUVs...and of which about half were SUVs) was about 9 million vehicles in '05. SUV usage has dropped some, so let's say 4 million/year. If you slap a 10k tax on SUVs (which may be more than what you are thinking of, but is what I think of as taxing the snot out of that would mean a potential 40 billion/year value for a workaround. OK, that's not quite fair, because demand would drop a lot, so let's say the cost/demand curve values the workaround at only $10 billion/year. That's still enough to get many people's attentionand to ensure that a lot of creativity will be used to find/create loopholes. The alternative is to tax every light truckwhich would hit a lot of folks who aren't wastefuland force many companies out of business. The gas tax is much less complicated than thatand it would be hard to find a loophole in such a simple tax. How many pickup trucks run on diesel? How many SUVs run on diesel? Is diesel better or worse than gasoline? Should we be encouraging switching to diesel? Why or why not? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? snip I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there was nothing in your post to support the claim that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. Since I am now sure you are claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge demands at least some supporting evidence? Well, I was thinking of a few facts. 1) There was a push to ban DDT worldwide about 7 years ago, by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I remember that it was a close call, with malaria scientists and some African governments finally able to forstall banning. This was after South Africa reintroduced it after malaria cases shot up after it was banned for a few years. So DDT is not banned. 2) There are reports of threats by EU to ban Uganda agriculture if DDT use is introduced. http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=37 This is an industry lobby group and the article is also low on supporting evidence. The wider point is that I also don't see how the UN and the EU are environmentalists. 3) DDT is the cheapest, most effective means of combating malaria. Yet, only a small fraction of funding goes for this. Again, this is a WHO descision. 4) The US, and many other countries banned DDT, even though there is no evidence of damage to humans. I think the arguement that the popularity of Silent Spring had a lot to do with this is valid. Otherwise, why was DDT singled out? I admit, I was one of the ones who wasn't thinking clearly in the '70s. Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Why shouldn't rich, non-malarial countries ban DDT given the health risks to non-humans? 5) African, like Neli, believe that the risks of DDT are high. Where did they get this information. Again I fail to see the relevence and anecdotal evidence isn't very compelling. 6) Groups like Greenpeace have reccomended the total ban of DDT by this year: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html So once again you agree that there is no ban. I remember this from 2000. Are you argueing that these statements were not made, and that the website and my memory are false? I'm arguing you have failed to make any link between environmentalists and dead Africans and that the emotive dead Africans line is a deliberate attempt to smear environmentalists. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5/5/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there was nothing in your post to support the claim that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. Since I am now sure you are claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge demands at least some supporting evidence? Are the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health sufficiently authoritative sources? From http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/faq.htm: There is nothing related to the claim on that page at all. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cost of conservation
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Cost of conservation How many pickup trucks run on diesel? Around here it isn't all that many. Dodge has had a popular truck with the Cummins diesel engine for several years but you see them only as a small percentage of trucks overall. Now that diesel is mostly more expensive than gasoline, you see fewer new diesel pickups. How many SUVs run on diesel? I've never noticed any myself. The movement seems to be towards hybrids in SUVs, but I don't doubt there will be some hydrid diesels. Is diesel better or worse than gasoline? Until recently diesel was a dirtier fuel (emissions wise), but you got better mileage and it was cheaper. Now there are cleaner diesel fuels and more efficient diesel engines available and a few diesel hybrids in the works. Should we be encouraging switching to diesel? Why or why not? My personal opinion is that we should not be encouraging the burning of fuels at all (WRT automobiles). We should be encouraging electric powered vehicles. Certainly, there is an issue with range that has not been sufficiently overcome, but energy densities in batteries are improving very nicely and it appears that the problems are not so much in straight forward physics as it is in materials science. The only question really is what is the best method for storing energy?. Li-Ion batteries are making great strides currently and it may not be long before you see versatile all-electric vehicles available and on the road. xponent Power Shift Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
- Original Message - From: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Why shouldn't rich, non-malarial countries ban DDT given the health risks to non-humans? Wellin my country (specifially, where I live and points east and north east for over 1000 miles and points south to the border.) we used to have Malaria and could again. We also had Yellow Fever and currently have various types of Enchephelitis and West Nile Virus. Growing up here we constantly worried over Sleeping Sickness. It was a real threat. My point is that the US cannot be included in your list of rich, non-malarial countries. Indeed, we have a vested interest. xponent Vectors Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cost of conservation
