Re: recycled metals in PMC/ Art Clay
I’m sorry Elaine, but I didn’t follow you. (Maybe it’s the wine?)
Are you faulting or praising the use of recycled metals in the metal
clays? Unless there is a big downside to it, using recycled materials
always appeals to me. Thank you for the illumination.
Regards, Marianne
Hello,
This, or similar uncertainties w.r.t. and discussion
about the disposal of pickle etc surface fairly often on the list.
Its intriguing that these petty anxieties emanate from a society that
will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Regards,
Larry Bima
okay people, you got some 'splaining to do:
returned from tucson midweek and found this rather esoteric sounding
thread on orchid: "responsible gold’.
is there a secret formula for ‘responsible gold’ as opposed to what,
some slatternly, ne’er do well metal? does it shift molecules and
morph into brass when unobserved?
could ‘responsible gold’ be what jack wouldn’t trade for his cow and
took the magic beans instead? does one approach a jewelry display and
demand “all right, listen up gold pieces: any of you who aren’t
’responsible,’ get out of here. now,”
be honest, responsible gold doesn’t have any connection to those
experiences some of you were having with pickles last fall, does it?
ive
life is short, share your dessert!
I'm sorry Elaine, but I didn't follow you. (Maybe it's the wine?) Are you faulting or praising the use of recycled metals in the metal clays?
Neither! Someone said, you should use Art Clay because it’s made from
recycled materials. Then I said, well, I think PMC is made from
recycled materials also, they just don’t advertise the fact the way
that Art Clay does.
Then Lisa posted, yes, PMC is made from recycled materials.
Elaine (who wasn’t drinking wine…)
Elaine Luther
Metalsmith, Certified PMC Instructor
http://www.CreativeTextureTools.com ™
Hard to Find Tools for Metal Clay
Its intriguing that these petty anxieties emanate from a society that will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
It’s not the society; it’s the government.
Its intriguing that these petty anxieties emanate from a society that will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
“Petty anxieties”? I don’t think so. Add them all up and one can see
that these are symtomatic of some real problems. It’s the government
who will not sign the Kyoto Protocol, not the society. Look at how
many cities and localities across this country have adopted the
Protocol and have demonstrated that it is cost efficient and has
improved the environment.
Joel Schwalb
@Joel_Schwalb
Its intriguing that these petty anxieties emanate from a society that will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
First, the Kyoto Protocol wasn’t ratified by ANY societies - it was
ratified by specific members of specific governments only. Second,
Larry, if you would look into the monetary functions of the Kyoto
Protocol, you would see that it had nothing to do with cleaning the
environment and everything to do with redistributing wealth from the
‘developed’ countries to the ‘developing’ countries such as China,
India, etc., while further reducing the abilities of the ‘developed’
countries (primarily the US, Europe, and Japan) to compete with those
countries in manufacturing.
Lee Cornelius
Vegas Jewelers
Hi Larry,
I find your position on Kyoto to a great subject for a different
discussion group than this one. Perhaps a green party blog would
do…
Jewelers are individuals who can choose work habits that minimize
damage to ourselves, our employees and indeed the environment.
Confusing our society with leadership you happen to dislike is more
convenient than accurate.
Recycling materials is a plus for all of us. Regardless of policies
or politics ad nauseam. Suppliers can help, and are very aware. After
all every jewelry oriented gold refiner is a material recycler.
No, it is society. The government is only protecting our way of life.
Kyoto would only restrict this countries ability to prosper
economically, while allowing polluting developing countries to remain
unrestrained and in the end do nothing to help the environment. Bill
Clinton had the opportunity to sign Kyoto and chose not to for these
same reasons, President Bush has done the same. Kyoto has become
nothing but a political football.
If you want to help the environment, then you need to do what you can
to do so. Do you drive a car or take public transportation? Do you
own a big gas guzzler? Do you leave every light on in the house?
Drive when you could of walked to the store?
When you point a finger remember there are 4 fingers pointing back at
you.
