You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Nature_and_Environment.5

Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

The Environment and Politics

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.92}: Dave Campanas {sargedude} Mon, 10 May 2004 23:42:48 CDT (8 lines)

Define handleable. Are we talking bare hands here? Are we going to
make trinkets out of the stuff? There's a whole lot of chemicals
produced today that aren't safe to touch. Should we do away with all
of them?

Plutonium can be moved and manipulated safely. After all, it's what
nuclear bombs have been made of since the 40's. These bombs are
machined to very high tolerances and not by the nuke fairies.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.93}: Kai Hagen {kai} Tue, 11 May 2004 00:55:01 CDT (HTML)

As far as I can tell, the point is moot for economic reasons, anyway.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.94}: Richard Witty {gisland} Tue, 11 May 2004 06:18:41 CDT (20 lines)

"Define handleable. Are we talking bare hands here? Are we going to
make trinkets out of the stuff? There's a whole lot of chemicals
produced today that aren't safe to touch. Should we do away with all
of them?"

Your last question first. Yes, we should consider it on a case by
case basis. We should enact laws that require that any new
prospectively toxic material demonstrate and fund 100% recycling and
assimilation.

That would make the exercise a free market, rather than an imposition
of costs born by the majority for the economic benefit of the
toxifier.

"Handelable". I would say able to be touched by a living entity
without toxicity. Certainly those toxic must be sequestered from the
biosphere for that time period, MANAGED.

How many million years can you sign a management contract for? What
would it cost?

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.95}: Kai Hagen {kai} Mon, 24 May 2004 12:54:37 CDT (44 lines)

WRI Applauds Movement on Kyoto Protocol

From World Resources Institute
Friday, May 21, 2004

Contact:
Christopher Lagan, WRI media officer, (202) 729-7684
clagan@wri.org

WRI Applauds Movement on Kyoto Protocol

WASHINGTON, DC, MAY, 21, 2004 - The World Resources Institute applauds the
announcement in Moscow by Russian President Valdimir Putin that Russia would
"accelerate progress toward ratification" of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

"President Putin's announcement regarding the Protocol irreversibly changes the
agenda. WRI applauds the leaders of the European Union for stepping forward and
breaking the logjam with respect to Russian ratification. The developed world has
begun to come to terms with the inevitability of carbon reductions and is committed
to responding accordingly," said Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources
Institute. "The Protocol's entry into force provides a framework for addressing the
issue of global warming. Today's statement moves the world further down the path to
addressing this critical problem."

Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has been in the hands of Russia since the United
States pulled out of the Protocol in 2001. The matter must now go before the Russian
Duma for formal ratification. Should this take place, the Kyoto Protocol will have the
endorsement of developed nations representing 55 percent of global greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, which is a precursor for the Protocol officially entering into force.

The World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org/wri) is an environmental research
and policy organization that creates solutions to protect the Earth and improve
people's lives.



For more information, contact:

Christopher Lagan
Media Officer
World Resources Institute
10 G. St., NE
Washington, DC  20002
clagan@wri.org

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.96}: Dave Campanas {sargedude} Wed, 26 May 2004 15:24:30 CDT (2 lines)

OK, they're ratifying it, but given the political situation in Russia
at the moment, what are the chances of them actually adhering to it?

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.97}: Carla Shaw {shca75} Thu, 27 May 2004 19:16:43 CDT (22 lines)

Greenpeace London Notice (climate change meeting)

Day After Tomorrow, the Sticker Blitz

Greenpeace would like to get as many people out, on a low risk
activity, on the evening of Wednesday 2nd June.

Meet at Canonbury Villas at 6.30pm, for a campaign briefing and a
full legal briefing, and then out from 7pm till 9pm, before
congregating at a suitable pub.

If you have never done anything with Greenpeace before, then this is
another opportunity to get involved with Active supporters both old
and new. The activity is tied to the launch on the movie *The Day
after Tomorrow* and is a perfect opportunity to put climate change
firmly into the public*s consciousness.

Finally it would be helpful if you could let Richard know, if you are
able to come along to this event, by the 1st June.