On 5 May 2007 at 13:20, Robert Seeberger wrote: My personal opinion is that we should not be encouraging the burning of fuels at all (WRT automobiles). We should be encouraging electric powered vehicles. Certainly, there is an issue with range that has not That's not really a help. The power comes from mostly fossil-fuel burning power stations, and the car performance really suffers. Hydrogen-leeching fuel cells now, that extract hydrogen from petrol (and can thus use the existing infrastructure), to get roughly twice the efficientcy...THAT is a tech to push development of IMO. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Original Message: - From: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 19:02:19 +0100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? snip I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there was nothing in your post to support the claim that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. Since I am now sure you are claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge demands at least some supporting evidence? Well, I was thinking of a few facts. 1) There was a push to ban DDT worldwide about 7 years ago, by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I remember that it was a close call, with malaria scientists and some African governments finally able to forstall banning. This was after South Africa reintroduced it after malaria cases shot up after it was banned for a few years. So DDT is not banned. No, but I did document that it barely escaped being banned, with the imputus for the banning coming from environmental groups. I also documented the stopping of the use in South Africa for a number of yearsas well as stopped and reduced in other countries. Why in the world should they do this? My hypothesis is because they thought the use of DDT to interdict malaria was dangerous. In particular, I would argue that the false arguements, put forth by environmental lobbists, that DDT has been shown to be dangerous to humans has been believed. As a result, governments decided to stop the use of DDT. Now, which part of this do you think is illogical. It appears that you think that it was just a coincidence that enviornmentalists have made false statements and governments and NGOs have made decisions that are only logical if you believed those false statements or something very close to them. 1) Environmental groups spread disinformation and the 2) There are reports of threats by EU to ban Uganda agriculture if DDT use is introduced. http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=37 This is an industry lobby group and the article is also low on supporting evidence. The wider point is that I also don't see how the UN and the EU are environmentalists. Look at my origional statement: I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. I am saying that, by spreading misinformation, environmentalists have made significant contributions to bad decisions. Environmentalists tend to be trusted a lot more than governments and companies worldwide. I didn't search the 'net for figures, but I've seen themand I'm sure I can find them if need be. Thus, when they say DDT is a big danger, a significant fraction of the world believes them. In such an environment, since there is no risk to the UN bureaurcats, WHO funding, or EU bureaurcats that result from children in Africa dying of maliara, the safe choice is to not actually oppose DDT, but fund less effective operations. 3) DDT is the cheapest, most effective means of combating malaria. Yet, only a small fraction of funding goes for this. Again, this is a WHO descision. OKhow often does WHO decide to ignore cheap effective means of disease control, and pour money into expensive failed ventures. On the whole, WHO has done fairly decently, and this is a monumental blunder. In fact, I'd venture that there is no other disease for which the WHO has eschewed a safe, effective means of disease control that can prevent a million deaths a year. The closest thing is Bush's idea of abstanance only AIDs prevention...and that's not the WHO. Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Why shouldn't rich, non-malarial countries ban DDT given the health risks to non-humans? It's relevant because it was a ban based on faulty thinking. 5) African, like Neli, believe that the risks of DDT are high. Where did they get this information. Again I fail to see the relevence The relevance is that she has beleived misinformation. I have documented that environmentalists have strongly promoted this misinformation. Is the problem that you don't see the connection between their spreading of misinformation and people believing the same misinformation. Are you arguing that this is a coincidence? 6) Groups like Greenpeace have reccomended the total ban of DDT by this year: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html So once again you agree that there is no ban. Sure, I never said it's not banned. It's
Re: Cost of conservation
On 5/5/2007 6:41:18 PM, Andrew Crystall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 5 May 2007 at 13:20, Robert Seeberger wrote: My personal opinion is that we should not be encouraging the burning of fuels at all (WRT automobiles). We should be encouraging electric powered vehicles. Certainly, there is an issue with range that has not That's not really a help. The power comes from mostly fossil-fuel burning power stations, It doesn't have to. Here in Texas, we lead the US in wind power production and we do have nukes.nukes that are being expanded as we speak. If you want to get away from fossil fuels and oil cartel influence, then automobiles are a good place to start. (Even though they account for only 10% of carbon emissions.) and the car performance really suffers. Where do you get that idea? In every aspect but range, electrics offer superior performance. And range is on it's way to being conquered. Hydrogen-leeching fuel cells now, that extract hydrogen from petrol (and can thus use the existing infrastructure), to get roughly twice the efficientcy...THAT is a tech to push development of IMO. The problem with fuel cells is that they are expensive, glitchy, and certain to be problematic for your average end user. I like fuel cells, but I see a lot of high hurdles for them to overcome. Impurities in fuels can ruin them. You have to deal with the process leftovers (What do you do with the leftover carbon from your daily commute?). The worst thing about the kind of fuel cells you are promoting is that they are only a little better than ICengines and you are still importing oil. To be fair, the situation here is somewhat different that the situation in Britain. If we were to go all electric magically overnight, we could generate electricity with natural gas for a number of years without importing much at all. I don't think the UK is in such a fortunate position (but I would be glad to know I am wrong in that). One thing I have noted. the big auto makers are dragging their feet when it comes to alternatively powered vehicles, trying to shoehorn gasoline or diesel into the vehicles at any cost. A bit of googleing will show that there *are* alternatives that work, but don't get much notice. xponent Powered By Electrons Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
As for Bangledesh and the like -- the fear is not of a multi-decade rise in sea level, but of a typhoon or hurricane surge that is higher than those in the past. The increase in height need not be much, just enough to cause survivors to leave the coast rather than stay. That's true...but the evidence supporting global warming causing stronger hurricanes is far weaker than that supporting global warming. It's mixed at the moment ... As far as I know, rivals have not much studied hurricanes crossing warm core eddies. Studies have been on sea surface temperatures instead. Unfortunately, my knowledge of hurricanes suggests that they retain or become more powerful when they cross water that stays warm a long ways down rather than water that is warm on the surface but is cold further down. Hurricanes really churn the ocean. And they need lots of energy. So I am more inclined to think that warm core ocean eddies provide a better predictor than simple sea surface temperatures. Also, I am told that modern satellites can provide information on rather small ocean height differences. In combination with warm, satellite-sensed sea surface temperatures, an ocean height increase tells you the location of a warm core eddie. Put another way, with a prediction of a hurricane's path, which has got better in the past decade, and a knowledge of warm core ocean eddies, a meteorologist can predict a hurricane's intensity better than in the past. Past observations have shown that when hurricanes pass over warm core ocean eddies and are located in atmospheric conditions favorable for strengthening, they will often strengthen ... Yes...but heat differential and wind sheer are also critical factorsand models indicate that heat differential should stay fairly constant and that shear will rise with temperatureswhich inhibits the formation of large hurricanes. I agree that the heat differential should stay fairly constant. However, it is not clear to me what the net effect of wind shear will be on a decade by decade basis. Will it provide enough counter feedback? (Obviously, the amount of wind shear will go up and down on an annual basis. For the Atlantic, it will depend on the Pacific El Nino and other factors. Also, the development of hurricanes appears to depend on conditions in the Sahara.) ... the odds on things staying close to the same are very slim in all models. After changes in rainfall, changes in vegetation growth patterns due to changes in temperatures will probably be the greatest impact. I agree. Or maybe rain, which depends on temperature, is a more proximate cause of impact. From what we've seen and modelled, the tropics will be the least affected ... Weirdly enough, that may not be the case for humans. In an article in Science, Vol. 316, 13 April 2007, on the report issued following an agreement among bureaucrats from more than 100 countries as well as climate specialists, the author says that a small warming in the tropics is more than plants can handle. (Specifically, the text is about yields in a harvest. In the tropics, yeilds go down with a relatively small temperature rise.) In other words, without further genetic engineering, without another `green revolution', more people will have trouble. If there is only a little hunger, and it is expected to continue, people may migrate. (Too much starvation and people will not be able to migrate.) As you say, the forecast is for a larger warming towards the poles. According to the article, that warming will promote plant growth (i.e., produce higher yields) by causing more rain -- or, at least, so long as the warming is less than 3 degrees C or so. -- Robert J. Chassell GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cost of conservation
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:22 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cost of conservation Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] snip I really do try to think about what I'm doing WRT energy consumption; I'll bet that if everyone did the same or more (and there are those who make me look like a glutton!), it *would* make a significant impact. Significant as in slowing down the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses, probably. But I don't think that it's as straightforward as it might appear to be on the surface. The costs/repercussions inherent in people cutting down energy use is not clear when we just look at one person doing it...isolated from everyone else. No - rapidly changing from an economy based on planned obsolesence (?sp) to one based on retailing more permanent (let's say multi-generational) consumer goods would be very disruptive to our current way of life. Although some of us already don't follow fashion trends or change decor yearly, if everyone didn't, the clothing and retail furniture