||Hagai per (mind)
|| 20 sor
||KETOLDALAS NYOMTATAS (mind)
|| 9 sor
||2 oldalas nyomtato (mind)
|| 6 sor
|| 18 sor
||Ketoldalasan nyomtato printer (mind)
|| 16 sor
||FW: Arrow, Solow and Nordhaus on GW!!! (mind)
|| 36 sor
||tudtok segiteni? (mind)
|| 39 sor
|| 100 sor
|| 95 sor
||>De sajnos, az altalad istenitett civilizacio kizokkent (mind)
|| 17 sor
|+ - ||Hagai per (mind)
Kedves Szalon Olvasok!
Mar nagyon rege olvastam a KORNYESZt. Egeszsegem nagy reszben
akadalyozott es egyre tobb technikai nehezseggel is kuzdok mivel a
felszerelesem es hozzaertesem egyre jobban elmarad az itteni szolgaltatok
De nem azert irok, hogy panaszkodjak, hanem azert mert azt a hirt
hallottam, hogy a nagymarosi ugy rovidesen a birosag ele fog kerulni es a
birok szemelyesen is meglatogatjak majd Szigetkozt, hogy sajat
tapasztalatukbol is okosodhassanak.
Na mar most engem nagyon erdekelne, hogy hogyan is lessz ez? Milyen
tapasztalatok varjak az urakat? Mennyire fogja oket befolyasolni az amit
ott latnak es amit ott mondanak nekik majd. Ki fog tudni ertekezni veluk,
vagy egyaltalan tudtukra adni valamit? Es ki mit gondol azzal
kapcsolatban, hogy mit kene tudtukra adni es hogyan?
Minden valaszt elore is koszonok,
Laborfalvi Benke Tibor
|+ - ||KETOLDALAS NYOMTATAS (mind)
Kedves Yoghurt, Max es mindenki.
Megnyugtatasotokra kozlom, hogy itt a juelichi intezetben
ketoldalasan nyomtat minden nyomtato automatikusan
(nagyok) ha Te maskent nem akarod.
|+ - ||2 oldalas nyomtato (mind)
T. Kornyesz, MaXX,yogHURT!
Ha nem tudnatok van tenylegesen ketoldalason nyomtato nyomtato. Csak kicsit
dragabb. Nemtom mennyi, de a cegemnek van. Aki ugy gondolja, vegye.
Uff en szoltam
|+ - ||Hatasvizsgalat (mind)
A majdhogynem masfel evvel ezelott eletbe lepett 1995 evi LIII torveny,
amely a kornyezet vedelmenek altalanos szabalyairol szol, imigyen
rendelkezik a 74 par. 2 bek. a pontjaban:
"A felugyeloseg felulvizsgalatot rendel el, ha az erdekelt kornyezetvedelmi
engedelyhez kotott tevekenyseget ilyen engedely nelkul kezdett meg vagy
Ez azt jelenti, hogy eltekintve bizonyos buntetesektol, Mo.n siman el lehet
kezdeni termelgetni KHVhoz kotott engedely nelkul, majd lesz vmi. Legfeljebb
vmi firkasz felulvizsgalatra kotelez?...
Van koztunk vki, aki KHV szakertonek ismeri magat?
|+ - ||Ketoldalasan nyomtato printer (mind)
> > Szamomra erthetetlen az is, vajon a nyomtatok miert nem rendelkeznek
> > azzal a "feature"-rel, hogy ketoldalasan tudjanak nyomtatni...
Meg kell, hogy nyugtassak minden aggodot: van ilyen nyomtato. A ceg
megerdemli a nevenek leirasat: HP. A Carnegie Mellon-on legalabb egy
ilyen nyomtatorol tudok, mindenki szamara hozzaferheto (un. public
Minden jot mindenkinek,
Green Design Initiative
Carnegie Mellon University
|+ - ||FW: Arrow, Solow and Nordhaus on GW!!! (mind)
From: Jay Hanson mailto:[SMTP:]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 1997 11:36 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list RESECON
Subject: Arrow, Solow and Nordhaus on GW!!!
ENN Daily News -- Feb. 14, 1997
ECONOMISTS SAY CLIMATE CHANGE MUST BE HALTED
More than 2,000 economists said in a statement issued in
Washington, D.C., Thursday that the United States would be able to
reduce its industrial emissions to slow global climate change without
damaging its economy.
The statement, written by five leading economists and signed by
some 2,000, said well-designed policies relying on market mechanisms
"may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run."
