[biofuels-biz] Re: FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
Steady Dave they are just trolling. Unfortunately this type of release is taken as gospel by many otherwise sentient people. In the Australian context too many of them are in the public service. The context needs to be considered, we generally represent the people of the world whose needs are being met. Members of many of these conservation oriented groups are amoungst the wealthiest, note the celebrities used to promote projects like Olivia Newton Johns reafforest Australia campaign. That less than 25% of Australia was forest under aboriginal permaculture doesnt come into it. Australia actually has more than 25% under forest and the tree density is often unsustainable. The real at risk ecosystems are open woodland and native grassland. The ones that can be preserved with good forest grazing practices. People whos needs are met have no trouble putting millions of hectares of otherwise productive land under carbon sequestering trees to slow climate change. Afer all the change may well threaten their obscene share of the worlds resources. Having said that let me also say that we really must limit our use of resources to what we actually need, waste does no one good nor do practices that ultimately reduce the productive capacity of the renewable resources that we need. My view is simple enough, the amount of resources a person uses is measured by their income, a cap on income limits waste. Redistribution of excess income via taxation to pay for public services that ensure an effective lower limit of income for the poor is the most achievable method of redustributing income. Not all sustainability types agree with me but its a good way of distinguishing between the greedy conservationist (I like my high income lifestyle but do these peasants have to breath so much air) and the genuine conservationist who's political solution includes increased taxes for incomes over double the full time male average. Meanwhile Dave just work away on the practical solutions. Regards from Harry --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we all doomed to eating dirt and living in caves? This is the first that I have responded to you all after having subscribed to the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. There's a huge market for it and it works s well. What, for the most part do you people do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and emanate death due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. I still want to check in on your chat about Biofuel so I'll stick around until you whack out completely Any questions from an actual producer? Dave Edmondson Ferndale, WA Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Apologies for cross posting. NNTBSP, Ed. Very interesting study, thanks. More about it here: http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/pnas_0602.html Redefining Progress: Programs: Sustainability: Ecological Footprint Accounts: PNAS Article June 2002 -- Forwarded Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:06:03 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study Earth can't meet human demand for resources, says study Well, all us eggs may be in the same basket, but some of them eggs are dogs in the manger in eggs' clothing. (Mix metaphors? Me?) This is the bit that matters: For example, Wackernagel and his team found that in 1999, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. The global average was significantly lower than industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where 24 acres and 13.3 acres, respectively, were consumed per person. The US being twice as greedy as all the other greedy ones, as usual. Same with energy use, same with CO2 emissions, same with waste, same with everything. How many of those 24 acres are actually in the US? Not very many, the damage is caused elsewhere, at other people's expense. There are 59.6 million Brits, each accounting for 13.3 acres, which comes to a total area of 3,210,445 sq km, 13.1 times the area of Britain. So the Brits have room for a footprint of 1 acre each, the other 12 acres are in other people's countries. There are 278 million Americans, accounting for 24 acres each, which comes to a total area of 27,006,435 sq km, 2.8 times the area of the US. There's room in the US for each American to have a footprint of 8.6 acres, but that means they'd have to use the mountains, deserts, lakes, everything. Even if they were doing that, which they're not, and can't, they'd still be using 15 acres each of other people's land. Actually it's a lot more than that. So let's narrow it down a bit. Read: Industrialized countries, and especially their cities... Thor Skov's excellent post today on global warming b.s. etc.etc. is most pertinent. These people talk of mumbo-jumbo science being used as an excuse to demand forced redistribution of wealth and a wholesale restructuring of the socio-political order, of envy and covetousness, of resentment of others' economic advantages. Thus speak the robbers and those who benefit from the robbery. Waste junkies, while others starve to death because of it. Guilt manipulation? Damned right!! If we don't live within the budget of nature, sustainability becomes futile, Wackernagel said. The current inequitable economic system is clearly unsustainable, for everyone, rich and poor alike, but particularly for the victims. Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we all doomed to eating dirt and living in caves? What makes you think that? This is the first that I have responded to you all after having subscribed to the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. There's a huge market for it and it works s well. What, for the most part do you people do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and emanate death due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. For which your references might be what exactly? Or wouldn't you bother with such things as references, everybody knows that, don't they? What was it Kris said again? Oh yes: I sure wish these know-it-all creeps who offer nothing but opinion yet demand proof, would get their own damn list. Can't help agreeing. I still want to check in on your chat about Biofuel so I'll stick around until you whack out completely Well, don't feel like you have to do us any favours eh? I think we might struggle along somehow without you. Keith Addison Any questions from an actual producer? Dave Edmondson Ferndale, WA Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