businesses, as currently organized, would collapse. There are of course many others - dishware, automotive, housing and so forth. It couldn't be safely done overnight. That's only a fraction of what I was talking about. Even in the fairly upscale neighborhood where I live, folks don't change furniture to follow short term fashion trends. The fashion trends for home furnishings have a 5-10 year timeframe. Thus, if you want to sell a house with '80s décor, it will sell at a discount for houses that have the latest décor (a problem we are facing as we are looking at moving). This will cost us about 6k if we decide to do itand we're looking at whether it will be cost effective. But, selling our house at 250k or so (it's a nice 3000 sq. ft. house which would sell for much more in virtually every other market), we can see this as a 2% cost on our major purchase. I chose my house as an example because it dovetails nicely with the rest of my argument. Let's look at what I am suggesting as a conservation measure that would probably reduce our energy use, but not enough to qualify for Kyoto, let alone a 80% reduction: increasing the tax on fossil fuel usage. My proposal would add $5/gallon in taxes to the price of gasoline...roughly equivalent to adding $200/barrel to the price of oil. Home heating costs would increase about to about 3x the present costs; wholesale electricity costs would more than double; while retail costs would about double. Focusing on my house, several things would happen. First, its value, compared to houses closer to the city center, would devalue. The cost fuel for driving into Houston proper would, roughly, triple. In fact, the whole Houston metropolitan area would take a hit, since its population density is fairly low: 200 per sq/kmabout the same as the entire United Kingdom. Thus, the cost of living in Houston will rise compared to elsewhere. So, my house would drop in value. I could probably afford it, but think about all those who have to move after their house has gone below, not only their purchase price, but the value of the mortgage. I saw this in the mid-80s, which was at the heart of the SL crisis of the time.many many institutions had productive mortgages turned into low value properties. At the time, a virtually brand new 2200 sq. ft. house would be sold for 30,000. I think the nation could handle this OK, and this is not what I mean by drastic outcomesthat's why I suggested it. But, I also think that it would do no more than stop the increase in energy usage. The US is growing, and the per capita use would have to drop every year to flatting out usage. We have data available from the last few years concerning energy use. In my neighborhood gas prices have risen from about $1.10/gallon to $2.50-$3.00/gal between 2000 and 2005-now. Yet, gasoline usage continues to increase. So, I'd expect only a 10% or so decrease from the $5.00/gal. My SWAG on the increase necessary to cut usage down enough to level off global warming is the equivalent to a $25/gal taxwith similar taxes on electricity, fuel oil, etc. the means for cutting energy usage. No, unfortunately, I think that the pocketbook is the only swift way to alter people's behavior, unless you consider totalitarian government, which nobody here would find satisfactory. Personally, that means I'll have to find other ways to economize, because I can't change the distance I drive to the stables, ~ 50 miles roundtrip (and similarly to the library), so if gas goes to $4/gallon, I'll be eating a *lot* more rice and beans (which I already have 2-3d/week). While going to $4.00 gal will hit you hard, the projections are that it will not make much of a dent in consumption. What would you do
RE: Re Cost of conservation
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:32 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation In a warmer world, however, with changes in arable landmass/location, and expansion of 'tropical' diseases to the former temperate zones, with large refugee populations on the move with the attendant epidemics -- I'd predict many millions in the span of a generation or two. It'd be horrible. I don't see any real evidence for that. The global warming will just continue...allowing for mass migrations to take place over decades instead of months. There will be suffering and death in these, but it pales in comparison to that presently occurring as a result of a lack of clean water supplies. This is killing millions/year, but isn't newsworthy because it doesn't make a good story with villains and heroes, etc. Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. A simple spraying of houses would be cheap (well within what is presently donated for malaria prevention) and effective. The impact on the environment would be far lower than the massive use in the USwhich had minimal effect on people. It should be a no-brainer. Instead, I find my Zambian daughter, who has had malaria twice, having been convinced that the risk from DDT was higher...due to the ubiquitous nature of the false information. Isn't dying one way just as bad as the other? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
Dan Minette wrote: I don't see any real evidence for that. The global warming will just continue...allowing for mass migrations to take place over decades instead of months. You mean, because of rising sea levels? Can someone explain to me _why_ the sea levels would increase, if the evidence is that only the arctic ice will melt, and other ices (Antarctica, for example) will grow due to increasing snowing? If I can do the math, this means that sea levels will _decrease_. There will be suffering and death in these, but it pales in comparison to that presently occurring as a result of a lack of clean water supplies. This is killing millions/year, but isn't newsworthy because it doesn't make a good story with villains and heroes, etc. As that famous quote fakely attributed to Stalin: the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is statistics. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. snip I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:57 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Re Cost of conservation Dan Minette wrote: I don't see any real evidence for that. The global warming will just continue...allowing for mass migrations to take place over decades instead of months. You mean, because of rising sea levels? Can someone explain to me _why_ the sea levels would increase, if the evidence is that only the arctic ice will melt, and other ices (Antarctica, for example) will grow due to increasing snowing? If I can do the math, this means that sea levels will _decrease_. The evidence for this is rather mixedand since I'm arguing that the negative effects of global warming are not as great as the cost of full mediation, I try to use the 1-sigma high data. The effects on sea level are complex. First, there is the expansion of the seas due to the higher sea temperatures. That's the basis of the rise of 10 cm or by 2100 given in earlier estimates. This assumes that the effects on land ice masses are minimal. There have been measurements over a span of years that indicated that Antarctic ice was thickening. More recent data indicates thinning. To first order, this should be taken as neutral data, in the composite. Greenland data indicates that the movement of the glaciers may be increasing in speed. If this proves out to be a long term trend, there could be a rise of 1-2 meters in sea level by 2100. We'll have a better estimate in a few years. Finally, I wasn't thinking of sea level rise as much as changes in rainfall patterns causing changes in the regions favorable for crops...as the source for mass migration. Canada and Siberia look to be opened up, while dryer regions, e.g. immediately below the Sahara, might see less rainfall. This would promote migrations. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 4 May 2007, at 19:56, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan Minette wrote: I don't see any real evidence for that. The global warming will just continue...allowing for mass migrations to take place over decades instead of months. You mean, because of rising sea levels? Can someone explain to me _why_ the sea levels would increase, if the evidence is that only the arctic ice will melt, and other ices (Antarctica, for example) will grow due to increasing snowing? If I can do the math, this means that sea levels will _decrease_. Thermal expansion. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? I think one can find several here. 1) DDT was used on a massive scale in the United States in the 20th century. 2) The use of DDT in the US, as well as other parts of the world was strongly correlated with the decrease in insect related diseases, e.g. malaria. I can repost websites that give the number of human lives saved when DDT was introduced to be in the tens of millions. 3) While the US of DDT in the US was seen to have a negative effect on wildlife high in the food chain (e.g. bald eagles), there was no measurable rise in human deaths as a result of US use. Even in the story of the idiot who took a bath in DDT to get rid of crabs resulted in him getting rather sick, but not dying. 4) The proposed use to combat malaria (spraying the walls of houses once every year or two) in Africa has been field tested and has proven a cheap, effective way of reducing malaria. 5) This use will represent a far lower exposure than seen in the US during the '50s and '60swhere the death rate (if any) was below measurement and the death and illness rate from nominal use was below our ability to measure. Thus, the danger to humans from the proposed program must be even smaller. 6) The effects on the environment, in general, will be far lower than that seen in the US, since the relative amount of DDT that would be used is far lower. 7) Thus, this use of DDT is of high net benefit, saving hundreds of thousands of human lives at a minimal cost. I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Hope that's clear enough. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? snip I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there was nothing in your post to support the claim that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. Since I am now sure you are claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge demands at least some supporting evidence? Martin Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cost of conservation
Dan Minette wrote: I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Hope that's clear enough. Are you suggesting that the purpose of misinformation is to cause millions of deaths in Africa? This would require a big conspiracy, maybe even bigger than the designed HIV conspiracy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Original Message: - From: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:49:28 +0100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? snip I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there was nothing in your post to support the claim that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. Since I am now sure you are claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge demands at least some supporting evidence? Well, I was thinking of a few facts. 1) There was a push to ban DDT worldwide about 7 years ago, by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I remember that it was a close call, with malaria scientists and some African governments finally able to forstall banning. This was after South Africa reintroduced it after malaria cases shot up after it was banned for a few years. 2) There are reports of threats by EU to ban Uganda agriculture if DDT use is introduced. for 12 see http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=37 3) DDT is the cheapest, most effective means of combating malaria. Yet, only a small fraction of funding goes for this. 4) The US, and many other countries banned DDT, even though there is no evidence of damage to humans. I think the arguement that the popularity of Silent Spring had a lot to do with this is valid. Otherwise, why was DDT singled out? I admit, I was one of the ones who wasn't thinking clearly in the '70s. 5) African, like Neli, believe that the risks of DDT are high. Where did they get this information. 6) Groups like Greenpeace have reccomended the total ban of DDT by this year: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html I remember this from 2000. Are you argueing that these statements were not made, and that the website and my memory are false? Now, in fairness, some of these organizations have backed off these statements, but 30 years of inertia in public opinion is hard to overcome. If they've changed their opinion, I think they have a responsiblity to clearly state itsomething I couldn't see at Greenpeace when I went there. When I searched for DDT on their website, I found three articles on the evil of it, but no statement on acceptable use. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
