Don't bother Greenpeace with facts

Post #25,317 by SpiceWare 1/23/02 3:34:09 PM Reply	Don't bother Greenpeace with facts especially if you were a member of Greenpeace, else you'll become an [link\|http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/20/wenv20.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/20/ixworld.html\|Anti-Christ of the green religion] [Bjorn Lomborg]This former ecological activist and member of Greenpeace has had the temerity to suggest that the world is not coming to an end. And the result, as he revealed last week, is that he has become a marked man. ... For daring to utter such eco-heresies, Lomborg has received threats from enraged environmentalists and now opens mail with extreme care for fear of what parcels might contain ... As Lomborg puts it: "It's unrealistic to say that everything is getting better. But we need to get a sense of priority. For example, the level of pollutants is dropping dramatically in the developed world. The air in London is cleaner today than at any time since 1585. The average person in London was much worse off in the past than today. ... in 1997, he read an article about a renegade American professor called Julian Simon who had for decades been using official US Government statistics to disprove claims made by environmentalists. ... "I was totally sure Simon was wrong," he says. "I thought: 'It should be easy to show that he's wrong, and it'll be fun debunking him.' So I got my students to go through a chapter of his book each to check his statistics. And to our surprise most of what he said was correct." ... on the morning after my interview with Lomborg, the Today programme on Radio 4 reported an interesting scientific finding. You know how the Antarctic ice is supposed to be melting, as part of the great catastrophe of global warming? Well, the scientists have just taken another look at the ice. They've measured it very carefully. And it's getting thicker. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #25,337 by Brandioch 1/23/02 5:09:19 PM Reply	Interesting what he doesn't cover. Yes, London's air is getting cleaner. London is not an industrial town anymore. But look at the total pollutants in the atmosphere. The trend is still upwards, not down.
Post #25,342 by SpiceWare 1/23/02 5:43:02 PM Reply	He does say "It's unrealistic to say that everything is getting better." As far as "is not an industrial town anymore" - The town my father grew up in is a paper mill town in the middle of Wisconsin. Back when he was younger you couldn't eat the fish out of the river due to all the pollution. A few years ago we went up there and they were in the middle of a big "Walleye Days" festival, catching and eating fish out of the river. The town is still a paper mill town. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #25,344 by Meerkat 1/23/02 5:52:20 PM Reply	And paper mill processes remained unchanged the whole time? Didn't think so. There's so much FUD and counter-FUD when it comes to the environment as both sides (big business, big envrionmentalists) can lay claim to an agenda that is a basic human need - survival. I don't consider Greepeace right in everything they do, but I do think their capabilities as a 'watchdog' are invaluable. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #25,346 by SpiceWare 1/23/02 6:05:36 PM Reply	I'm sure they have changed Brandioch was claiming that London was cleaner because it was no longer industrial. However, if industry has to go away to make a town cleaner, then why is my dad's hometown less polluted now? The industry is still there. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #25,349 by Meerkat 1/23/02 6:11:56 PM Reply	Industry doesn't have to go away But it does have to change. Twas just the (wrong) impression I got from your post was that the mill was still doing the same things, only the river ha automagically improved. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #25,357 by Brandioch 1/23/02 7:39:44 PM Reply	It is possible to clean up and keep the industries. It just isn't very common. It's cheaper to ship them off to other countries will lower wages and fewer environmental protections. So, most of the industries do that. But not all.