Richard
Emptyhand17@hotmail.com

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.98}: David Burke {tualatin} Fri, 28 May 2004 03:30:00 CDT (20 lines)

>>what are the chances of them actually adhering to it?>>

I attended a seminar last week (before Putin's announcement) on
Russia and the aluminium industry, featuring several Russia experts,
including BBC Russian affairs analyst, Stephen Dalziel. Somebody
asked about Kyoto. Dalziel and the others who had an opinion were
pessimistic about Russia ever signing Kyoto. They implied Russia
will stall as long as it can, but pay lip service and even take
concrete steps to gain advantage, like WTO membership. That, of
course, is the deal here, EU support of Russia membership in WTO if
it ratifies Kyoto.

Dalziel said it had become a pattern for Moscow officials to play
good cop/bad cop on Kyoto. One says "nyet" to the treaty and another
comes back and says "maybe."

The panelists all emphasized the enormity of Russia and its
regional - and often renegade - political autonomies. That in mind,
the question about Russia ever adhering to Kyoto is a tough one to
answer.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.99}: Kai Hagen {kai} Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:18:19 CDT (HTML)

http://www.protectamericaslands.org/news_releases.asp?nrid=119

"The Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees recently released a report detailing how the Bush administration is cutting back on visitor hours and other services throughout America's popular system of national parks, seashores, recreation areas, and monuments. That means fewer interpretive programs, reduced maintenance and law enforcement. What about the President's promise for new park funds? The administration brags about pumping $3.9 million into park maintenance and infrastructure improvements, but what they don't tell you is that all but a fraction of that money is diverted from other programs. To make their shell game work, they essentially have to take bricks out of the foundation to build a new wall.

Bill Wade, superintendent of Shenandoah National Park in Virginia from 1988 to 1997, recently told the San Francisco Chronicle, "America's national parks are in a bad way - - and they are only getting worse."

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.100}: Yosemite & Sierra Club {bshmr} Sat, 03 Jul 2004 10:55:58 CDT (7 lines)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/03/national/03lodge.html?th

Sierra Club Lodge Focus of Yosemite Tug of War
By DEAN E. MURPHY
Centennial events at Le Conte Memorial Lodge are drawing renewed
attention to the struggle between the liberal Sierra Club and one of
its staunchest critics in Congress.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.101}: Kai Hagen {kai} Sun, 04 Jul 2004 12:00:34 CDT (HTML)

Thanks.

I hope the lodge survives this battle.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.102}: James River Martin {rivertree} Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:13:06 CDT (5 lines)

    The other guy is twice as scary,
    So plug your nose and vote for Kerry!

           ~ The Clothes Pin Brigade
              {Currents.1844.1-}

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.103}: Kai Hagen {kai} Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:29:24 CDT (1 line)

Much more than twice.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.104}: India Bottling Judgement {bshmr} Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:15:20 CST (52 lines)

[ Concludes with an Indian judge ordering the close of local
USA-branded soda bottling plants. Hopefully, sufficient information is
provided for each to find a free resource. Pollution, corruption of
all sorts, and devastation. ]

Le Monde diplomatique, March 2005

THE WATER DOSSIER

India: soft drinks, hard cases by Vandana Shiva

THE Indian government forced Coca-Cola out of the country in 1977. The
company's return, in October 1993, coincided with the arrival of its
arch-rival Pepsi. The United States multinationals now own 90
factories in India: Coca-Cola 52 and Pepsi 38. They describe these as
bottling plants; actually they are pumping stations, each of which
extracts up to 1.5m litres of water a day from the ground. It takes
nine litres of clean water to manufacture a litre of Coke.

...

The struggle against the theft of water is not limited to India.
Overexploitation of groundwater and major river diversion projects
represent a significant threat to the world as a whole. Nature does
not distribute water uniformly. If every part of the globe received
equal rainfall, with the same frequency and pattern, the same
vegetation would spring up everywhere, supporting the same animal
species. Our world is built upon diversity; its hydrological cycle is
a democratic system for the distribution of water to all living
species. Without democratic access to water, there can be no
democracy. ________________________________________________________

(1) Adivasi denotes indigenous tribes, outside the caste system.

(2) Virender Kumar, open letter to the chief minister, Mathrubhumi,
Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala),10 March 2003.

(3) Studies showed that the beverages contained pesticides. The
government commission concluded that these residues fell within the
normal limits permitted in India. Coca-Cola consumed in the US
contains no trace of pesticides.

(4) See Arundhati Roy, The Cost of Living, Modern Library, New York, 1999.

(5) Water treatment has been entrusted to Degremont, a subsidiary of
France's Suez group. In recent years, the price of water in Delhi has
risen 10-fold.