I found a couple more sources http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/1999/19990120.unep1.html quote The POPs Elimination Network was a broad coalition of more than 150 environmental and public interest non-governmental organizations, he said. Their core message was that the production, use, release and transfer of POPs must stop. In particular, the World Wildlife Fund believed DDT must be phased out and banned by the year 2007 and, in the interim, it should be treated as a pesticide of last resort in light of its devastating effects. end quote They've backed down from that somewhat, but the latest statement from the POPs Elimination Network that I found at their website http://www.ipen.org/ipenweb/library/4_3_p_doc_4.html still contains dangerous falsehoods. quote Decades ago, DDT saved millions of lives around the world. Today fewer than a dozen countries still heavily rely on it for malaria control. The latest scientific studies provide evidence that its use can threaten the health of the very children it is intended to protect. DDT persists for long periods of time in the environment, it is an endocrine disruptor, and it bio-accumulates in the food chain and the human body. Children are threatened with health problems via exposure to DDT in the womb and in breast milk. Furthermore, illegal diversion of public health supplies of DDT to agricultural uses can contaminate the environment and crops sold in international markets. House spraying programs based on DDT have been weakened by local opposition to spraying and by mosquitoes becoming resistant to it. DDT has proved to be unsuccessful in frontier areas where housing is poor. end quote I have contended that there is are no good studies that provide a measureable danger to humans from the high levels of use in the US. I guess you can argue with this, but if you accept it, I think the above qualifies as disinformation. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cost of conservation
At 12:57 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Dan Minette wrote: While the present disposal plan isn't perfect, it is many orders of magnitude better than this. The waste is placed in expensive barrels, and put in a chamber in close to impermeable rock. It's not perfectly impermeable, but the permeability is in the picodarcie to microdarcie range, instead of the millidarcie range. Since that unit was unfamiliar to me, I tried looking it up. Apparently most people spell it with a -y rather than an -ie . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy (BTW, Dan, would you mind if I quoted from your excellent posts on the subject, without your name, of course?) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
At 01:42 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. snip I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? Martin Using it saves human lives. Banning it cost human lives. Banning it says that obviously the eggs of a few raptors in California are more valuable than the lives of myriads of little black human babies in sub-Saharan Africa. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cost of conservation
At 04:17 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan Minette wrote: I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Hope that's clear enough. Are you suggesting that the purpose of misinformation is to cause millions of deaths in Africa? Would a conspiracy have to be deliberately intended to cause such an effect, or could it simply be that the deaths due to disease in Africa are even more likely to escape the notice of people in America than deaths over there due to violence, which at least makes for better video for the evening news? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
At 02:49 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? snip I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there was nothing in your post to support the claim that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. Since I am now sure you are claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge demands at least some supporting evidence? Are the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health sufficiently authoritative sources? From http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/faq.htm: The World Health Organization estimates that each year 300-500 million cases of malaria occur and more than 1 million people die of malaria. About 1,300 cases of malaria are diagnosed in the United States each year. The vast majority of cases in the United States are in travelers and immigrants returning from malaria-risk areas, many from sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. [...] Yes. Malaria is a leading cause of death and disease worldwide, especially in developing countries. Most deaths occur in young children. For example, in Africa, a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. [...], an estimated 90% of deaths due to malaria occur in Africa south of the Sahara; most of these deaths occur in children under 5 years of age. From http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/malaria/pdf/malaria.pdf: Each year 350 to 500 million cases of malaria occur worldwide. Sadly, more than 1 million of its victims, mostly young children, die yearly. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