Post #25,929 by tablizer 1/27/02 12:50:39 AM Reply	Mooned River >> It's cheaper to ship them off to other countries will lower wages and fewer environmental protections. << When I visited China a few years ago, I stepped out of the plane near Beijing and I thot I was looking at a lunar eclipse because the moon was smokey red. It turned out to be the air pollution. The moon was almost directly overhead also. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #25,345 by bepatient 1/23/02 5:53:36 PM Reply	It seems to me... ...that GreenPeace likes to yell at the big bad international corporations about how bad they are...when in fact...they are the ones doing to most to improve the situation...and spend little time yelling and screaming at the developing nations where most of the "new" pollution is being created. Just my observation. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,347 by CRConrad 1/23/02 6:07:03 PM Reply	Sheesh, aren't you easily duped, then
Post #25,383 by bepatient 1/23/02 9:21:50 PM Reply	Really? How so? How about taking a stroll over in SouthEast Asia sometimes. Hong Kong, Singapore. Places that make LA look like untouched rain forest. No effort to improve the situation at all. Its not that the "west" is stellar in its improved state...but in comparison, the US seems postively green. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,014 by CRConrad 1/28/02 3:00:00 AM Reply	The usual; too much of a "Go Big Corps, Go!" rah-rah. The "they [=big corps] are the ones doing to most to improve the situation" bit -- it sounds almost as if you thought they're doing it all by themselves, outta the goodness o' their hearts. When in reality, as you probably very well know -- only, that never seems to come out the first thing you say, does it? -- they only do the absolute minimum they have to do, forced to do so as they are by the lawmakers. So, is it really the Big Corps "doing the most", or is it the legislative? Could well be argued that the Big Corps aren't "doing" anything at all -- but just stopping doing what they've done so far, i.e, polluting the environment we all have in common. Even the most rigorous laissez-faire reading of Adam Smith doesn't say they're necessarily in the right to do whateverthefuck they want to an atmosphere that isn't theirs to destroy in the first place, does it? I think even ol' Adam hisself, had it been pointed out to him that clean air to breathe isn't necessarily an infinitely self-replenishing good, would agree. Yeah, so the Big Corps are even less reined-in in SouthEast Asia, in places like Hong Kong and Singapore. So what? That still doesn't make the atmosphere that Big Corps have been polluting the private property of those Big Corps, does it? It doesn't make the fact that some of them, forced to do so by new laws, are destrying less of it than they have so far, anything to go all Rah-rah about, does it? But that, a continual Rah-rah "Go Big Corps, Go!" is what most of your posts sound like. Is it that you really believe that, or do you just not know that that's what you sound like? Which is it? Not that I know for sure which would be worse, of course... Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #26,030 by bepatient 1/28/02 9:33:27 AM Reply	Welcome to the big time. The "they [=big corps] are the ones doing to most to improve the situation" bit -- it sounds almost as if you thought they're doing it all by themselves, outta the goodness o' their hearts. No, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They're responding to the demands placed upon them by their government. In that respect, GP has done alot of good. HOWEVER, GP continues to force their issues on the larger, western companies when what they need to do is attempt to influence the legal system in the countries that are NOT as restrictive as we (US,ECC) are. Big co's in the US now do NOT do the bare minimum that the law requires (by and large...there are exceptions). Most go well beyond what is required. Reason, unlimited liability. It has been shown (asbestos, arsenic, etc...) that what you did 50 years ago you can be forced to pay for now...even if the best information available at the time showed no ill effect from your actions. So while it has been legislation that instigated it, and GP and other environmental groups have done well to influence it...it has become the bottom line that drives it. Sure its not "goodness of heart"...but you knew that already. If it truly is the betterment of the global environment that GP is interested in...it will take information like was given above as affirmation that some improvements are being made...and focus their attention to places where they can really do some good as opposed to places where they can get the most press. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,128 by CRConrad 1/28/02 4:51:58 PM Reply	Oh yeah, no disagreement on that score. BeeP: HOWEVER, GP continues to force their issues on the larger, western companies when what they need to do is attempt to influence the legal system in the countries that are NOT as restrictive as we (US,ECC) are. Heck yeah, they're focussing way wrong nowadays, no disagreement there. 