Industries that depend largely on fossil fuels such as oil and
coal have argued that the threat of climate change from heat-trapping
industrial emissions is overblown, and countries should wait for more
scientific proof of global warming before they implement policies to
But the economists, who held a news briefing to release the
statement, said climate change "carries with it significant
environmental, economic, social and geopolitical risk," and that
"preventive steps are justified."
They endorsed a system of "market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes
or trading of marketable emissions permits among countries."
Revenues from carbon taxes or emissions credits could be used to
reduce budget deficits or lower existing taxes to benefit the economy,
said the statement drafted by Nobel Prize winners Kenneth Arrow and
Robert Solow, as well as Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, Paul
Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William
Nordhaus of Yale University.
It said many policy options are available that would slow climate
change "without harming employment or U.S. living standards, and that
these may be economically beneficial in the long run." Source: Reuters
|+ - ||tudtok segiteni? (mind)
Azert rendeltem meg ezt a kornyeszt, hogy talan egyszeruen valaszt
kapok a kerdesemre ;
a vilagmindenseg meg minden?
Jo , csak vicceltem , erre mar tudom a valaszt: 42
Komolyra: ugy gondoltam pici pottty vagyok en, de rajtam ne muljek!
Ezutan legalabb azt a minimumot megteszem ami igazan nem kerul
semmibe (nem sokkal tobbe) hogy lehetosegeimhez kepest, nem artok
Foldunknek, ennek az imadni valo es roppant sajnalatra melto bolygonknak.
Szeretnm ha valahonnan hozza lehetne jutni egy olyan informacio
csokorhoz, ami tartalmazza mindazoknak a termekeknek a listajat amik
kornyezetkimelok, pl. hogy spray helyett desodor,
ilyen mosopor helyett olyan na pl. ugy hallottam az (most
fonetikus leszek mert nemtom hogy irjak) emvej cikkek jok ilyen
szempontbol? Mar biztos ertitek mire gondolok, ugy mindent szeretnek
tudni, olyat, hogy gyufat inkabb vagy ongyujtot, szoval ugy a hetkoznapi
eltben az egesz aprosagoktol kezdve, odaig hogy csak a metroig
autozom meg ilyenek.
Mert bar az elhatarozas mar megvan, ez az osszegyujtogetes , csipegetes
tul lassu es nehez nekem. Ennyi idom es energiam erre nincs, de foleg
lassu es nem szobeszedelni akarok errol millio emberrel, hanem egyszeruen
elni a szellemeben.
Hat ha valaki tud ebben segiteni, tanacsot adni akkor
ha a privat cimemre irna azt elore is kozeptajt is
megkoszonnem. Azert a privatra mert ezzel az ujsagot en le is mondom,
bar tenyleg megdobbento es szamomra olyan ijeszto
dolgokrol lehet belole hirt kapni, hogy azthiszem ha tobbet olvasgatnam
azt is megbannam, hogy gyerekeket tettem bele ebbe az ostoba ongyilkos
vilagba. Gyartottam egyszer egy elmeletet is, hogy az ember miert
pusztitja ily kitartoan a foldet, de nem untatlak vele titeket, igy is bo
lere szaladt a dolog. Hat
minden harcosnak sikeres munkat, elegedett
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
|+ - ||meadows-rovat (mind)
DUMB THINGS WE COULD STOP DOING
I have a friend who keeps a list titled: "Dumb Things We Could Stop Doing." I
get ideas for that list just about every time I hear the news.
Take the CIA, for instance. It might have made some sense once to have a CIA,
but now it seems worse than purposeless. CIA higher-ups seem to be constantly
leaking secrets to the Russians. It's not clear why we even have secrets any
more, nor why the Russians would care. But if secrets are somehow still
essential, the CIA appears to have devolved into a counterproductive
So why have it? Secrets don't mix well with democracy, anyway. I nominate the
CIA as a dumb thing we could stop doing.
Reporting the GDP (gross domestic product) every quarter is another candidate.
The economics literature is full of articles detailing why the GDP (the total
money we spend on final goods and services) is a misleading index. It adds
together stuff we like (first-time homes purchases by young couples, say) with
stuff we don't like (cleaning up after accidents, campaign ads, lawyers' fees).
Many benefits and costs are not measured at all (volunteer labor, parenting,
pollution). It's not even clear that we should rejoice when the GDP goes up,
or worry when it goes down.
