China bans toxic American computer junk

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Jun 8 18:22:46 2002

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <carlos_murillo_at_epm.net.co>
To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk


> At 05:01 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >>
> >> His pop opposes the Basel convention, and he (Dubya) opposes the Kyoto
> treaty
> >
> >"As Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist points out,
> >under the most rigorous adherence to Kyoto, atmospheric temperature will
> >increase by 3.5 degrees Farenheit by 2100. Without Kyoto, we'll get the
same
> >temperature increase by 2094.
>
> This guy Lomborg (a statistician by training, not a world climate
> scientist) has largely been proved illiterate in the field of
> climate change physics and facetious too. Scientists (even those
> who do oppose the conclusions of the majority regarding climate change)
> do not take him seriously.
>
What folks want to ignore is that most environmental processes take place at a
rate proportional to the amount present. If you think back to your first year
of calculus, that means it's an exponential. What that suggests is that while
we have a 3.5 degree increase over the next century, we're probably looking at
40 degrees or so over the next, and even with moderation protocols in place,
it will take a couple of additional centuries, by which time all the guys
deciding not to do it right now will, of course, be dead, to get the process
reversed if it's even possible. If they can't, then perhaps we'll have an
environment like Venus' before the next millenium. Not even the cockroaches
will survive that.
>
> >Kyoto saves us 6 whole years, and at a staggering cost of $350 Billion
> >to $900 Billion per year. That's insanity. For a one time cost of just $200
> >Billion, developed nations could provide clean drinking water and
sanitation
> >for every human on earth, saving two million lives per year."
>
I thihk there's a little more involved than that ...
>
> > - as quoted from "The Week"
>
> Pretty bad for the credibility of "the week", I'm afraid.
>
> carlos.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo_at_nospammers.ieee.org
>
>
Received on Sat Jun 08 2002 - 18:22:46 BST