----- Forwarded message from owner-nanfa_at_aquaria.net -----
From: "Bruce Stallsmith" <fundulus_at_hotmail.com>
To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
Subject: Re:NANFA-- pulling our heads out of the sand
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:03:56 -0400
I agree with you 100% on this line of analysis, Jeff. Coastal zones are
inherently unstable and prone to catastrophic events, so why should the
broader society subsidize beachfront development? Virginia Beach, VA, had
"beach augmentation" through pumping offshore sand onto the beaches in one
neighborhood (Sandbridge) that cost $7 million. If you look at local
(vacation) property owners, the list includes something like 4 VA state
senators, 6 state reps, and some from NC too. You need socialism for the
rich to pull off a stupid idea like this (the sand is pretty much gone 3
years later).
As to dealing with whatever level of global warming we face--many proposed
changes leading to emissions controls ultimately come from more efficient
engineering of equipment, and thus more efficient use of fuels leading to
lowered emissions. The Europeans and Japanese are way ahead of us in this
area, because they don't have the same access to cheap energy sources (esp.
the Japanese). So their industries are on the order of 25% more energy
efficient than U.S. industries and that's one reason that U.S. industry is
often opposed to these emission controls, because they don't want to be
compelled to retool. That's also a reason the U.S. steel industry was
screaming for tariffs recently, because they're hugely inefficient in energy
use.
How does this affect fish, many of you may be thinking if you read this far?
For one thing, less coal mining (or more efficient...) would lower mine
runoff and sedimentation into local streams which are direct killers of fish
in the Appalachians. And fewer emissions in the air leads to less acidic
depostion (acid rain) in regional streams.
This is a very big topic and, for better or worse, I'm sure we'll be back to
it in some form.
--Bruce Stallsmith
Huntsville, AL, US of A
>In Florida I understand that people who live inland are compelled by the
>state to pay higher insurance premiums to underwrite the risk of those
>who build on the coasts which are more vulnerable to being wiped out by
>hurricanes. Under a totally free market system this would not be. People
>who chose to build in these disaster prone, ecologically sensitive
>locations would be on their own and those who could not bear the cost on
>their own would throw in the towel and move on leaving nature to take
>its course.
----- End forwarded message -----
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org