Can someone explain to me _why_ the sea levels would increase, if the evidence is that only the arctic ice will melt, and other ices (Antarctica, for example) will grow due to increasing snowing? If I can do the math, this means that sea levels will _decrease_. The fear is not only that a part of the Greenland icecap will melt and raise sea levels, the fear is that landed parts of the Antarctic icecap will melt, too. Worse, many fear that the melting of the landed parts of the Antarctic icecap will more than counter increased snow on the continent's edges that comes from increased warmth. As for Bangledesh and the like -- the fear is not of a multi-decade rise in sea level, but of a typhoon or hurricane surge that is higher than those in the past. The increase in height need not be much, just enough to cause survivors to leave the coast rather than stay. According to Bryan Woods http://storm.uml.edu/~woods/2005canes.htm Past observations have shown that when hurricanes pass over warm core ocean eddies and are located in atmospheric conditions favorable for strengthening, they will often strengthen ... Surface waters of at least 26 [degrees] C are necessary for hurricane intensification, but do not alone lead to hurricane development ... Since variation is perceived as normal, people will need to see a few other things, too. For example, they may grow concerned at an increase in the annual variation in river height. Unfortunately, the big rivers that feed Bangledesh get their water from high mountain glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains. If the glaciers melt and less rain is held in place, more water flows during the rainy season and less during the sunny season. Both warm core ocean eddies and melts in high mountain glaciers occur more often when energy sticks close to the earth's surface rather than vanish into deep space. -- Robert J. Chassell GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5/4/2007 7:53:47 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 01:42 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 5/4/07, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. snip I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? Martin Using it saves human lives. Banning it cost human lives. Banning it says that obviously the eggs of a few raptors in California are more valuable than the lives of myriads of little black human babies in sub-Saharan Africa. I don't think it is a binary question at all. DDT, like many other chemicals can be used safely (WRT wildlife *and* humans) if it is used judiciously and not just dumped on the landscape as a general pesticide. I recall Gautam specifying DDT impregnated mosquito netting as a way to save many thousands of lives. Even if the netting were to be disposed of carelessly(after it has become useless for whatever reason), it would carry only a small payload into the ecosystem. It seems to me that the real problem is the greed of the chemical industry, they promote ariel spraying of pesticides and other unsecure methods. A secondary problem is the desire of farmers to protect a greater share of their yield from pests. Both of these examples reveal a mindset that unjudiciously causes large amounts of useful chemicals to leak into areas (of the biosphere) that are owned by others and/or are beyond human control. xponent Rambling Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cost of conservation
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] snip I really do try to think about what I'm doing WRT energy consumption; I'll bet that if everyone did the same or more (and there are those who make me look like a glutton!), it *would* make a significant impact. Significant as in slowing down the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses, probably. But I don't think that it's as straightforward as it might appear to be on the surface. The costs/repercussions inherent in people cutting down energy use is not clear when we just look at one person doing it...isolated from everyone else. No - rapidly changing from an economy based on planned obsolesence (?sp) to one based on retailing more permanent (let's say multi-generational) consumer goods would be very disruptive to our current way of life. Although some of us already don't follow fashion trends or change decor yearly, if everyone didn't, the clothing and retail furniture businesses, as currently organized, would collapse. There are of course many others - dishware, automotive, housing and so forth. It couldn't be safely done overnight. snip You might want to argue against using tax/price as the means for cutting energy usage. No, unfortunately, I think that the pocketbook is the only swift way to alter people's behavior, unless you consider totalitarian government, which nobody here would find satisfactory. Personally, that means I'll have to find other ways to economize, because I can't change the distance I drive to the stables, ~ 50 miles roundtrip (and similarly to the library), so if gas goes to $4/gallon, I'll be eating a *lot* more rice and beans (which I already have 2-3d/week). I think that it has been shown to have two tremendous advantages over other means: such as laws requiring the reduction of energy usage and moral appeals. snip Doing it by legal restrictions has two significant problems: 1) Even the best informed and intentioned committee cannot find optimum tradeoffs in millions of different cases. Millions of decisions based on the true cost of energy will result in more efficient use of energy. 