Having expressed a dissident view you must now expect a stream of
vituperation or even outright abuse. However, if I can get in first,
even if you are correct it is still prudent to minimise the use of and
find renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. The latter are finite in
extent and are often concentrated in politically sensitive areas.
Curator, Centre for Human Bioarchaeology
Museum of London
150 London Wall
London. EC2Y 5HN
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7814 5649
Fax: 020 7600 1058
Email: [log in to unmask]
Glamour, grandeur, sleaze, disease - discover a great city in the making in the new Medieval London gallery
Free exhibition - SATIRICAL LONDON, 300 years of irreverent images - until 3 September 2006
Register for regular Museum updates with [log in to unmask] Message-----
From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: 12 July 2006 16:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: SPAM:Re: [BRITARCH] Heritage & carbon emissions
My personal belief is that Global Warming is just another cycle in mother
natures revolving times. We have had multiple ice ages and lets not forget
Britain not to many millenia ago was home to animals we asscoiate with the
warmer climes and equatorial climates
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Haseler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Heritage & carbon emissions
>> Wearing two hats, archaeologist and Friends of the Earth, I am
>> increasingly concerned that the two are becoming more distant, with
>> heritage curators not worrying about the environmental impacts of
>> conservation policies, and I know which I (and probably many other
>> people and even Governments) think is more important.
> You may as well ask why we have an environmental policy that is
> unsustainable (sustainability means a balance between environment, society
> AND economy and our renewable policy does nothing to create jobs in rural
> economies and indeed destroys them by impacting tourism - we literally
> an unsustainable renewable energy policy!)
> So, why should archaeologists be sustainable when Friends of the Earth's
> policies aren't?
>> Unless we can work, as the National Trust has shown is possible, to
>> intergrate the two, when oil starts to run out, heritage conservation
>> will probably become even more of an expensive luxury which will lose
>> out to the environmental arguments.
>> Its a pity the WHC are too "single issue" oriented to realise this
> Nick, when oil runs out, I've little doubt that the luxury called
> archaeology will disappear. I've never checked, but I guess that
> started around 1800 at roughly the same time that energy consumption and
> economic growth started sky-rocketing, and I suppose like the economy the
> interest in archaeology will decline with the Western Oil-based economy.
> As for global warming, I've yet to hear a coherent argument that explains
> how we can achieve global warming without oil & gas. Indeed, the impact of
> oil/gas depletion seems to far outweigh any measure being proposed by
> government, and it would appear we will meet our CO2 targets whether or
> we like it!
> Perhaps the one contribution archaeology might make before its final
> demise** in around 30 years, (and the nationalisation of all the pension
> plans of the generation that lived in up), is to explain what happened at
> the end of the Roman empire. For, I'm sure we all would like to know (as
> work until we drop without remission of pensions) whether the economic
> recession caused by our final depletion of oil and gas reserves will
> a 400 year dark age!
> Mike Haseler
> **Perhaps a bit tongue in cheek - though its difficult to see how anyone
> will visit archaeological sites if they don't have oil for their cars.
>> best wishes
>> Nick Boldrini
>> Historic Environment Record Officer
>> Heritage Section
>> Countryside Service
>> North Yorkshire County Council
>> County Hall
>> DL7 8AH
>> Direct Dial (01609) 532331
>> Conserving North Yorkshire's heritage - encouraging sustainable access
>> This email is personal. It is not authorised by or sent on behalf of
>> North Yorkshire
>> County Council, however, the Council has the right and does inspect
>> emails sent from
>> and to its computer system. This email is the sole responsibility of
>> the sender
>> >>> [log in to unmask] 11/07/2006 17:42:11 >>>
>> This link was posted on ArchTheoMeth discussion list today:
>> Astounding. The World Heritage Committee has rejected a motion calling
>> cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental campaigners blamed the
>> on lobbying by governments opposed to restrictions on greenhouse gas
>> emissions (no prizes for guessing who they have in mind...). As one
>> environmentalist is quoted as saying, "They are good at drawing up
>> wonderfully drafted documents, but the idea of actually doing anything
>> to pose a problem".
>> Hmmm. Whatever happened to preventive conservation?
>> Paul Barford
>> This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
>> confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of
>> the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
>> action taken is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>> Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not
>> necessarily the view of the Council.
>> North Yorkshire County Council.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/385 - Release Date: 11/07/2006