Hem&Eng.News June 9, 1997
John Browne a British Petroleum  egyik nagyfonoke cegenek gyokeres
politikavaltoztatasat harangozta be a kovetkezo szavakkal:
"A vilag vezeto tudosai kozott lenyegileg egyetertes van abban, hogy az
emberiseg eszlelhetoen befolyasolja a foldi klimat. Meg ha igen nagy is a
bizonytalansag az ok es a hatas korul, meginkabb a kovetkezmenyeket
illetoen, nem lenne bolcs dolog, sot alkalmilag veszelyes is lehet a
szaporodo aggalyok figyelmen kivul hagyasa. Az eghajlatvaltozas politikai
kihatasait nem akkor kell vizsgalni, amikor az uveghaz-gazok es a
klimavaltozas kozotti kapcsolat mar egyertelmuen bebizonyosodott, hanem
akkor, amikor ennek a lehetosege mar nem elhanyagolhato"
Nagyon, nagyon kimertek a gondolatok, az en forditasomban raadasul meg
nehezkesek is. Megis nagyon tanulsagos szavak ezek, igy beszel a penz
manapsag. (a BP a vilag negyedik legnagyobb olajcege, 62 milliard dollaros
evi forgalommal)

Hat teruleten jelezte a cege "elkotelezettseget". Ezek a kovetkezo ot: A BP
        tervezi,  hogy a napenergiakutatasba/iparba tobbet fektetnek.
Jelenleg evi 100 millios a forgalmuk szilicium-napelemekbol es vekonyreteg
technologiabol  parologtatott napelem) A kovetkezo tiz evben ezt meg
kivanjak tizszerezni. 
        a maga haza tajan soporve "kemenyen fog dolgozni azon, hogy a sajat
telepein belul csokkentse az emissziot"
        Boliviaval egyuttmukodve beszall 5 millio acre (valami huszezer
negyzetkilometer) esoerdo "megmentesebe"
        egyuttmukodik az US Energy Department...satobbi. Hasonlo program
kereteben tobb mas ceggel egyetemben egyuttmukodik a World Resources
Institute-tal, hogy tanulmanyozza azokat a lehetosegeket, amelyek a CO2
szint stabilizalasahoz vezethetnek
         az Environmental Defense Fund-dal valo egyuttmukodes kereten belul
a BP be kivanja mutani, hogy a CO2 emisszios jogok adasvetele mukodokepes
szisztema.

Kommentar: mielott meg egymas nyakaba borulnank a meghatodottsagtol,
javaslom mindenkinek, olvassa el megegyszer az egeszet. Komoly
erofeszitesembe kerult megerteni, mit is akar a BP. Lenyegeben folytatni az
uzletet ugy, hogy kozben bologat, igen, ez komoly kerdes amit itt az urak
emlegetnek. Mert a tetore ragaszthato napelem-folia forgalmanak
egymilliardra valo feltornaszasa bizony finom zsiros falat, nem kell ahhoz
elvakultan emberbaratnak lenni, hogy barmelyik ceg ahitozzon ilyesmi utan.
Es mielott barki tul magasra gondol: az ilymodon a haztartasokban termelt
energia az ossz igeny 10%-a. Az sem egy vilagraszolo humanus eszme, hogy a
ceg a sajat vesztesegeit csokkenti olymodon, hogy ugyel arra, kevesebb
foldgaz, propan-pentan szokjon a levegobe. A tobbi "celkituzest" inkabb hagyom.
Es ezt az egeszet azert kuldom be a KORNYESZhez, mert iskolapeldanak tartom.
Azt se hidd el, amit kerdez! Es megis, en csak ugatok, a karavan meg halad
tovabb...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
A masik a Scientific American uj szamabol (Julius, 1997)  Vaclav Smil:
Global Population and the Nitrogen Cycle
A tenyeket nemileg tendenciozusan csoportositva a szerzo eros korrelaciot
fedez fel az ebben az evszazadban elert durvan negyszeres nepessegszaporulat
es a nitrogenmutragyak elterjedese kozott. (ha nem oknak, hanem feltetelnek
tekintjuk, igaza is van)
Globalis atlagokrol van szo: "Mutragyakbol szarmazik a haszonnovenyek altal
felvett nitrogen mintegy 40%-a. Ezek a haszonnovenyek akar noveny, akar
kozvetve, haziallat formajaban az emberek altal fogyasztott nitrogen 75%-at
adjak. (a maradek 25% forrasa hal es legeltetett allat).  0.4*0.75 egyenlo
30% , a fogyasztott nitrogenunk harmadresze mutragya."
  Ez bizony azt jelenti, hogy amig ennyien vagyunk, lo"ttek a
biokerteszkedesnek, novekedni fog az eutrofizalodo vizeink szama es egyre
tobb kisbabanak kell zacskos vizet fogyasztani, hogy ne ke'ku:ljo:n a feje.
Mindenesetre amig nem tisztazzuk, hogy en a szazadban elert negyszeres
letszamnovekedes eredmenye vagyok-e vagy torzstag, es mutragya nelkul is
meglennek, nem szivesen foglalnek allast a kerdesben, aldas-e a mutragya
vagy atok?
Az nagyon szepen latszik a peldan, hogy az emberiseg fuggo rabjava valik egy
nem tul baratsagos vegyszernek.

