| December 27, 2000 | W. W. Locke | Return to Class Home Page |
We are all aware of the pressures of population growth; from timers showing the present world population to local housing prices. Most of us have heard dire predictions of global system collapse; from Malthus to Ehrlich, Commoner, Hardin, and Lester Brown. Yet most of the recognized areas of regional human trauma (disease, famine) are more related to wars and insurrections than purely to population pressure.
Books in the Renne Library catalog such as those by Paul R. Ehrlich (e.g., The Population Bomb), Barry Commoner (The Closing Circle), Garrett Hardin, and Lester R. Brown (The State of the World) are accompanied by many articles (such as Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons"). Articles should be accessible through the on-line indexes. On the Web, the Union of Concerned Scientists has several "white papers" which summarize the issues related to population (Search their site for "population"). Johns Hopkins University's Center for Communications Programs offers The Global Challange, while an older (1994) Canadian International Development Agency "White Paper" gives a common viewpoint. And there is always Dieoff.com!
What is the General Mining Act of 1872? [HINT: it is part of our public law, accessible through the library.] What was its purpose? How well did it serve that purpose? Are present uses (as overseen by the Minerals Management Service, currently off-line because of legal action) compatible with this history? Do what extent is the minerals industry designed around the law? Should the lack of clauses ensuring environmental protection trigger revision or replacement of the act?
Should we be concerned about the welfare of the mining industry? Why are organizations like the Congressional Research Service, American Geological Institute, the National Research Council, The Cato Institute, The Mineral Policy Center [PDF], Americans for Democratic Action [search their site], and Friends of the Earth so interested in the act? Articles accessible through the on-line indexes should summarize the economic, environmental, and social conditions and consequences of the Act. NOTE: I got 46 hits, including several full-text articles, on Expanded Academic ASAP on "mining 1872", ranging from the New York Times to Mining Magazine to Backpacker!
The hazards associated with earthquakes are many and notable: liquefaction, ground breaking, ground shaking, landslides, and tsunamis as well as infrastructure-related problems like natural gas explosions and fires. Should the public be held responsible for determining the degree of their risk, or should the government (local, state, federal) be responsible for that determination? [Note: the issue here is not the taking of property - see below - but the responsibility for assumption of risk.] How precise can we expect the science of risk to be?
Not surprisingly, the major work on seismic hazard zoning and building codes is generated by three major groups: the United States government, state governments, and the construction/engineering industry. The US government works through the United States Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards program. The states are typified by California (with Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Missouri, and others somewhat lagging. The private sector includes academic researchers at EERI and elsewhere, engineering consultants, and contractors. Journals such as Civil Engineering and the Zoning and planning law handbook may be relevant. NOTE: I do not expect you to find resources clearly defining a controversy, but how should the maps be read? Who should read them? What if they are wrong ? [They are!] Who bears ultimate responsibility?
There are several issues hidden behind the population issue debated several weeks ago. One of these relates to soils and their productivity - the underpinnings or our society. As medical technology has revolutionized population growth, so has agricultural technology revolutionized food production. Which will "win the race"? We have already examined population - now let's consider food production.
I hit on 24 books in the MSU library when querying on "green revolution", most either in HD (Politics) or S (Agriculture). There are reams of references in the general literature accessible through Expanded Academic ASAP (formerly InfoTrac) and Academic Universe (formerly Lexis-Nexis). The problem here isn't finding resources, it is using them! Make sure that you keep your debate focus clearly in mind : can the green revolution be maintained at least as long as population growth can be maintained?
In the western states, water is allocated according to the doctrine of Prior Appropriation ("first in time, first in right"; "use it or lose it"); in the east, by Riparian doctrine ("own the stream bank, control the water"). Why does this difference exist, and who does it benefit? Who does it hurt? Like the 1872 Mining Law, present water law has its detractors as well as its proponents.
In Renne Library, consider books listed in the catalog under the subjects of Irrigation--Government policy--West (U.S.)--History; Water resources development--Government policy--West (U.S.)--History; Water-supply; Water conservation; Water law; and Water rights.
Marc Reisner's book "Cadillac Desert" is a classic reference on the dam construction era, and has been summarized by a 4-part video (several hours worth, but can be scanned!)
Western water law has also been a hot topic in the environmental literature - accessible through Expanded Academic ASAP on the Library. Consider High Country News and Sierra. [There is a nice satirical set of western water laws on-line!]
The single biggest hang-up related to nuclear energy is the problem of disposal of nuclear waste - both low-level and high-level. High-level waste is especially problematic. Decades of intertwined science, technology, and politics has brought us to the designation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's primary nuclear waste repository. Is this the best decision for the people of Nevada and the United States? The issues surrounding nuclear waste storage/disposal in general, and Yucca Mountain in particular, are legion. Why do we need a national site, anyway? What other sites have been nominated, and why are they no longer strongly considered? What are the specific issues involving Yucca Mountain (good and bad)?
The National Nuclear Waste Repository is discussed exhaustively in all media - from government documents of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency to handbills passed out along rural roads!
On the Web, check out the official Yucca Mountain Project Web site. All you wanted (and didn't want) to know.. Other agencies are involved as well - the Environmental Protection Agency, Sandia National Laboratories, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Academy of Sciences, to name only a few.
What do the State of Nevada, or for another point of view, and folks in Eureka County think about the project? Or, try a general links site from the Mining Co.
Good luck cutting this one down to size and organizing it!
Asbestos is the name for a family of minerals which provide, primarily, fire-proof insulation. It is well-documented that exposure by some individuals to some forms of airborne "asbestos" fibers is hazardous. A Metacrawler search for "asbestos hazard" turned up a multitude of references. The majority are firms which mitigate the hazard (for a fee). Are those a reasonable source of information? Who else might provide an alternative viewpoint? Are all types of asbestos the same? Do they pose a similar hazard? What are the common modes of mitigation? What are some alternatives?
The U.S. Government is a place to start. How about OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Hazards Administration)? What is the U.S. legal position on asbestos in schools (and why)? Who produces asbestos, and how? What do asbestos producers think about the hazard, and why? Consider the range of mitigation activities, as summarized by the government and major players in the field (see Metacrawler search reference - above).
One of the primary legal arguments against zoning as a mechanism of land-use planning is the concept of a "taking" - of government interference with the legal rights of individual landowners. That issue came to a head with the finding by the U.S. Supreme Court that Lucas' right to develop his barrier island property was unfairly taken by the South Carolina Coastal Council and local courts. Where do we now stand with respect to takings and natural hazard zoning? Consider the consequences of both complete and negligible government authority to zone!
The link above connects to synopses of both the majority and minority opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Opinions run strong between conservative and liberal organizations regarding both the narrow interpretation of Lucas and the broader significance of state-level "takings" resolutions. It is a goldmine for law students, at the very least!
Between 1973 and 1979, the price of crude oil, thus of gasoline and heating oil, briefly sky-rocketed. However, by the 1980 Presidential election, Ronald Reagan could mock the "oil crisis" and defeat Jimmy Carter, in part on that "feel-good" policy. And he was right! The gas I bought in 1999 in Billings at $0.91/gallon was the cheapest I have ever seen - even less (corrected for inflation) than the $0.26/gallon I remember spending in 1970! So - Is there an oil "crisis"? Will there be one? If so, under what conditions?
[Ah - that is the question! Exactly what are the resources?] A recent book by (and interview with) Colin Campbell paints a picture of dwindling supplies - but so did ones written 25 years ago! What are the political, economic, and geological realities of our supplies of petroleum? The March, 1998, issue of Scientific American is the most recent non-technical summary of which I am aware. However, the Oil and Gas Journal is a major source of industry information.
| December 27, 2000 | W. W. Locke | Return to Class Home Page |