So why do we keep reporting it breathlessly, as if it had some meaning? Let's
Abolishing the GDP will also stop the news briefs telling us that the GDP
report will come out tomorrow, or this afternoon, or an hour from now. While
we're on a roll, let's stop reporting ALL things that haven't yet happened --
what the Federal Reserve Board may be about to do to the interest rate, what
the president is expected to say in his speech tonight, what the OJ jury may be
about to announce. Speculation is not news. It's idle, time-filling chatter.
If we don't have anything better to talk about, let's have music, or silence.
We could quit broadcasting the Dow-Jones index every hour, too. Who needs it?
The index doesn't tell anyone what happens to his or her particular stock
portfolio. It doesn't reflect the real state of the economy, just the opinions
of a few professional gamblers. Anyone who needs to follow moment-by-moment
stock-price wiggles is probably already on the floor of the exchange or plugged
in by Internet. Spare the rest of us. Cut to the weather instead. Here in
New England we DO need hourly weather reports.
As we stop doing dumb things, we could start doing smart things. After we wean
ourselves from the Dow-Jones, for instance, we could apply a stiff tax on the
sale of any security that has been held for less than, say, a month. That
would smoke out the folks who play the market like a casino. We could offer
them a gentle recovery program for their addiction, and the stock market could
return to its purpose, which is to provide long-term loans for actual
That reminds me of another dumb thing we could stop doing -- lotteries. A
lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math, says a joke going round the
Internet. It's a huge tax -- people sink $25 billion a year into state
lotteries and $330 billion into all forms of legal gambling. The folks who do
that are for the most part poorly educated, and they don't have money to waste.
Only a fraction of what they lose comes back to them in funds for schools or
whatever. A direct tax would hit all income levels more fairly, would channel
more to the schools at less expense to the taxpayers, and might even help
educate people to understand their chances of winning a lottery.
Here's another dumb thing: crowding up against the luggage conveyor while we
wait for bags at the airport. If we all stood back six feet, we could see the
bags coming and step forward and wrestle them off the belt without shoving.
We could also stand back from traffic accidents and crime scenes. Unless we're
helping, we have no business anywhere near them. News cameras don't either.
Something in us reacts viscerally to blood and crumpled metal, just as
something in us can get hooked on gambling or nicotine or heroin. Indulging
these cravings is not smart. There's no news in gory images. No reason why we
need this information. It just makes us believe that our world is more
dangerous than it really is.
And we could stop crowding up against lakes, rivers, and oceans. We shouldn't
build anything within, say, a block of the water, or better yet, a block from
the edge of the floodplain. That would keep banks green and scenic, give more
people views and access, keep septic tanks and lawn chemicals from polluting
the water, and prevent property loss.
Let's see. This is fun. More dumb things we could eliminate:
The Electoral College.
Little labels glued on every apple in the supermarket.
Clearcuts on slopes, where the next big rain will bring down a landslide.
What would you add to this list?
And with the money we save from the CIA, the GDP calculations, the Dow-Jones
reports, the lotteries, and end of the need to bail out communities from floods
and slides, what smart things might we do?
(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Nos, van javaslat a KORNYESZ olvasoktol.....?
|+ - ||meadows-rovat (mind)
FEELING OUR FEELINGS MIGHT NOT BE A TRIVIAL EXERCISE
Anyone who travels the world is bound to experience not only wonders but also
crowds, poverty, pollution, ugliness and cruelty. Anyone who looks at the
statistics can see population, factories and toxic wastes zooming up, while
forests, soils, groundwaters and species plummet. I don't think it's possible
to experience our planet, directly or indirectly, without a shock.
The shock deepens if you try to trace out the connections among the unsettling
trends and seek their sources. I do that, and I work with others who do it.
Many of us have concluded that the global economy is too huge and growing too
rapidly to be either sustainable or governable. It is destroying life-support
systems that we don't even understand. We are consuming the resources and
options of our children. We ourselves won't be able to keep it up much longer.
The prescription that follows from this diagnosis is obvious: Slow down.
Control our numbers and our greed. There is enough, if we all share. Find the
joy in living with enough.
But we can hardly imagine how to do that. We think the economy would collapse
if we even tried, though in fact the economy is much more likely to collapse if
we keep tearing down its essential resources. So it can be tempting to deny
the whole problem.
Some people make careers of denial. They say environmental problems are
exaggerated. Human life expectancy is rising, they point out, and they are
right. We are richer every day. We keep discovering more resources. Sure,
there are a few messes to clean up, but better technology and more money will
do that. So don't worry, be happy; there's no need for temperance or equity.
It would be nice to believe these folks, but they are too obviously picking out
only favorable trends. We do discover resources, but we consume them faster.