A cikk egy nagyon szines ismeretterjeszto iras. Meglepve olvastam, hogy
Norvegia 1903-ban mutragya celjara mar gyartott ammoniat, nitrogen es
hidrogen elegyet elektromos iven keresztul vezettek at.  Szinten szines
erdekesseg, (es nagyon jellemzoen emberi, hogy a fene egye meg) hogy a mai
ammoniaszintezisre az igenyt nem a nepesseg szaporitasanak nemes (?) igenye
vezerelte, hanem eppen az ellenkezoje. Nemetorszag az elso vilaghaboruban
nem kapott Chilebol saletromot, amibol mindenfele robbanoszert lehetett
kesziteni. Helyette ammonia katalitikus egetesevel keszitett saletromsavat,
erre kellett az ammonia, 1913-ban evi hatvanezer tonna kapacitassal mar
onellato is lett.

Jo szorakozast hozza!
Laszlo Barna

Magyarorszagon nem csak Dorogon van korszeru, nagy kapacitasu
veszelyeshulladek-egeto, csak a tobbi helyen megfelelo PR-munkaval
elertek, hogy ne verjen fel olyan nagy hullamokat az epites. Ugy-
hogy a garei szemetet 3-4 ev alatt a meglevo egetomuvekben egesz
jol el lehetne tuntetni (az egetes mellektermeke a sosav, ipari
alapanyag). A szallitas iszonyatos koltsegeirol eddig csak azok
nyilatkoztak, akiknek erdekuk a garei egetomu felepitese... /Laci

az alabbi allas, ugyhogy gondoltam, bekuldom.

Amugy semmi kozom a dologhoz azon kivul, hogy dolgoztam egy ideig
Venezuelaban, tehat az allarol semmit sem tudok. Ha valaki az orszagrol
szeretne valamit tudni, abban talan tudok segiteni.


Environmental Expert

From: Rowica - Venezuela 
Date: 18 Jun 1997
Time: 04:36:11
Remote Name: plc-sli27.t-net.net.ve

Comments

We are looking for an environmental engineer to manage our environmental
fluids and solids cleanup division. This candidate
must have extensive experience in the treatment of liquids and solids
discharged from drilling rigs and extensive laboratory
experience. Please send a complete resume with experience and references to
.

CUT OFF FROM GLOBAL MARKETS, CUBA INVENTS A NEW AGRICULTURE

It's hard to believe anything we hear about Cuba.  Some people, especially
those in official positions, want us to believe that Cuba does no right, others
that it does no wrong.  I'm hearing fascinating stories from folks who have
visited there, folks who are biased too in various ways -- who isn't?  If even
half of what they say is true, amazing things are happening in Cuba.

This much is certain: the fall of the Soviet Union was a terrible blow for
Cuba.  In 1990 Cuba had the highest average life expectancy in Latin America,
the lowest infant mortality rate, the highest percent of teachers and doctors,
the third highest literacy rate, and the second highest grain yields and
calorie intake per person.  No Cuban went hungry.  But these impressive results
were achieved through a dreadful dependency.