A couple of things, Harry. First, that is NOT trolling. People posting information you don't agree with and that is not necessarily off-topic is not trolling. Trolling is baiting, and I doubt you seriously think Ed posted that message as bait. Second, the research has been done by qualified people belonging to a reputable group, and is being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is certainly a reputable journal. Are you saying that the otherwise sentient editors at the PNAS somehow suspended their critical faculties in order to accept this crap as gospel? What cause do you have to dismiss this report so casually? You and I have tussled over closely related issues in the past, and I don't think any evidence emerged that my view was any less sentient than yours. On the other hand, you made some statements you were unable to substantiate, and ended up preferring scepticism but being unable to say why. So maybe it was your sentience that was suspended. I tend to think so, and this bears it out - this is just a knee-jerk rejection, not a considered response. Man, I do love it when people pooh-pooh the damage their wasteful lifestyles cause and then say let's get on with something practical! Keith Steady Dave they are just trolling. Unfortunately this type of release is taken as gospel by many otherwise sentient people. In the Australian context too many of them are in the public service. The context needs to be considered, we generally represent the people of the world whose needs are being met. Members of many of these conservation oriented groups are amoungst the wealthiest, note the celebrities used to promote projects like Olivia Newton Johns reafforest Australia campaign. That less than 25% of Australia was forest under aboriginal permaculture doesnt come into it. Australia actually has more than 25% under forest and the tree density is often unsustainable. The real at risk ecosystems are open woodland and native grassland. The ones that can be preserved with good forest grazing practices. People whos needs are met have no trouble putting millions of hectares of otherwise productive land under carbon sequestering trees to slow climate change. Afer all the change may well threaten their obscene share of the worlds resources. Having said that let me also say that we really must limit our use of resources to what we actually need, waste does no one good nor do practices that ultimately reduce the productive capacity of the renewable resources that we need. My view is simple enough, the amount of resources a person uses is measured by their income, a cap on income limits waste. Redistribution of excess income via taxation to pay for public services that ensure an effective lower limit of income for the poor is the most achievable method of redustributing income. Not all sustainability types agree with me but its a good way of distinguishing between the greedy conservationist (I like my high income lifestyle but do these peasants have to breath so much air) and the genuine conservationist who's political solution includes increased taxes for incomes over double the full time male average. Meanwhile Dave just work away on the practical solutions. Regards from Harry --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we all doomed to eating dirt and living in caves? This is the first that I have responded to you all after having subscribed to the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. There's a huge market for it and it works s well. What, for the most part do you people do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and emanate death due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. I still want to check in on your chat about Biofuel so I'll stick around until you whack out completely Any questions from an actual producer? Dave Edmondson Ferndale, WA Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] EREN Network News -- 06/26/02
= EREN NETWORK NEWS -- June 26, 2002 A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN). http://www.eren.doe.gov/ = Featuring: *News and Events United Solar Opens New 30-Megawatt Solar Cell Plant New York State Energy Plan Increases Energy Efficiency, Boosts Renewable Energy, and Cuts Greenhouse Emissions U.S. National Efforts Aim to Promote Efficiency, Renewables Countries Invited to Declare Themselves GREEN Environment Commissioners Respond to NAFTA Energy Report University of Wisconsin Team Wins FutureTruck Competition DOE Awards $34 Million to 12 States for Home Weatherization *Energy Facts and Tips U.S. Electrical Grid Faces Terrorist, Wildfire Threats *About this Newsletter - NEWS AND EVENTS - United Solar Opens New 30-Megawatt Solar Cell Plant United Solar Systems Corporation announced the official inauguration on Monday of its new $55 million thin-film solar cell manufacturing facility, capable of producing 30 megawatts of solar cells each year. The facility's solar-cell-production machine -- designed and built by Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (ECD) -- uses a continuous web process similar to that used in printing newspapers, depositing nine layers of amorphous silicon alloys onto a roll of stainless steel 14 inches wide and a mile and a half long. The new 300-foot- long machine will process six rolls at once, producing 9 miles of solar cells in three days. At full production, the new facility will boost U.S. solar cell production capacity by about 20 percent. See the ECD/United Solar press release at: http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20020624.htm. To learn more about United Solar's technology, see the United Solar Web site at: http://www.uni-solar.com/Our_Technology_a_Si.html. Photos of the new machine are posted on the United Solar Web site at: http://www.uni-solar.com/PV%20Manufacturing.html. New York State Energy Plan Increases Energy Efficiency, Boosts Renewable Energy, and Cuts Greenhouse Emissions The New York State Energy Planning Board released its 2002 State Energy Plan last week. The new plan includes goals to increase the state's use of renewable energy by 50 percent by 2020, drawing on renewable energy for 15 percent of the state's energy needs. It also calls for increased energy efficiency, but sets the goal in terms of energy intensity: reducing energy use per Gross State Product to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Those actions will contribute to a third state goal, cutting its greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010, and further cutting them to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. According to the planning board, the energy plan is designed to provide statewide policy guidance for energy-related decisions by government and private market participants within the State for the next four years. While achieving such goals may be questionable in most states, New York has at least one thing acting in its favor: its successful New York Energy Smart program, administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA). In its first three years, the $78 million-a-year program has helped construct two wind facilities and has reduced annual carbon dioxide emissions by 670,000 tons. Among the program's recent accomplishments are a rebate program that replaced 20,000 inefficient room air conditioners, the installation of energy efficiency improvements and a geothermal cooling system at a pharmaceutical laboratory, the installation of a geothermal heat pump system at Le Moyne College, the installation of an efficient cooling system at a mall, financing for an efficient vapor pressure swing adsorption system for an apple storage facility, and the provision of $24 million to support 56 combined heat and power systems in the state. See the recent NYSERDA press releases at: http://www.nyserda.org/press.html. See also Governor Pataki's announcements regarding NYSERDA programs at: http://www.nyserda.org/press/pressother2002.html. The full 2002 State Energy Plan is posted on the NYSERDA Web site at: http://www.nyserda.org/sep.html. U.S. National Efforts Aim to Promote Efficiency, Renewables Energy efficiency and renewable energy may become a mainstream part of U.S. society through new efforts by two national organizations. For renewable energy, the newly formed American Council for Renewable Energy (ACRE) aims to bring renewable energy into the mainstream of America's economy and lifestyle, with a scope that includes solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy; hydropower; biofuels; waste energy; and hydrogen
Re: [biofuels-biz] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
It is a fact that if you have 5 gallons of water / day available, and you have 6 people, somebody loses out. Population tends to be self correcting that way, to the detriment of us all. Will we exceed the carrying capability of this globe? I'm sure of it, eventually. Be sure you are able to provide for you and yours when that happens, as depending on others will become very expensive. What questions are you referring to? Check the archives, questions get asked and answered all the time. Current producers tend to be answerers, not askers. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study) This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we all doomed to eating dirt and living in caves? This is the first that I have responded to you all after having subscribed to the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. There's a huge market for it and it works s well. What, for the most part do you people do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and emanate death due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. I still want to check in on your chat about Biofuel so I'll stick around until you whack out completely Any questions from an actual producer? Dave Edmondson Ferndale, WA Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
Sorry Kieth, I really don't know what sense of humor Ed has he could well have been motivated only to inform and in fairness I would otherwise not have read the report. I seriously doubt that the Editors or fellows of the NAS take any work that they publish as gospel. I expect that they feel that the work simply contributes to the debate and I agree that it does, I did get the impression that it leant in a direction that I thought unhelpful, hope I'm wrong. I'v been involved with disability and other social issues so long I do tend to believe that anyone who wants to limit the resources available to the poor is an enemy of mankind. Yes in those issues I do quite consciously leave science behind. Science and logic can comfortably argue in favour of unpleasant population control measures or limits on the human share of resources. My concerns were that by trying to grow our fuel we may have been tipping the ledger further against the capacity of the environment to provide, you convinced me that that was not the case. Believe it or not there are people out there who do believe that limiting health care budgets is a legitimate way to reduce the burden on the environment. Maybe that's an Australian phenomena, perhaps conservationists globally are not so bloody minded. To me sustainability will always be about meeting the needs of people. As far as wasteful life styles are concerned the degree of waste is measured by income, my views on limiting income are very practical conservation, just not palatable to some. To me a conservation movement without a socialist agenda is dangerous, just more capitalists playing the game in a different way after different enhancements to their lifestyle at the expense of some-one else. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple of things, Harry. First, that is NOT trolling. People posting information you don't agree with and that is not necessarily off-topic is not trolling. Trolling is baiting, and I doubt you seriously think Ed posted that message as bait. Second, the research has been done by qualified people belonging to a reputable group, and is being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is certainly a reputable journal. Are you saying that the otherwise sentient editors at the PNAS somehow suspended their critical faculties in order to accept this crap as gospel? What cause do you have to dismiss this report so casually? You and I have tussled over closely related issues in the past, and I don't think any evidence emerged that my view was any less sentient than yours. On the other hand, you made some statements you were unable to substantiate, and ended up preferring scepticism but being unable to say why. So maybe it was your sentience that was suspended. I tend to think so, and this bears it out - this is just a knee- jerk rejection, not a considered response. Man, I do love it when people pooh-pooh the damage their wasteful lifestyles cause and then say let's get on with something practical! Keith Steady Dave they are just trolling. Unfortunately this type of release is taken as gospel by many otherwise sentient people. In the Australian context too many of them are in the public service. The context needs to be considered, we generally represent the people of the world whose needs are being met. Members of many of these conservation oriented groups are amoungst the wealthiest, note the celebrities used to promote projects like Olivia Newton Johns reafforest Australia campaign. That less than 25% of Australia was forest under aboriginal permaculture doesnt come into it. Australia actually has more than 25% under forest and the tree density is often unsustainable. The real at risk ecosystems are open woodland and native grassland. The ones that can be preserved with good forest grazing practices. People whos needs are met have no trouble putting millions of hectares of otherwise productive land under carbon sequestering trees to slow climate change. Afer all the change may well threaten their obscene share of the worlds resources. Having said that let me also say that we really must limit our use of resources to what we actually need, waste does no one good nor do practices that ultimately reduce the productive capacity of the renewable resources that we need. My view is simple enough, the amount of resources a person uses is measured by their income, a cap on income limits waste. Redistribution of excess income via taxation to pay for public services that ensure an effective lower limit of income for the poor is the most achievable method of redustributing income. Not all sustainability types agree with me but its a good way of distinguishing between the greedy conservationist (I like my high income lifestyle but do these peasants have to breath so much air) and the genuine conservationist
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Selection for oilseed with an ideal FA composition for biodiesel.
Thanks Harry, I feel quite flattered. It seems you place quite a bit of faith in my dabbling. With regards to costs, it all comes down to variable costs per hectare. With regard to this, variable costs are cost of fertiliser, cost of chemical, cost of fuel, cost of seed, depreciation on plant, windrowing, wages, return on capital investment and of course, yield. These are different for every farmer, but for myself, the variable costs of growing Canola are somewhere in the vicinity of $240.00/ha and I would assume a yield of 2 tonne/ha..so I guess that gives us a figure of $120 per tonne. Again, to come up with a cost per litre of oil extracted, you need to add in capital investment of plant and infrastructure, electricity, wages, etc. With regards to the most suitable oil, if you could give me an idea of a dream FA composition, I may be able to get my hands on some information that may steer us toward an ideal cultivar. regards Steven gjkimlin wrote: Thanks Steve, quite a smogasbord of oils, I'll dig out the european study. It would have been one of the references that Kieth posted. The WVO we get would take some cleaning up to use without conversion so we haven't looked at that. I intend to get back to the Dalby guys, if they are into alcohol from sorgum they may be interested eventually in commercial bio from canola or sunflower. I'd be relying on your advice for the appropriate oilseed to grow on the Downs. Chemtech seem to use a similar formulation for biocide. Something lives in Tony's fuel tank, you wouldn't believe the amount of algae that grows overnight. He cleaned the tank after the last episode, either he didn't get it all or his diesel supplier has a problem. What costs/ton do you estimate for your home grown oil? The problem with selection for the most suitable cultivars, as I see it, is that you need ready access to a LG chromatograph or similar equipment to determine the FA composition. I'd like to have a go at that, I still have an unused tissue lab sitting here. Anyone got some Jatropha seed to send me? Please excuse the typing, I'm not wearing my glasses, and can't read what I'm writing.Regards from Harry. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Harry, the FA analysis I posted was made with cold pressed sunflower oil. I have got my hands on a few hundred kilos of Canola which I will crush in a couple of weeks time (when cropping is out of the way) and process into BD, and hopefully will have up to a tonne of Mustard in August to try. I have planted some Canola (Pioneer 47CO2) which will be grown and stored on farm to be crushed for BD and I will also try running some as a SVO conversion in my trusty old ute. I purchased a Vege-therm from Edward (looks well made) and Iwill make up a SVO kit. Have you played around with SVO Harry? Your comments would be appreciated. Oh, by the way, the FA analysis you have of the European BD would be interesting to see...if you don't mindand no, I haven't tried my BD in the freezer yet. Your biocide sounds interesting...and I guess you don't buy it from a hardware shop!! gjkimlin wrote: Hi Steve, I compared the FA composition that you posted with some in the european literature. What strain are you growing? The European crop specifically grown for bio seems to be called OO or00 probably because it has zero 22C FAs. Have you cooled your bio to determine the cloud or pour point? I would be interested. The stuff we make from the WVO is variable, some cafes use cottonseed, some palm oil and some a mysterious blend that could even be re- refined WVO though I suspect that this is supposed to be exported to China. Either way we have to winterise, it being winter and all. A sorgum based ethanol plant is being constructed in Dalby, hopefully they will be an affordable source of fuel grade ethanol for mixing with the bio. The stuff that we use for a biocide is an ester between butyl and ethyl alcohols, 2-butoxy ethanol or butyl glycol ether. Its probably used as a winterizer in higher amounts. Its used as a grease cutter in truck wash and I suspect that its a solvent for cellulose. One hell of a solvent, wouldn't want it in the creek. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an
Re: [biofuels-biz] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
Mr. Edmondson, I do believe that you are a prime example of the exact variant of the human species that the study was referring to - one that walks around blind, dipping into the resource pile without giving much thought to the equitable divisibility of resources or resource budgeting. On top of that, your manners really stink. Surely your mum taught you better. Or are you one of those young neuvo whips who's had everything handed to him in a polystyrene wrapper and still doesn't have the first trickle of condensation under his bridge? A posted article written by no one on this list, and yet almost every line of your response is derogatory about both the list and its membership in general. Couple that with your general disconnect that gives any reader the impression that somehow simply because you theoretically make a few drops of biodiesel that all is supposed to be right with the world? It would be rather interesting to hear some of the specifics on the sales and regulation end of your distribution. Maybe you could share a few of your fuel, rack and retention specs, or state fire and IRS code, or a bit about your water treatment, catalyst and alcohol recovery processes? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study) This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we all doomed to eating dirt and living in caves? This is the first that I have responded to you all after having subscribed to the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. There's a huge market for it and it works s well. What, for the most part do you people do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and emanate death due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. I still want to check in on your chat about Biofuel so I'll stick around until you whack out completely Any questions from an actual producer? Dave Edmondson Ferndale, WA Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM --- --~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study)
