CO2 Treaty Dead On Arrival

kanderse at impact.mv.com kanderse at impact.mv.com
Tue Jun 24 22:06:16 EST 1997


In article <059B7CB584DC098F.3997471FD86FC682.D74FF5F4ACA64837 at library-proxy.airnews.net>, Xscsr at airmail.net wrote:
>On 23 Jun 1997 05:07:55 GMT, jbuck at synopsys.com (Joe Buck) wrote:
>

Most facts can be slanted many ways.  I can usually find problems
in both sides of a debate.

>>Xscsr at airmail.net writes:
>>>*  The banning of asbestos helped kill the seven Challenger
>>>astronauts;
>>
>
>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?  
>

Asbestos banned?  I guess those brake pads I got from Toyota
were mislabelled.  They said "Beware brakepads contain aesbestos".
I also seriesly doubt any aesbestos ban would effect the Federal Goverment.
The Federal Goverment doesn't have to obey many of it's own laws.
I suspect the O-ring choice came done to which O-ring worked the
best.

When you get down to it, the acident was a management problem.
The shuttle was operated out of design parameters.
The accident has nothing to do with the asbestos ban.
It would have been easy for NASA to ignore the aesbestos ban.

>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.

Considering that 70% of the world doesn't even have electricity,
don't see how non CFC refrigerators would help.  Most people
in third world coutries don't even have electricity.  And providing
the electricity to these locations is a lot more expensive then
the refrigerator.  The bottom line is even a CFC refrigerator is
cheap.

>>>*  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.  

These facts sound nice, but we should still need to ask several questions.
The first question I can think of is how many trees die.  If the
deather rate is higher then 20%, then 5 for 4 is too little.
The second question I come up with is what is the average
tree size.  Farmed trees are rarely as big as old growth.
So if the average size of tree decrease, then the forest is
actually decreasing in size.  On side note, the farmed trees
can't produce standard construction
lumber like 2X10s and 2X12s.  Most 2X10s and 2X12s come
from old growth.  The last question I ask is where does all
the land come from.  Most paper companies have limited
land resources.  By recycling paper comapnies can produce
more paper off the same amount of land, and thus generate
more profit.

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

Your probably right to some degree.  It costs a lot more
to build paper plant today then 50 years.  Since all the
recycled paper plants are new, they are more expensive.
So the average cost of producing recycled might be
higher.  But when you factor in other savings like less
forest, and less land dump space, then recycled paper
is cheaper.

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

If we recycle then we can use the wood for other more
appeal things then newspaper.  It could be used for
a rocking chair, etc.

On a finally note about recycling, enviroment, etc.
The best thing to do is find envirmently sound ways that
are cheaper.

-Kurt





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list