In exchange for tropical produce, mainly sugar, the Soviet Union provided oil,
tractors, fertilizer, pesticides, animal feed, and more than half the food
consumed by the Cuban population.  Cuban farms were owned by the government and
worked as large-scale, chemical-intensive monocultures.  Sixty percent of the
cropland was in sugar, which provided 75 percent of the country's export
earnings.

In 1990, when trade with the socialist bloc collapsed, trade with most
capitalist countries was still embargoed.  Suddenly Cuba lost half its food
supply and most of the fuel, fertilizer, feed, and pesticides it used to
produce the other half.

The situation was desperate, but food distribution was kept fairly equal
through rationing.  There were almost no eggs, cooking oil, bread, meat, or
milk, but people could live on rice, beans, fish, plantains, taro, potatoes and
cassava.  Everyone felt deprived, but there were few signs of malnutrition.

Cuba has only two percent of Latin America's population but eleven percent of
its scientists.  Already before the crisis, some scientists had been working on
natural ways to control pests and build soil nutrients.  Their methods were not
in wide use in Cuban fields, but they had been tested in Cuban research
centers. 

There was also an existing pest monitoring system.  All over Cuba local
research stations planted test crops and checked them for pests, diseases, and
resistance to pesticides.  Weather measurements were taken to predict pest
outbreaks.  At any sign of trouble, farmers were warned.

In the old days the farmers responded to warnings with pesticides.  Now, I am
told, they respond with bugs.  If the sugarcane borer shows up, they release
swarms of a fly called Lixophaga that parasitizes the borer.  To control
destructive caterpillars, they release Trichogramma, a tiny wasp that feeds on
caterpillar eggs.  Farmers also have at hand an array of bacteria, fungi, and
viruses that infect insects --such as Beauvaria bassiana, which kills banana
weevil.

These biological weapons are produced at 218 centers located at coops and state
farms.  The centers are small, high-tech factories, which breed natural enemies
of crop pests.  Workers there are educated sons and daughters of local farmers.

Cuba's scientists are discovering new biocontrols.  They are isolating
nematodes that kill harmful bugs and soil microbes that counteract plant
diseases.  They learned from farmers how to use a predatory ant to control
sweet potato weevil.  They are multiplying virus-free seedlings through tissue
culture and testing crop rotations to control weeds.  Local farmers told them
that when weeds get out of hand, plant sweet potato, which grows so densely it
shades out everything else.

This cooperative effort between researchers and farmers is building an
increasingly effective natural pest control system.  But pests are not the only
problem in Cuban agriculture.

The old, heavy Soviet tractors can't run without petroleum.  So the Cubans are
breeding oxen and inventing ingenious farm implements for them to pull.

The oxen provide manure for the soil.  Plowed-under legumes are also used to
build up soil nutrients, along with composted municipal garbage and humus from
industrial-scale earthworm farms.  Cuban scientists have discovered free-living
bacteria that fix nitrogen or release phosphorus into the soil -- living
fertilizer factories. 

The new farming techniques require more labor than the old machine-intensive
ways.  That's a problem in highly urbanized Cuba.  However, the oil shortage is
causing unemployment in cities, so the government is encouraging people to move
back to the land.  All new housing construction is taking place in rural areas.
 
Young folks are both honored and paid for working on farms for stints ranging
from two weeks to two years.

Community gardens are appearing on vacant urban land.  Within Havana there are
said to be 5,000 gardens producing 45,000 tons of vegetables a year.  Farmers'
markets, once forbidden, are now thriving.  State farms are being broken up and
given to rural coops (though most of the land is still in sugar for export).

Numerous sources are saying that times are still hard, but improving.  Food
output has risen, but it hasn't doubled, so the diet isn't as rich as it once
was.  Without chemicals there is less sickness among agricultural workers.  The
soil is getting better, but after decades of chemical fertilizers, it has a
long way to go before its humus and self-sustaining microbes are restored. 