Harry, The practical solutions, as you put it, don't include Mr. Edmondson's ragging on persons that had no relationship to the article which offended Mr. Edmondson's delicate sensibilitites in the first place. Secondly, this was not the only mental disconnect in his post. And thirdly, resource consumption is not as directly limitted by income as you would have others believe. Rather, it's an internal thing. Why is it that so many of the lesser income opt for the Air Jordans and other fads? Why do middle income levels spend more on their Beemers than housing? And why do so many at upper income levels never seem to be sated? While income has some correlation to how much one is capable of consuming - presuming the credit card phenomena is discounted - the fact of the matter is that it's the insecurity quotient that underlies nearly all purchases of excess, at all levels of income - people who aren't happy with who they are, who are programmed to believe that they will somehow be better and jump farther if they put on a different mask. And when the reality sets in that the Billabong mask isn't going to make Joey a better swimmer? On to the next fad to try and harness a little more image securitywith the price generally being of less concern than the perceived result. I suggest that the real issue be dealt with, rather than opting out for the nearsighted solution of taxing the population to death. At your proposed tax rates, we'd still be living in a sod house, but couldn't afford to implement any of the environmental efforts that we've been working on for 20 years. Take a look around you. Governments can't perform responsibly with what they already appropriate. Giving them more is supposed to improve performance and or efficiency? Sounds like government would be the first place for you to apply your tax 'em into poverty theory. Or better still, alter their conscious (and conscience) along the same lines that the conscious of the consumer needs to be altered, lending greater to the probability that they'll begin to understand that a $25.00 pare of sneakers will get the same job done as a $125.00 pair. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: gjkimlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:07 AM Subject: [biofuels-biz] Re: FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources(Stupid Study) Steady Dave they are just trolling. Unfortunately this type of release is taken as gospel by many otherwise sentient people. In the Australian context too many of them are in the public service. The context needs to be considered, we generally represent the people of the world whose needs are being met. Members of many of these conservation oriented groups are amoungst the wealthiest, note the celebrities used to promote projects like Olivia Newton Johns reafforest Australia campaign. That less than 25% of Australia was forest under aboriginal permaculture doesnt come into it. Australia actually has more than 25% under forest and the tree density is often unsustainable. The real at risk ecosystems are open woodland and native grassland. The ones that can be preserved with good forest grazing practices. People whos needs are met have no trouble putting millions of hectares of otherwise productive land under carbon sequestering trees to slow climate change. Afer all the change may well threaten their obscene share of the worlds resources. Having said that let me also say that we really must limit our use of resources to what we actually need, waste does no one good nor do practices that ultimately reduce the productive capacity of the renewable resources that we need. My view is simple enough, the amount of resources a person uses is measured by their income, a cap on income limits waste. Redistribution of excess income via taxation to pay for public services that ensure an effective lower limit of income for the poor is the most achievable method of redustributing income. Not all sustainability types agree with me but its a good way of distinguishing between the greedy conservationist (I like my high income lifestyle but do these peasants have to breath so much air) and the genuine conservationist who's political solution includes increased taxes for incomes over double the full time male average. Meanwhile Dave just work away on the practical solutions. Regards from Harry --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is such crap. Do all of you really believe this? Are we all doomed to eating dirt and living in caves? This is the first that I have responded to you all after having subscribed to the shat line on Biofuels. I'm making and selling Biodiesel. There's a huge market for it and it works s well. What, for the most part do you people do?; Believe in this Hokum about earth's short resources and emanate death due to human activity? What Crap and very unscientific. I still want
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Look, folks, I would not have posted the article if I did not think it worthy of this group and of potential interest. I was trained in environment and management at the master's level, and sustainability and the concepts mentioned here are well-established and known, as is the author of the study. My present work in this field is a direct result of the thesis project undertaken for that degree, and that interest in biodiesel and SVO came directly from my interest in renewable resources, recycling, agriculture, economics, air quality, rural economic development, and sustainability. Many people on this list share those interests and in fact are inspired and motivated by them to engage in production and use of biofuels. The fact that it was published where it was, and the other people on the team (if you take the time to look it up), should tell you something about the credibility of this work. Like any news article, there is more detail behind the scenes and that is easily found by a visit to the web site mentioned. The report mentioned here is part of a body of work and a concept (the ecological footprint concept, pioneered by Dr. Bill Rees at the University of British Columbia) There are certain facts of life that you cannot ignore - public policy is made by people in all levels of government, around the world. They are making decisions and setting policy, subsidies, grants, taxes and laws that we will all be living with in the future. They should be educated in the concepts related to this study, and thank goodness they are, through the hard work of people like Wackernagel, Rees and many other well-respected researchers. Biofuels interest is one small piece of this lager puzzle of how we can improve the quality of life for the projected soon-to-be-10 billion human inhabitants of the planet, at the same time we reduce resource demands so that carrying capacity (an ecological concept, also well established) is not exceeded to the point of collapse. Ecosystems can and do collapse. We tend, as humans, to think it cannot happen to us, and a lot of that thinking stems from an economic system that was born in a time of such vast resources that the creators could not and did not include natural systems and resources in the calculations of how it was all to work - they were assumed to be limitless. History tells us they are not, we are rapidly running out of new frontiers to run to, and large-scale mega project technological fixes may not be able to bail us out often enough - many have already proven to be catastrophic failures. Suggest some might want to get a little more informed, it might change your views. If you have a scientific, well researched counter-argument, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal and then maybe Reuters will print a small article that others can use tobase attacks upon you without really taking the time to study what they comment on. As they say, there is opinion, and there is informed opinion. Regards, Edward Beggs, BES, MSc http://www.biofuels.ca Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Excellent post, Ed. I would add two things. First, and i say this not having actually read the study by Wackernagel, that in addition to the concept of ecological footprint, it is also describing a shadow ecology. Shadow ecology is a term coined I believe in the book Beyond Interdependence by MacNeill, Winsemius, and Yakushiji. But it was really fleshed out in Shadows in the Forest by Peter Dauvergne. Basically, the notion is that economic interdependence leads to ecological interdependence, because consumers in one area cast the ecological shadow of their consumption to the regions whither come the resources (or where pollution is dumped). So that demand for rainforest timber in Japan casts an ecological shadow over say, Indonesia, or when Europe ships off toxic waste to be stored in Africa. In response to Dave Edmondson of Ferndale Washington, who asserted that this was crap, I am curious what he means by this? I also live in the Puget Sound, in Seattle. Dave, I would think the massive depletion of resources in your immediate neighborhood would provide ample evidence of the type of ecosystem stresses referred to in the report. We have an ongoing crisis with Salmonid species, due to overuse and poor management of both rivers and fisheries. We had a crisis in forest management come to a head less than a decade ago. Orcas are likely to be listed as a threatened species. Transportation gridlock is out of control, and more people move to the region and we simply don't have the infrastructure or political will to address the problem. We're losing prime farmland to suburban sprawl daily, in spite of the Growth Management Act. And those are just some of the headliners. What kind of evidence are you looking for? That said, I would love to talk with you about the BD you're making. I want to get the Tribe involved in this, but am still trying to make it work. Best regards, Thor Skov --- Neoteric Biofuels Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look, folks, I would not have posted the article if I did not think it worthy of this group and of potential interest. I was trained in environment and management at the master's level, and sustainability and the concepts mentioned here are well-established and known, as is the author of the study. My present work in this field is a direct result of the thesis project undertaken for that degree, and that interest in biodiesel and SVO came directly from my interest in renewable resources, recycling, agriculture, economics, air quality, rural economic development, and sustainability. Many people on this list share those interests and in fact are inspired and motivated by them to engage in production and use of biofuels. The fact that it was published where it was, and the other people on the team (if you take the time to look it up), should tell you something about the credibility of this work. Like any news article, there is more detail behind the scenes and that is easily found by a visit to the web site mentioned. The report mentioned here is part of a body of work and a concept (the ecological footprint concept, pioneered by Dr. Bill Rees at the University of British Columbia) There are certain facts of life that you cannot ignore - public policy is made by people in all levels of government, around the world. They are making decisions and setting policy, subsidies, grants, taxes and laws that we will all be living with in the future. They should be educated in the concepts related to this study, and thank goodness they are, through the hard work of people like Wackernagel, Rees and many other well-respected researchers. Biofuels interest is one small piece of this lager puzzle of how we can improve the quality of life for the projected soon-to-be-10 billion human inhabitants of the planet, at the same time we reduce resource demands so that carrying capacity (an ecological concept, also well established) is not exceeded to the point of collapse. Ecosystems can and do collapse. We tend, as humans, to think it cannot happen to us, and a lot of that thinking stems from an economic system that was born in a time of such vast resources that the creators could not and did not include natural systems and resources in the calculations of how it was all to work - they were assumed to be limitless. History tells us they are not, we are rapidly running out of new frontiers to run to, and large-scale mega project technological fixes may not be able to bail us out often enough - many have already proven to be catastrophic failures. Suggest some might want to get a little more informed, it might change your views. If you have a scientific, well researched counter-argument, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal and then maybe Reuters will print a small article that others can use tobase attacks upon you without really taking the
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Dear friends, It is interesting not only to get the reference of good article but also to see that the tempers lost also bring better analysis of the same subject with so many additional references. Look forward for more serious reading like this from this group Karanth from India [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
What are natural resources ? The advance of technology keeps changing the definition of natural resources so maybe the meaning of resource depletion needs re-examination from a multidimensional vantage point. We are entering the age of molecular manipulation and its just possible, that in the future, we'll be able to turn any form of matter into any resource we want. The future offers no guarantees so its wise to conserve energy and other resources whenever possible, but its also possible future generations will be resource richer than our wildest dreams. Check this out : http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html MikeF. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neoteric Biofuels Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies for cross posting. -- Forwarded Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:06:03 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study Earth can't meet human demand for resources, says study Tuesday, June 25, 2002 By Christopher Doering, Reuters WASHINGTON ÷ The consumption of forests, energy, and land by humans is exceeding the rate at which Earth can replenish itself, according to research published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted by California-based Redefining Progress, a nonprofit group concerned with environmental conservation and its economics, warned that a failure to rein in humanity's overuse of natural resources could send the planet into ecological bankruptcy. Earth's resources are like a pile of money anyone can grab while they all close their eyes, but then it's gone, said Mathis Wackernagel, lead author of the study and a program director at Redefining Progress. Scientists said humanity's demand for resources had soared during the past 40 years to a level where it would take the planet 1.2 years to regenerate what people remove each year. The impact by humans on the environment had inched higher since 1961 when public demand was 70 percent of the planet's regenerative capacity, the study showed. If we don't live within the budget of nature, sustainability becomes futile, Wackernagel said. The study, which details the population's impact on the Earth with a quantitative number, measured the ecological footprint of human activities such as marine fishing, harvesting timber, building infrastructure, and burning fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Researchers then used government data and various estimates to determine how much land would be required to meet human demand for those actions. For example, Wackernagel and his team found that in 1999, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. The global average was significantly lower than industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where 24 acres and 13.3 acres, respectively, were consumed per person. 'ECOLOGICAL BANKRUPTCY' In order to develop a formula that measured humanity's consumption with the Earth's regenerative capacity, the researchers were forced to reach several assumptions and omit the use of some resources because of insufficient data. The results, for example, excluded the impact of local freshwater use and the release of solid, liquid, or gaseous pollutants other than CO2 into the environment. Even though the findings revealed that human use of resources was far outstripping Earth's supply, it stopped short of determining how long the process could continue without detrimental consequences. Like any responsible business that keeps track of spending and income to protect financial assets, we need ecological accounts to protect our natural assets, Wackernagel said. And if we don't ... we will prepare for ecological bankruptcy. Wackernagel said the study's results could be used to gauge the impact of new technologies and how they affect the environment. The use of an alternative technology, such as one that produces renewable energy or replaces natural biological processes, could allow society to live better without increasing consumption, he said. Governments could also determine the impact consumers and businesses were having on depleting area resources and evaluate potential ways to reduce consumption, Wackernagel said. Copyright 2002, Reuters All Rights Reserved ** List Name: SIDSnet energy-newswire Posting address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe energy-newswire To subscribe, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: subscribe energy-newswire No subjects required for either cases. Brought to you by the Small Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Well Mike, For us poor ole' Appalachian hicks, perhaps you can drum up a list of natural resources that technology has somehow given birth to but didn't exist prior to the technology. I confess I'm having a bit of a go at this one. And waxing philosophic doesn't make a tree or a squirrel any less so, no matter how many chips are embedded in them. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: [biofuels-biz] Re: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study What are natural resources ? The advance of technology keeps changing the definition of natural resources so maybe the meaning of resource depletion needs re-examination from a multidimensional vantage point. We are entering the age of molecular manipulation and its just possible, that in the future, we'll be able to turn any form of matter into any resource we want. The future offers no guarantees so its wise to conserve energy and other resources whenever possible, but its also possible future generations will be resource richer than our wildest dreams. Check this out : http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html MikeF. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neoteric Biofuels Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies for cross posting. -- Forwarded Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:06:03 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study Earth can't meet human demand for resources, says study Tuesday, June 25, 2002 By Christopher Doering, Reuters WASHINGTON - The consumption of forests, energy, and land by humans is exceeding the rate at which Earth can replenish itself, according to research published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted by California-based Redefining Progress, a nonprofit group concerned with environmental conservation and its economics, warned that a failure to rein in humanity's overuse of natural resources could send the planet into ecological bankruptcy. Earth's resources are like a pile of money anyone can grab while they all close their eyes, but then it's gone, said Mathis Wackernagel, lead author of the study and a program director at Redefining Progress. Scientists said humanity's demand for resources had soared during the past 40 years to a level where it would take the planet 1.2 years to regenerate what people remove each year. The impact by humans on the environment had inched higher since 1961 when public demand was 70 percent of the planet's regenerative capacity, the study showed. If we don't live within the budget of nature, sustainability becomes futile, Wackernagel said. The study, which details the population's impact on the Earth with a quantitative number, measured the ecological footprint of human activities such as marine fishing, harvesting timber, building infrastructure, and burning fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Researchers then used government data and various estimates to determine how much land would be required to meet human demand for those actions. For example, Wackernagel and his team found that in 1999, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. The global average was significantly lower than industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where 24 acres and 13.3 acres, respectively, were consumed per person. 