Translated by Donald Hounam

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2005 Le Monde diplomatique
<http://MondeDiplo.com/2005/03/14india>

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.105}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:41:05 CDT (HTML)

From an Indian forum discussing this issue, a sensible post IMO:

"Re:Coca cola draining water allegation a lie !! Reply.. Now you acknolwedge that Plachimada is facing water shortage. Let us agree for argument sake, that Coca Cola is not the reason for this situation. Okay. Granted that rain fall in the area had been poor over the last several years and that is the reason for the ground water depletion. Now what do you do when confronted with a situation of scarcity? Sensible people will curtail usage to make the available resources last longer till the next rainy season comes. Why are we then allowing a water-intensive industry to function in a water scarce area? By your own argument, Coca cola has no right to function in a water-scarce area. Govt. should ask them to shift to coastal area to enable use of desalinated water for their production. Posted by Savya Sachi on 16-Mar-2005 11:56:25 AM" "http://www.asianetglobal.com:8080/asianet/2004/discuss/details.jsp?topicid=56&mods=0&end=38&pageno=1"

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.106}: Glen McBeth {glenbob123} Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:19:07 CDT (8 lines)

Industry naturally locates in areas where industrial inputs such as
raw materials and labor are inexpensive.

I would think that if there is a water shortage in that region, the
water will be more expensive that it is in other regions, and that
eventually, Coke will move anyway.

Is the region amenable to piping water in from elswhere?

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.107}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:11:31 CDT (6 lines)

Hi, Glen --- yours is the textbook answer with that weasel caveat that
you forgot to include 'in an ideal world' --- stuff rarely works that
way. Regardless of any shortage, the only consideration is cost of
production --- if in the short term Coke can amortize their costs then
it doesn't matter what they are doing in the long term ---  and short
term can be purchased --- do you really believe that is moral?

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.108}: Glen McBeth {glenbob123} Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:21:40 CDT (17 lines)

It is absolutely moral.

I disagree that "stuff rarely works that way".

It almost always works that way-  That is, they (producers) actually
almost always put production facilities where the cost of inputs are
lowest.

To me, Coke appears to be the whipping boy here because they are
American and because they are the rich guys on the block.

Compare the industry to any other industry, as far as water use is
concerned-  I don't think they look that bad.

How much water (after cleaning etc.) is used by the local pottery
factory to make a pound of pottery, or a restraunt to produce a
pound of food, etc?

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.109}: Lisa Taylor {twosox} Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:00:43 CDT (10 lines)

coca cola should be the  whipping boy . I hate these guys- they sell
plastic bottled water which may or may not be superior to tap water,
creating plastic everywhere not to mention the cans of coke which
are in every ditch in every city in every country. people swilling
sugar and caffeine water and paying for it all over the world. and
we wonder why there's an epidemic of obesity and diabetes????!!
or in the case of the diet coke with aspartame, what's that doing to
people's brains?
I am truly amazed that at last our BC government has  put a BAN on
these pop products and other crap from our schools.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.110}: Glen McBeth {glenbob123} Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:29:56 CDT (3 lines)

They just sell what people want. Those damn consumers should be
drinking something more eco-friendly, and ought not throw trash out.
Blame the people.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.111}: Tom Elliot {telliot} Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:45:46 CDT (HTML)

So do drug dealers Glen, so that rationale is not enough.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.112}: Anita Keese {anodekraft} Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:55:51 CDT (2 lines)

When I think of all the soda commercials I have seen in my
lifetime.....

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.113}: Glen McBeth {glenbob123} Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:50:42 CDT (2 lines)

Actually, I have nothing against drug dealers either.  I blame the
addict for their addiction, not the drug dealer.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.114}: Tom Elliot {telliot} Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:51:06 CDT (HTML)

Drug dealers don't get to advertise in the same sense that Coke does. The old "sell what people want" canard has never been a valid excuse for me because it ignores the billions spent on marketing to get people to "want" something.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.115}: Suzanne Griffith {sggriffith} Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:53:44 CDT (3 lines)

It's not a simple case of blame and responsibility. They deliver, we
suck it up. We're all part of the same relationship. We all need to
back off, ease up, slow down.

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.5.116}: Dave Hossler {daveinchi} Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:32:29 CDT (6 lines)

Damn straight.

We are all willing participants at whatever we choose to be - at least
- if we've got any brains in our heads at all.  They spend money to
sell it.  We spend money to buy it.  Maybe someday we just need to
eliminate the monetary system altogether.

--------

Forum
Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy