A Brief Observation About EnviroLink

Ever since the blow out with Lycos,
an annoying pop-up window soliciting funds appears whenever I browse the
Envirolink web site, and supporters keeping sending out a fundraising
e-mail claming EnviroLink is in dire financial straits. The e-mail asks
for donations — the larger the better. EnviroLink chief Josh Knauer says
EnviroLink needs only $5,000 per month to keep going.

Which doesn’t make any sense.

In the fund raising email, Knauer
claims that “over 375,000 people from over 150 countries use EnviroLink’s
services every day.” Either that number is grossly inaccurate or
Knauer has absolutely no idea what he’s doing. If, in fact, EnviroLink
has over 375,000 people visiting its site every day, that would be close
to 12 million people each month who visit the site or subscribe to email
lists it hosts, etc. If Knauer can’t figure out a way to generate a paltry
$60,000 a year from his 144 million users each year, maybe he should consider
hiring somebody who can. That is simply a pathetic performance — I could
generate $60,000 annually with a tenth of EnviroLink’s users.

EnviroLink hosts a Sustainable
Business Network, but apparently EnviroLink’s own business practices are
not sustainable.

Animal rights terrorist demands his insulin

Recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsBruce Friedrich posted a bizarre appeal on behalf
of convicted arsonist and animal rights activist Frank Allen. It seems
Allen and his family are unhappy with the way prison official are treating
him.

Among the laundry list of complaints
presented in Friedrich’s email is that Allen is “receiving an incorrect
dosage of insulin” to treat his Diabetes.

Insulin? Insulin treatment for
diabetes was developed through animal experimentation and for decades
diabetics avoided health problems and premature death by using insulin
derived primarily from pigs (insulin derived from humans is now available).

As Michael Bliss, author of The
Discovery of Insulin
, sums up the role of animal experiments in diabetes
treatment,

The discovery of insulin in the early 1920s stands as
one of the outstanding examples in medical history of the successful use
of animal experimentation to improve the human condition. Insulin would
not have been isolated, at Toronto or anywhere else, without the sacrifice
of thousands of dogs. These dogs made it possible for millions of humans
to live.

Allen wants and Friederich supports
access to a medical technology developed with techniques that both men
are committed to abolishing.

What were Linda and Paul McCartney thinking?

Paul McCartney recently gave a BBC
radio interview in which he seemed to step back from his, and his deceased
wife Linda’s, hard core animal rights position on animal experimentation.

“I’m finding out now,”
McCartney told the BBC, “that there is quite a lot of animal experimentation
— some of it I suppose absolutely necessary when you come down to the
final tests before people.”

McCartney made comments about his
wife’s treatment for breast Cancer that indicate Linda never knew the
drugs she was taking had been tested on animals. He said that doctors
treating Linda gave the impression that the drugs they prescribed had
not been tested in animals.

“If they tell you ‘It’s ok
to have this because we didn’t test it on animals’ then you are going
to believe them,” McCartney said.

In other words, all this time Paul
and Linda McCartney went around advocating for animal rights and against
animal experimentation, they were so ignorant of the topic that they didn’t
even know the fundamental basics about the use of animals in drug development
and testing.

This is the state of the
animal rights movement’s knowledge of the use of animals by medical researchers.

More people use less resources

The classic argument that population
increase will lead to catastrophe goes something like this — more people
require more resources and as the population increases it will inevitably
strain the available resource base. Somebody forgot to tell that to the
United States Geological Survey which reported recently that from 1980
to 1995 both total and per capita water use in the United States declined
10 percent even though the U.S. population increased steadily during the
same period.

In 1980 almost 450 billion gallons
of water per day (bgd) were used for all purposes in the United States.
By 1995 that figure had fallen to 402 bgd. For freshwater, irrigation
was the number one use at 134 bgd. Thermoelectric generation was the larger
single use of water, however, when fresh water and saline water usage
are combined, with l90 bgd used for that purpose.

Geothermal plant opposed by environmentalists

Sticking with the water theme, Calpine
Corporation has been trying to build a geothermal power plant at Medicine
Lake, California. You remember geothermal power — an alternative power
source much cleaner than nuclear or coal generation that environmentalists
used to push as a safe and sane alternative to traditional power generation.
Not any more.

The proposed 50-megawatt plant
would pump 3 million pounds of water every hour into a pressure cooker.
The resulting steam would be harnessed to turn turbines and generate electrical
power. So why are the environmentalists opposed to it? Does geothermal
power create lots of pollutants? Minute traces of ammonia, mercury and
hydrogen sulfide are released, but even environmentalists aren’t claiming
those pose a hazard.

No, the big objection from environmentalists
is that the power plant isn’t very pretty. As Kyle Haines of the Klamath
Forest Alliance told the Christian Science Monitor, “People
might be less likely to recreate at Medicine Lake if they see a power
plant and plumes of steam [which the plant emits].”

There you have it. Coal causes
air pollution, nuclear uses radiation, and geothermal is just too damn
ugly. And environmentalists wonder why some of us consider them simply
unreasonable.

Africa on the verge of war

An article in the Oct. 3 issue of
The Economist summed up the sad state of affairs Africa has once
again cast itself in by saying simply, “four conflicts at the heart
of Africa could suck in all their neighbours.”

Nearly a third of Africa’s 42 countries
are involved in an international or civil war and another 13 have sent
troops to fight in the various wars on the continent. The four wars The
Economist
cites as particularly troubling include Ethiopia’s war with
Eritrea; Senegal’s dispatching of troops to Guinea-Bissau and South Africa’s
sending of its army into Lesotho; and the ongoing conflict among the nations
bordering on the Congo.

In addition, several regional conflicts
that had appeared to simmer down are on the edge of exploding again. Congo
and Sudan are cooperating now against Uganda. Angola supplied troops to
go into Congo in part to support an offensive against UNITA rebels, whose
end result has been to create whose end result might be to create an alliance
between UNITA and Congolese rebels. And the nation with one of the longest
running armed conflicts in the world, Sudan, seems about to intensify
its civil war. The government recently closed schools and universities
calling for a national mobilization of armed forces.

Once again Africa’s biggest problems
is not its population but that its governments that are more interested
in fighting each other rather than trying to find a solution to that continent’s
many problems.