'T'was, as I said, just the "tone" of your post (that made it look as if you were saying what it now seems you didn't mean to say) I meant. Big co's in the US now do NOT do the bare minimum that the law requires (by and large...there are exceptions). Most go well beyond what is required. Reason, unlimited liability. It has been shown (asbestos, arsenic, etc...) that what you did 50 years ago you can be forced to pay for now...even if the best information available at the time showed no ill effect from your actions. And marketing; being "green" or "environmentally aware" helps sell stuff, at least in some industries... But then, Big Corps are doing what they're "forced to do by the market", and again not "out of the goodness of their heart". They are, as usual, just looking out for the Holy Bottom Line; if anyone is really "doing" anything, it would have to be the newly "aware" buying public. (And, in your example, the weird USAmerican legal system... :-) If it truly is the betterment of the global environment that GP is interested in...it will take information like was given above as affirmation that some improvements are being made...and focus their attention to places where they can really do some good as opposed to places where they can get the most press. But there, we start to touch upon these "anti-globalization" movements and shit... The next step, in order for the "Third World" to build up clean -- or at least somewhat less dirty -- industry, is that they have a market for the products of that industry. How the fuck are they supposed to be able to afford upgrading to less polluting factories if we in the rich countries erect mile-high tariff walls to keep anything they could produce out of our markets -- and thus also hinder the growth of a middle class in the poor countries that could possibly become a domestic market? So the torch of Protecting The Earth has passed, in some senses, from Greenpeace to those (partly misdirectedly-acting, but basically soundly-motivated) protestors mislabeled "anti-globalists", who AFAICS are just (or at least should be, if they're sensible) saying "Sure, 'globalization' OK, but NOT _J_U_S_T_ on the terms of Big Western Corps!". That's not really "ANTI"-globalization, is it? Just "DIFFERENT" globalization... (Then again, many of those young Western firebrands protesting against the WTO and the World Bank and whatnot, are probably also Greenpeace members, so perhaps the GP's aren't entirely out of touch with this.) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #26,134 by bepatient 1/28/02 5:06:42 PM Reply	They're an interesting bunch... ...those protestors. Talked to alot of them while they were here for the Rep National Convention. Wasn't hard since one of the streets they were blocking is the one my office is on. There were some truly commited to their cause...well informed...and indeed fun to chat with about issues... there were some who were championing other causes who felt that participating in these demonstrations would bring more attention to there own... and there were some who were getting a free weekender out of it and didn't seem to care one way or the other. There was alot of GreenPeace involvement...and I, too, think there are probably alot of GP membership cards in that group. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,358 by Brandioch 1/23/02 7:41:52 PM Reply	How about a correction, then? "It's unrealistic to say that everything is getting better." Would it be realistic to say that the total pollutants in the world is increasing? Getting better == fewer pollutants? In other words, it's unrealistic to say that all of me is getting younger.
Post #25,374 by wharris2 1/23/02 8:48:24 PM Reply	Facts, man, facts. Where are pollutants getting more? In my area, we have limp-wristed pay-the-state pollution automobile checks. Today is my birthday and I had to get an E-check to renew my driver's license. Any proof it works? Little. The system is run by people who can't get jobs at McDonald's (okay, maybe that's an exaggeration) and they're as competant to run a check on a car as I am. A coworker today told me that his particular E-check had been willingly fudged by the sub-McDonald's candidate who checked his car. As expected, located in a river valley with inversion layers every summer, we're going to get smog no matter how many vehicles they check. More vehicles, not a hell of a lot more smog than would come naturally. Stupid EPA regulations. I'd agree that the cloud-smoking monstrosities of business should be regulated. But pray do tell me where pollutants are more, and if you can, eliminate the influences by increased population (who will naturally lead to more measurable pollutants.) Parts per million per habitant, perhaps. I agree with the author: Do stuff that makes sense! Rather than stuff formulated by regulators whose only goal is to keep their job and maintain and increase their personal staff/fiefdom. The regulators at the EPA have had a long time to maximize their staff and (even if they don't know about fake hairs discovered in forests) do their jobs (eg, keep them and maximize their power) very well. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #25,469 by marlowe 1/24/02 12:15:13 PM Reply	What really steams me... is getting stuck behind a diesel powered bus in traffic. Public transportation at its worst. Can't they filter that particulate filth? Slap a big bong on the exhaust system. Use the residue to fill potholes or something. Even if I presume the best of emission controls, it's obvious to me that the real problem is diesel trucks and buses, and nobody's doing squat about them. I don't much miss leaded gasoline, though. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,495 by tonytib 1/24/02 1:21:29 PM Reply	diesel can be very low emission, but not in the US First off, Europe was way behind the US in getting rid of lead (a very good thing to get rid of) -- leaded gasoline is still common in Spain and Italy, for example. Diesel engines with very low emissions, good fuel economy, and decent performance can be made, at least for cars -- the TDI (turbocharged diesel engines with, IIRC, pretty fancy fuel injection) do all three and are quite popular in Europe, even in luxury cars (e.g. BMW, Audi, Saab). But the only company to sell TDI cars in the US? VW. The problem? US diesel fuel isn't high enough quality for TDI engines, and no one seems interested in increasing its quality. So I expect that it would be possible to improve truck diesel emissions, too -- and I suspect doing this would do a lot more for air cleanliness than the current expensive ideas beloved by certain groups (such as electric cars and more mass transit funding). Tony
Post #25,512 by jb4 1/24/02 1:52:02 PM 1/24/02 1:52:34 PM Reply	Re: diesel can be very low emission, but not in the US In the late 80's, a law was passed that would have diesel trucks be subject to emmission controls, just like cars, by the year 1995. Guess what happend to that law? Can you say "industry lobbyists"? I knew you could.... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...) Edited by jb4 Jan. 24, 2002, 01:52:34 PM EST Expand All History
Post #25,568 by Andrew Grygus 1/24/02 4:28:09 PM Reply	When Ronny became President . . . . one of his first acts was to cancel all research into diesel particulate (it was coming up with inconvenient results). California has recently reinstated requirements for reduction of diesel particulate. This will probably spread to other states, especially since so much trucking passes through California. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #25,614 by jb4 1/24/02 6:31:12 PM Reply	Thanks, Andrew Thought it was a Repo move, but couldn't remember (insert getting old epithet here), and couldn't prove it. I didn't want to get into a flame war with the Beepster w/o a sufficient amount of napalm. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,619 by bepatient 1/24/02 7:12:42 PM Reply	Nah, would've given you that one. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,677 by jb4 1/25/02 8:50:00 AM Reply	Thanks, buddy! Still, like to be informed when dealing with you. A matter of respect and all that... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,712 by bepatient 1/25/02 12:08:59 PM Reply	No prob... ...just try and remember I'm >right< (not as in correct) and not necessarily repo. And since I am quickly becoming the only one here with that tendency thats willing to poke around in the politics forum...I feel obligated to play the game...after all...its fun. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,637 by static 1/24/02 8:16:07 PM Reply	Public Transportation. What steams me about diesel busses is that so many of them replaces perfectly good working tram systems! There was a documentary some while ago about how the car makers tricked everyone into replacing trams and light-rail with busses. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #25,696 by wharris2 1/25/02 9:56:54 AM Reply	That's not quite what gets my goat What steams me about bus public transportation is how screwed up the bus routes are. If they actually went where I wanted to go on a reasonably direct heading, I might take the bus more often. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #25,783 by Ashton 1/25/02 6:14:26 PM Reply	Is this happening in Oz - today ?? Are you aware of the urban legend re General Motors' alleged plot to rip up all the small + large town RRs and fill em with GM buses? Subsequent PhD theses n'such suggest that 'conspiracy' is likely a small exaggeration. But bonus deals for local politicos + "progress" BS for relelection - was an adequate de facto 'conspiracy'. Now at massive expense (here) some light rail is coming back.. but the car obsession has become engrained in the DNA and 'logic' was never enough in any homo-sap decision. Fight the trend! Unless you want to look like US and soon.. begin to act like US too [???] The numbers (cost) are vastly on your side IF.. Ozfolk don't all lust for a UAV in every hovel - thus will refuse to use efficient, fast public transport (?) Ashton
Post #25,927 by static 1/27/02 12:48:43 AM Reply	Yes: said documentaary was US in origin and story. Don't know how true it was, really, but it looked likely. I really don't know why Sydney ditched its trams. I know their patronage had died since the years before the Depression, but Melbourne elected to keep theirs and spent a lot of money in the early '70s buying land and vastly upgrading the network. They're still expanding it today. Sydney, meanwhile has got one light-rail line, and I presume it's making money, but adding more are a bit of a logistical and political nightmare - unlike Melbourne, Sydney doesn't really have wide enough city streets. Wade. The media would tell us quicksmart if it wasn't - then too, most of it's run is on an otherwise disused goods line... "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!