CO2 Treaty Dead On Arrival

Steve Conover, Sr. scsr at airmail.net
Mon Jun 23 23:58:29 EST 1997


On 23 Jun 1997 05:07:55 GMT, jbuck at synopsys.com (Joe Buck) wrote:

>Xscsr at airmail.net writes:
>>*  The banning of asbestos helped kill the seven Challenger
>>astronauts;
>
>Nonsense.  No amount of asbestos would have saved them from the engine
>explosion caused by the O-ring failure.  Where did you get this lie from?

The pre-ban O-ring sealant was asbestos-based.  When asbestos was
regulated out of existence, the O-ring sealant which replaced it
failed at the low temperature at which the shuttle was launched.

The asbestos-banners failed to think of all the externalities.
No surprise, though.

References: Michael J. Bennett, 1991: _The Asbestos Racket_; and 
Malcolm Ross, 1992: "Minerals and Health: The Asbestos Problem"
in Lehr, _Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns_, 
pp. 101-14.

Now, would you please explain why you think it is a "lie" that
the pre-ban O-ring sealant was asbestos-based?  Or maybe you have
some evidence that the replacement O-ring sealant was NOT a
factor in the explosion?  

Point out where the "lie" is.  And cite your sources, please. 

>
>>*  The banning of CFC's is killing third-worlders as we speak, in
>>spite of the fact that nobody seems interested in reporting it;
>
>Another lie, since even if a ban would kill "third-worlders", CFCs have
>not been banned yet, they are merely being phased out.  Please explain why
>you think this.

A CFC ban, or phase-out, or whatever euphemism you choose to
apply, makes refrigeration more expensive and less reliable.
Refrigeration preserves food.  Poor societies can't afford as
much refrigeration if CFC's are illegal, and can't afford to
maintain the less-reliable units more frequently.  So they won't
be preserving as much food as they would have been without the
ban, because they will be less able to afford it.  Less fresh
food means either more rotten food, or more periods without any
food.  Guess what that leads to.  

Point out where the "lie" is.

>
>>*  Recycling of newspapers, instead of burning or burying them,
>>reduces the number of trees that will be on the planet for future
>>generations to enjoy.
>
>Where do you this bizarre idea?  What a brain-dead notion. 
>

Newsprint manufacturers plant a (bare minimum) of five trees for
every four they cut down.  That, BTW, is one of the main reasons
the total forested area on the planet, in the USA, and in Europe,
has been increasing steadily for at least fifty years.  

If people want to consume sweet corn, farmers will produce enough
of it to satisfy projected demand; if people want to consume mink
coats, farmers will produce enough minks to satisfy projected
demand; and if people want to consume newsprint, farmers will
produce enough of it to satisfy projected demand.  

But if people are prevented by law from consuming sweet corn,
mink coats, or non-recycled newsprint, the planet will end up
with less of these things, not more.  Farmers won't be growing
them any more.  

And fewer poor people will be able to afford a newspaper
(...because recycled newsprint costs more to produce).

Moral: if you want more trees for your grandchildren to enjoy,
burn or bury your newspapers.

Point out the brain-dead portion of this logic.  


>>Banning things requires political power, and that's what the
>>leaders of the environmental movement are after.
>
>Only some of the more moderate environmentalists are after political
>power: they are the ones that are willing to settle for half-measures just
>so they have a seat at the table and can hob-nob with Al Gore and the like
>(e.g. they are willing to sell out).  The committed environmentalists do
>it for love, because they believe in it.

Yes, I know; it seems to be a religion, and I certainly have
nothing against freedom of religion.  I'd simply like to get them
to stop calling it "science," because that is NOT what they are
practicing. 

>
>This is called "projection".  It is the anti-environmentalists who are
>in in for a narrow, short-term self-interest; because of their short-
>sightedness they often act against their own long-term interest.
>

Please define "anti-environmentalist."  I presume an
"anti-environmentalist" wouldn't mind leaving a planet with fewer
trees on it to her grandkids.  (Or maybe that's an
understatement; maybe she would PREFER to burn the surface of the
planet to a crisp, and let her grandkids fend for themselves.)  

In either case, I'm with you.  Do you have any
anti-anti-environmentalist bumper stickers for me?

>>They are
>>politicians, not scientists, but it is more politically expedient
>>to call it science instead of politics.  
>
>You spew forth a bunch of "facts" that are just total crap, 

No, I said nothing about water pollution (defined as human feces
and dead animal carcasses floating in the local water supply);
mainly because the human race has done a wonderful job of
cleaning up its water supplies in recent decades.    

>and you then
>have the nerve to question the science on the other side?
>

No, I have evidence to support my assertion that the "other" side
is spewing forth politics and falsely calling it science --
which, BTW, is demagoguery.  

But that doesn't affect you and me, because we are both
anti-anti-environmentalists.  Glad we're on the same side.

--Steve



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list