First, I would like to state that I agree the climate of the earth
is changing. And second, I want to point out that I definitely do not
think its a result of the use of carbon based fossil fuels.I believe
the climate change is a result of natural cycles that continue to
occure, regardless of the impact of the tiny little fly speck called
mankind. If I am not mistaken, the Kyoto Treaty calls for the USA to
drastically cut the use of fossil fuels to reduce pollutants, yet
China does not have to reduce their use of fossil fuels, or
production of pollutants, and their air quality is far worse than the
USA, and are polluting at a greater rate than the USA. That doesen’t
sound like a pollution/global warming issue to me at all. It sounds
like its a ‘everybody gang up on the place that has what we want but
can’t have’ kind of deal. I encourage everyone to go to the UN
website and read the details of this proposed piece of garbage. Its
an economic treaty, disguised as a pollution treaty.
By the way, just yesterday, I heard a radio talk show host(and no it
wasn’t Rush Limbaugh) comment that many pro warming/ anti-pollution
scientists are saying that its already too late to do anything about
the problem- that it has already reached the point of no return. If
thats the case, then why would I want to stop filling up the gas tank
on my gas guzzling Suburban to save the world. If its too late, maybe
we oughta live it up in our remaining time. And if its not too late,
maybe the same scientists that said it was too late, are the same
irresponsible scientists who seem to have twisted the data on the
whole issue to start with. Hhhmmmmmm? Don’t get me wrong, I love a
nice clean natural enviroment to camp, fish, hunt, live in, but I
definitely believe that a treaty where we lose more than anyone else
loses is not a smart thing to sign.
Ed in Kokomo
could 'responsible gold' be what jack wouldn't trade for his cow and took the magic beans instead?
Hope not - he got a really bum deal - only one of the five beans
grew!!
Best Wishes
Ian
Ian W. Wright
Sheffield UK
Lee
if you would look into the monetary functions of the Kyoto Protocol, you would see that it had nothing to do with cleaning the environment and everything to do with redistributing wealth from the 'developed' countries to the 'developing' countries such as China, India, etc
While I agree with the sentiment you express, I think maybe you got
some bad The reason we have not signed the treaty is it
is not equal in its application. While the U.S. produces 5+ billion
metric tons of CO2, China produces 3+ billion metric tons a year,
while China and India are excluded from the protocol in either target
values or penalties. I was not able to find India’s output, but it is
considered a very large producer.
The U.S. did sign, Vice President Al Gore signed the accord to
represent acceptance of the intent and goal of the accord to reduce
greenhouse emissions, but it was never put to a vote in the senate,
and never forwarded to the UN. President Bush has the same
reservations to the accord, both monetarily and in its equal
application to all nations whatever their status. This would include
the current practice of selling credits and fine application to those
counties unable to meet the goals of reducing their emission to the
1990 levels, although it was this selling of credits that got some
people on-board with the accord.
While Larry is correct, we are not a signatory to the protocol at
the UN because of the legal ramifications of doing so, we are free to
and have enacted many of the items and intents of the protocol
through legislations enacted and the use of the EPA to enforce those
legislative items pertaining to the environment, 9 states have
accepted the accord. What Larry neglected to say was that at the G8
of 2005 the US called for all nations to reduce green house gases and
that the US was on track to make its required 18% reduction by 2012.
Another thing Larry left out was the U.S. as signatory on the Asia
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate which does
include China and India. The Asia Pacific Partnership represents
counties producing 50% of the world greenhouse gases.
I do agree with you, we should not ratify the accord until it is
applied to ‘all nations’ equally.
Terry
Dear Larry,
U.S. Orchidians who express these “anxieties” are usually not people
who voted for the politicians who refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
Most of us are a lot more "anxious’ about our current government than
we are about how to dispose of pickle.
Lisa Orlando
This, or similar uncertainties w.r.t. and discussion about the disposal of pickle etc surface fairly often on the list. Its intriguing that these petty anxieties emanate from a society that will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Excuse me? Specific issues of pickle, recycling or mining aside, the
discussion of how we as individual artists manage ourselves and our
materials in this world are valid questions for the Orchid website,
no matter what the leaders of our respective nations are doing!
I sometimes miss the discussions for a period of days or weeks, so
I’m not sure what “petty anxieties” we’re talking about here, and I
do admit some of the threads do get rather wound up…but that’s just
because those threads don’t speak to my concerns. Also, it seems to
me that there is an unspoken understanding to keep our political and
religious beliefs out of this jewelers/metal smiths discussion forum.
As such, the Kyoto swipe is way out of line! It isn’t a ""society
that hasn’t signed the Kyoto Protocol, but a government that
represents a segment of a complex society. Personally, I have
extremely strong beliefs about politics (including Kyoto) and I
spend a lot of time, energy and money fighting for those beliefs in
my city, my state and my country as well as in my own studio. But I
keep my political beliefs to myself as an agreement to admission to
the Orchid community. I don’t’ think we want to open this door
here…or things could get a lot less helpful and a lot more ugly.
(just read any “letters to the editor” page in your newspaper.)
Worrying about your pickle is petty? I dunno, I always thought that
if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Personally, I feel I have, through political and social action,
earned the right to be as anxiously petty about the environment as I
want to be, and I support anyone else’s right to concern themselves
about how their actions affect the world. To quote another adage
“think globally, act locally” No individual citizen alone can change
a government policy, but we all have the autonomy to consider what we
are pouring down the drain.
So which is worse: petty anxieties or faulting with a cheap shot
folks struggling to make some difference as they can? You and I agree
on Kyoto, Larry, but this isn’t the forum for that discussion.
Marianne Hunter
All,
The current issue of TIME magazine is a special issue dealing with
global warming. The bold letters on the cover suggest BE WORRIED. BE
VERY WORRIED ! It goes on to say: " Climate change isn’t some vague
future problem-it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace.
For a long while I have been suggesting that nature corrects her
mistakes. At times I have felt that maybe I am the counterpart of
Peter in Peter and the Wolf. Now I am at least very concerned ! The
cover goes on to suggest That Earth May Be at the Tipping Point. Now
this is not one of those stupid grocery counter rags that dream up
sensationalistic lies written by intoxicated journalists. It is one
of the more important news magazines in the world and its contents
are well researched and proof read. None of us likes bad news, but
sticking ones head in the sand is the worst kind of denial !
Ron Mills. Mills Gem Co. Los Osos, Ca.
Ron,
Tipping point? The earth is always in a state of change, try not to
worry too much.
And TIME magazine? Well, I remember quite clearly from my adventures
in Vietnam in the late 60’s about the reporting in TIME magazine.
Most of it was fabricated, plain and simple. Maybe they do better
now. Man, as a species, has been on the Earth for a blink of an eye.
Like all other species, our time here is finite, we just don’t know
how long. We are one of the most adaptable species to show up, and
our ability to modify our environment can be used to lengthen our
stay or shorten it. But, Earth’s natural processes can and do creat
climactic changes far in excess of what we might be doing to the
environment.
Example: Undersea volcanoes along the mid-oceanic ridges spew more
(hgreenhouse" gases in a day than we generate in many years. They
also are warming the oceans, at a far greater rate than "problems"
with the atmosphere. The oceans, not the atmosphere drive the
climate, and we understand very, very little about how the ocean
does this precisely. Like all publications, TIME needs to sell
copies, and there is nothing like “The sky is falling” articles to
do it.
And, Ron, climate change does not “damage” the planet, it alters it.
As in all climatic change, some species thrive, others lose. The
oceans got warm, brachiopod ppulations exploded; they became cooler,
the brachiopods became extinct, their niche filled by common clams.
Cockroaches have been here 360 million years unchanged. Even
high-dose radiation does not kill them. Humans have been here, what,
maybe a million? And we may or not be here in another 5-20 million.
But most of us will be here long enough to pay our taxes.
Wayne
Wayne,
First off…it seems that my attempt to publicize the article in
the current issue of Time magazine about global warming and climate
change has fallen on deaf ears because it was printed under the
heading of Responsible Gold…not an exactly a titillating
subject !