Our life expectancy rises but birds and frogs and forests disappear. Money
can't return a lost species or correct a crazed climate.
The main reason for denial, I suspect, is an unwillingness to bear the
emotional impact of the global situation. It is just too horrifying to believe
that we are destroying our world and that the only way to save ourselves is to
stop living the only way we know how to live. Rather than accept that message,
some people just screen out the evidence for it.
But it's hard to keep one's eyes and ears and mind shut down. Even artists of
denial must suspect, down deep, that our economy and society and goals and
myths are wrong -- wrong for the earth, wrong for our health, wrong for our
souls. There are more and more deserts of toxicity and swamps of human
despair. Even the privileged, wrapped in their cocoons of big cars, walled
estates, stocks and bonds, must sense the wrongness around them limiting their
horizons and darkening their hearts.
one by one, we let the message in. Nature and people are in pain. Our way of
life is unsustainable. There is not much time and there are many changes to
make. So ironic -- to sustain our world we have to change our lives.
see this understanding hit college students, usually about the time they learn
the science of greenhouse gases and species extinction. Their bright eyes
glaze over. They go into mourning for a planet that is losing its beauty and a
future they can no longer count on.
I first got hit that way listening to Professor Jay Forrester of MIT in 1971.
I had just returned from a year in Asia. The global patterns Forrester was
discussing weren't just numbers to me, they were the faces of villagers and the
feel, smell, and sound of shrinking forests and ballooning cities. Forrester
drew the general picture; I saw in it fresh, specific memories. I had to leave
the room in tears. I still have many experiences that bring up tears --
watching the shadow of a jumbo jet sweep over mud huts bordering the runway in
Bombay; walking through dead forests in Eastern Europe; waiting every spring on
my northern farm to see which migratory songbirds will not return.
Sadness. Fear. Anger. I think it's impossible for anyone to understand the
state of the earth without feeling these emotions. In our controlled culture,
we're not welcome to act them out in public, but we do need to let ourselves
feel what we feel. Strong emotions are appropriate. And, if we don't sweep
them under the rug, they could be a force for reversing the gloomy trends,
which are, almost all, reversible. The only way we will ever engage in a shift
to new, sustainable ways of living is by caring and feeling.
I don't know about you, but when I really let myself experience the state of
the world, my first reaction is bottomless, unutterable sorrow. That moves
quickly into outrage. The sorrow I can deal with; the outrage I used to
suppress -- after all, it might offend someone. Now I use it to give me
courage. When I get mad, I have to move. With half-suppressed anger, I tend
to swing out and do something impetuous and ignorant. But a fully felt,
grounded, familiar anger can move me through a lifetime commitment to make
Feelings, like knowledge, don't directly change anything. But if we don't rush
past the feelings or stuff them down, if we take time to admit even the most
uncomfortable ones, to accept them, share them, and couple them with knowledge
of what is wrong and how it might be fixed, then feelings and knowledge
together are motors for change. The feelings make the doings of a
technological, cultural, economic, and political revolution inevitable.
(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
|+ - ||>De sajnos, az altalad istenitett civilizacio kizokkent (mind)
A technika ujdonsagai nem eleven teremtmenyek, viszont a nap, mint nap
kihalo, ma meg elo veszelyeztetett fajok (es a sokfeleseguk altal kepviselt
biodiverzitas, amely az egesz bioszfera mukodokepessegenek a biztositeka) -
melyeknek pusztulasat kozvetlenul, vagy kozvetve okozza - holnap mar csak
Mi a problema? Nem igazan ertem. A Fold egesz eddigi tortenete arrol szolt,
hogy egyes fajok kihaltak, masok pedig egy ideig sikeresek voltak, majd meg
sikeresebbek kovettek oket. Mi ertelme van sirankozni a dinoszauruszok
kihalasan? Lehet, hogy valakit erzelmileg megvisel, hogy nem simogathatja a
turanoszaurusz buksijat, de ez a Termeszetet nem erdekli. Ugyanugy nem, mint
az, hogy par ezer ev mulva esetleg a homo sapiens buksijat sem simogatja a
szel. A Termeszet szerintem szabalyozza ezeket a dolgokat, folosleges
tullihegni az egesz zoldeskedest. Ha az ember esetleg tonkretenne a sajat
letfelteteleit (s vele mas fajoket is) hat legfeljebb kipusztul. Lesz majd
mas, sikeresebb faj (mint a dinok utan az emlosok) amig a kulso feltetelek
lehetove teszik. Mi is a problema akkor? N.Csaba