If you have a negative bias toward Cuba, you could say that it still has a
precarious food supply.  If you have a positive bias, you could say that Cuba,
suddenly deprived of half its food and most of its agricultural inputs, has not
only maintained but increased its food supply in a way that creates jobs and
improves the environment.

Of course that conclusion would challenge two biases -- one that Cuba can do
nothing right and the other that chemicals are needed to grow food.

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

THE REAL COSTS OF GROWTH IN OREGON

The myth persists.  Growth is good for us.  Development will bring in more tax
money.  The only way to get our property taxes down is to bring more people and
houses and businesses to town.

If you're one of the many who still believe this, look around at cities and
towns more populous or more rapidly growing than yours.  Are their taxes lower?

Around here they're not.

If your own community has been growing, have your taxes gone down?

Mine haven't.

So how big do we have to get to reach that magical, mystical place where growth
will finally start lowering taxes?  Or maybe it would be better to ask: how
much more evidence do we need before we stop believing that myth?

If evidence will do the trick, there's plenty of it in a March 1997 article in
the journal Population and Environment.  The author, Eben Fodor, a planner from
Eugene, Oregon, performs two useful services.  First he summarizes previous
studies of the relationship between growth and taxes.  Second, he does his own
calculation of how much a typical new house costs a typical community in
Oregon.

Studies over 25 years from all parts of the nation are unanimous.  Growth
raises taxes.  A 1991 survey of towns in DuPage County, Illinois, showed a
clear relationship between new development and rising property taxes.
Amazingly, commercial development was even more expensive to the towns, and
thus the taxpayers, than residential development.  (More than three times as
expensive!).

Another study in Springfield, Oregon, showed that after a decade of rapid
growth, the city budget had quadrupled, bond indebtedness had quadrupled, and
city spending PER PERSON had tripled!

Many of these studies demonstrate another point -- sprawl costs more than
clustering.  As settlement density thins out from 30 houses per acre on one end
of the scale to four acres per house on the other end, the cost per house of
providing and maintaining roads, sewer, water, storm drains, and schools zooms
upward.  (It's not clear to me why school costs go up with decreasing density,
unless more widely spaced houses tend to be bigger houses with more children.)

Fodor's own study shows why growth raises taxes.  He assumes a development of
three-bedroom single-family houses on 6,000-square-foot lots -- a density of
six houses per acre.  He assumes that the houses must be supplied with
municipal water and sewage treatment and that every three houses bring two kids
into the public school system.

Then he calculates what the town has to provide in CAPITAL costs to serve that
development.  That doesn't mean schoolteachers' salaries or gas for the road
grader or paint for the fire station -- those are operational costs.  Fodor
includes only the costs of building schools and roads and buying fire engines
and graders.

He comes out with $24,500 per house.  More than $11,000 of that comes from the
need for more school facilities.  Another $5,000 comes from the sewer system,
$4,000 from roads, $2,000 from water supply, and the rest from parks and
recreation facilities, storm water drainage systems, and fire protection.

Because of these costs, many towns are getting smart enough to charge "impact
fees," one-time levies on new developments, so existing residents don't end up
subsidizing newcomers.  The trouble is, developers hate impact fees and apply
such steady political pressure against them that they are usually way too low.
Fodor says that in Oregon they range from $1,000 to $6,500 per new house.  That
means, on average, every new house effectively costs the taxpayers in town
something like $20,000.

That's probably a conservative number.  Fodor assumes in his calculation that
the added property taxes from the new development cover its ongoing operational
costs -- which may or may not be true.  And he does not include any capital
expansions for police facilities, libraries, town administration, or garbage
collection.

Nor, as he admits, did he try to calculate the imponderable but very real costs
to everyone in the community of decreased air and water quality, lost wildlife
habitat, lost beauty, or more traffic, noise, or crime.

Is it any wonder that the more we grow, the more property taxes keep rising?
And quality of community life keeps falling?

The wonder is that after years and years of watching the consequences of growth
in our own towns and every town around us, we still swallow the idea that if we
just keep this Ponzi scheme going a little longer, somehow it will start
working in our favor.

 (Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)