Nonetheless, I do think that the article was very significant and I
also realize that you have not read it because your comments don’t
correlate with the content of the article and because you don’t think
that Time is a valid source of I too was a subscriber to
Time magazine back in your era and I also did not think much of it.
It was superficial, pretentious and pandered to demagoguery and
political slants. I just recently subscribed to it because of a very
favorable rate…I figured, what the hell, 56 weeks for ten
bucks…how can I go wrong ? Lo and behold, the new “Time” is not
what I expected. It contains in depth articles that are era relevant
and very timely ( pardon the unintended pun ).
Your suggestions that I comfort myself with your enlightened
perceptions about geologic change and meteorological meanderings is
reassuring, but unfounded. You’ve got the relativities mixed up. You
stated that the CO2 emissions from the Atlantic Ridge volcanism
greatly exceed those from human activities. BUT, that is not the
point ! We are talking about rates of change ! The earths’
ecosystems have accomodated change throughout geologic history, but
ABRUPT change has always been accompanied by cataclysmic reaction !
Hence, when the asteroid hit the ocean off the Yucatan peninsula,
mass extinction followed. Man’s activities are ABRUPT in terms of
ecosystem impact !
Wayne, I sincerely suggest that you go to your local library and
scan the articles on climate change in the very reputable periodicals
such as Science Magazine, Science Newsletter, Nature, Scientific
American, etc. I really do think that you MIGHT bring your
perceptions up to date ! No,. I am not suggesting this on an
adversarial basis. I do think that this subject has been politicized
and I really do think that it is so important than it transcends
politics. After all, man may have been a mistake, but he has an
incredible capacity for adaptation !
Ron Mills, Mills Gem Company, Los Osos, Ca.
Going off what Wayne wrote, in 1980 when I was in middle school, I
remember the media telling us that we are going into another ice
age, now it’s global warming. The major media is in the business of
selling news, by sensationalizing a news story they can manipulate
you into buying their product. Look past the hype and sensationalism,
and see what they are really pushing, whether it is a political
agenda or just plain ol’ greed.
The major news media is not known for it’s truthfulness, why do you
think they are so threatened by the Internet and “alternative” news
sources?
Tom
in 1980 when I was in middle school, I remember the media telling us that we are going into another ice age, now it's global warming.
It would be very reassuring to use this logic to dismiss the alarms
about changes in our environment, and it is very tempting to do so
in the face of the daunting task of changing people’s habits. But
sadly, global warming is quite real, and not cooked up by media hype
or greed. One of my daughters is a field biologist who has been
studying changes in alpine environments and their effect on various
species. Plants and animals are interdependant in complex ways, and
when even one cannot adapt to change, it can start a cascade of
destruction. Hummingbirds come out of hybernation to early, return
to alpine meadows, find nothing to eat yet, and starve to death.
Animals that depend on burrows can no longer create them when they
have to move further up the mountain as their habitat recedes.
Animals can move up, but trees take generations. Etc.
It is time to take personal responsibility for how you live, drive,
create trash.
Noel
Regarding Rons comments on responsible gold and Wayne Emerys
response…I share some of Waynes views! I have never quite
been able to swallow the whole “global warming” thinking or the idea
that we (man) can have that much lasting effect on our environment,
given a reasonable amount of effort is made to protect it for (our)
benefit. For a small example… I remember back in the late sixties
an area was clear cut where I grew up and all the talk about how
damaging this was to the “old growth” forest environment. The problem
was, the area wasn’t old growth at all, the trees were replanted and
35 years later it looks about the same as it did then. I think some
of us worry about things we can do nothing about. If the population
of mankind reaches a threashold and our influence on the environment
is that severe, we’ll probably die off by the millions of some new
disease and become plant fertilizer. It’s sort of a self regulating
system in that way. We just won’t be around long enough to see it, so
our perspective gets a little off. I believe “global warming” is
unavoidable and a natural progression towards the earths destiny.
Earths environment/climate is in a constant state of flux and has
been, it appears, since the beginning of time. I agree with Wayne…
besides, who said mankind would be on this earth forever, I know I’m
not going to be!
charles