2) Loopholes are always found. The popularity of the Suburban turning into the SUV craze is an example of this. It was exempt from the mileage requirements for cars because it was a truck...as are SUVs. Closing all such loopholes would require very complicated legislation, which would also apply in unforeseen waysoften working against conservation. Would you give an example of that last statement? I personally favor taxing the snot out of luxury SUVs as there are much more efficient ways of getting groceries. Allowing company fleets tax breaks for having luxury SUVS is plain stupid. Now if you have a business which requires you to drive over unpaved/unimproved roads, like well-drilling or construction (not uncommon in the West), it is necessary to use *real* utility vehicles. Moral appeals can be a component of the action, but nothing real can be based on what if everyone did the right thing. For example, we cannot fund schools, highways, and Medicare by free will offerings. Of course not! That's why incentives are as important as impediments, monetary or otherwise. The tax plan does have problems...One obvious problem with an energy tax is that it is regressive. The regressive nature can be countered by taxes/government payments to lower. There is a cost to this, maybe a 10% surcharge on the cost of the entire program. But, this cost will be far smaller than the cost of the vast bureaucracy generated by regulating energy use while keeping energy inexpensive and, even more so, the generation of a useless industry of finding loopholes in the law. Having set this up, let's think of the cut that would be required to stop global warming. Elsewhere you suggested boycotting China until they have a more environmentally friendly policy. As someone pointed out, boycotting hasn't happened for their human rights abuses either, so I doubt that they're in much danger from my attempts to avoid purchasing goods from their sweatshops. [I wonder if the deliberate contamination of pet/animal food will fire up more anger here? It appears that melamine was *added* to increase the crude analysis protein content of the feed. As posted previously, in the past there have also been significant problems with contaminated drugs and infant formula (the latter only inside China itself).] If I were Chinese, I'd counter that this is an unreasonable and hypocritical action for the West, since their per capita carbon emission is less than that of any Western country. It's less than half of that of the UK, and less than 20% of the US. Having an administration that rejected the Kyoto protocols out-of-hand certainly doesn't help. But I do think that we need to reduce our personal use of polluting energy...which is why I wrote that while research
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan M. wrote: snip The numbers that I've seen is that the US and Europe, and other developed countries have to drop to, essentially, the per capita carbon consumption of China...and China and India, etc. have to hold their consumption at or below that level. I'll stop here for now, I'm not sure if anyone is interesting in replying. But, if there interest, I think I could argue that even Debbie's lifestyle would be all but impossible in a no global warming world. It would be possible in a world with far fewer people. Unfortunately the routes to that state are really unpleasant. There isn't even a word for a billion people dying. In a warmer world, however, with changes in arable landmass/location, and expansion of 'tropical' diseases to the former temperate zones, with large refugee populations on the move with the attendant epidemics -- I'd predict many millions in the span of a generation or two. It'd be horrible. Debbi The Party Is Disrupted By An Uninvited Guest Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re Cost of conservation
At 12:00 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, Dan M. wrote: snip Having set this up, let's think of the cut that would be required to stop global warming. Elsewhere you suggested boycotting China until they have a more environmentally friendly policy. If I were Chinese, I'd counter that this is an unreasonable and hypocritical action for the West, since their per capita carbon emission is less than that of any Western country. It's less than half of that of the UK, and less than 20% of the US. The numbers that I've seen is that the US and Europe, and other developed countries have to drop to, essentially, the per capita carbon consumption of China...and China and India, etc. have to hold their consumption at or below that level. I'll stop here for now, I'm not sure if anyone is interesting in replying. But, if there interest, I think I could argue that even Debbie's lifestyle would be all but impossible in a no global warming world. It would be possible in a world with far fewer people. Unfortunately the routes to that state are really unpleasant. There isn't even a word for a billion people dying. The long term alternatives to abundant energy are fairly well understood, but there is little public push for them. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
At 12:04 PM Tuesday 5/1/2007, Keith Henson wrote: At 12:00 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, Dan M. wrote: snip Having set this up, let's think of the cut that would be required to stop global warming. Elsewhere you suggested boycotting China until they have a more environmentally friendly policy. If I were Chinese, I'd counter that this is an unreasonable and hypocritical action for the West, since their per capita carbon emission is less than that of any Western country. It's less than half of that of the UK, and less than 20% of the US. The numbers that I've seen is that the US and Europe, and other developed countries have to drop to, essentially, the per capita carbon consumption of China...and China and India, etc. have to hold their consumption at or below that level. I'll stop here for now, I'm not sure if anyone is interesting in replying. But, if there interest, I think I could argue that even Debbie's lifestyle would be all but impossible in a no global warming world. It would be possible in a world with far fewer people. Unfortunately the routes to that state are really unpleasant. There isn't even a word for a billion people dying. Two come immediately to mind: After the title on the book in _Dr. Strangelove_: Gigadeaths. According to many radical greens: A good start. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re Cost of conservation
Ronn! wrote: According to many radical greens: A good start. And according to many religionists: Not nearly enough Doug Rapture maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