'ECOLOGICAL BANKRUPTCY' In order to develop a formula that measured humanity's consumption with the Earth's regenerative capacity, the researchers were forced to reach several assumptions and omit the use of some resources because of insufficient data. The results, for example, excluded the impact of local freshwater use and the release of solid, liquid, or gaseous pollutants other than CO2 into the environment. Even though the findings revealed that human use of resources was far outstripping Earth's supply, it stopped short of determining how long the process could continue without detrimental consequences. Like any responsible business that keeps track of spending and income to protect financial assets, we need ecological accounts to protect our natural assets, Wackernagel said. And if we don't ... we will prepare for ecological bankruptcy. Wackernagel said the study's results could be used to gauge the impact of new technologies and how they affect the environment. The use of an alternative technology, such as one that produces renewable energy or replaces natural biological processes, could allow society to live better without increasing consumption, he said. Governments could also determine the impact consumers and businesses were having on depleting area resources and evaluate potential ways to reduce consumption, Wackernagel said. Copyright 2002, Reuters All Rights Reserved ** List Name: SIDSnet
Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Look, folks, I would not have posted the article if I did not think it worthy of this group and of potential interest. I was trained in environment and management at the master's level, and sustainability and the concepts mentioned here are well-established and known, as is the author of the study. My present work in this field is a direct result of the thesis project undertaken for that degree, and that interest in biodiesel and SVO came directly from my interest in renewable resources, recycling, agriculture, economics, air quality, rural economic development, and sustainability. Many people on this list share those interests and in fact are inspired and motivated by them to engage in production and use of biofuels. The fact that it was published where it was, and the other people on the team (if you take the time to look it up), should tell you something about the credibility of this work. Like any news article, there is more detail behind the scenes and that is easily found by a visit to the web site mentioned. The report mentioned here is part of a body of work and a concept (the ecological footprint concept, pioneered by Dr. Bill Rees at the University of British Columbia) There are certain facts of life that you cannot ignore - public policy is made by people in all levels of government, around the world. They are making decisions and setting policy, subsidies, grants, taxes and laws that we will all be living with in the future. They should be educated in the concepts related to this study, and thank goodness they are, through the hard work of people like Wackernagel, Rees and many other well-respected researchers. Biofuels interest is one small piece of this lager puzzle of how we can improve the quality of life for the projected soon-to-be-10 billion human inhabitants of the planet, at the same time we reduce resource demands so that carrying capacity (an ecological concept, also well established) is not exceeded to the point of collapse. Ecosystems can and do collapse. We tend, as humans, to think it cannot happen to us, and a lot of that thinking stems from an economic system that was born in a time of such vast resources that the creators could not and did not include natural systems and resources in the calculations of how it was all to work - they were assumed to be limitless. History tells us they are not, we are rapidly running out of new frontiers to run to, and large-scale mega project technological fixes may not be able to bail us out often enough - many have already proven to be catastrophic failures. Suggest some might want to get a little more informed, it might change your views. If you have a scientific, well researched counter-argument, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed and respected scientific journal and then maybe Reuters will print a small article that others can use tobase attacks upon you without really taking the time to study what they comment on. As they say, there is opinion, and there is informed opinion. Regards, Edward Beggs, BES, MSc http://www.biofuels.ca Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that is a scam, I am saying that it sounded like a scam. I read the artical in question, and did what I could to reaserch it in a limited amount of time. They said that they used existing data, that is part of the problem I have with it. Until we know that the data is good, then it should be a little suspect. I'm trying to avoid the It sounds good, it makes sense, so it must be true. symdrome. I have no doubt that some of the data is good, but, I don't know that all of it is. Let us not forget that how the data is applied, can also affect the out come of a study, as well as the proper understanding of it. I say the last part, because someone in the fertalizer business, could use it as a push to sell the latest and greatest fertalizer not only will it fend off starvation, but, it does windows as well I took took the eco-footprint test, so why did it give me the score it did? Is it because I eat meat almost every day ( what kind of meat should be known because different spiecies have a different footprint ), is it because I live in a house ( a house that has a basement has a smaller footprint than a house that is single level, for a give size )? Is it because I have 4 people in the house, did it consiter that one of them is 6 months old, and does not eat meat? Do I carpool? How many times do I flush the toilet or take a bath or shower? Septic system ? These things make a differance but were not asked. I found the test flawed, and for me that cast doubt on the data and how they are applying it. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:41 Subject: Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study - Original Message - From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc. For example, Wackernagel and his team found that in 1999, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. The global average was significantly lower than industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where 24 acres and 13.3 acres, respectively, were consumed per person. Sorry, I have a hard time believing something like this when a statement is left open, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. 5.7 acres of what? When broad sweeping statments like this are made, that person sounds just like a scam artist setting someone up. Greg H. Then you should learn something about eco-footprinting, which is far from a scam. The website I posted is a good place to start. http://www.rprogress.org/ Anyway, it wasn't left open, it's not a broad sweeping statement. Read it again. There's plenty more about it here: http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/pnas_0602.html Redefining Progress: Programs: Sustainability: Ecological Footprint Accounts: PNAS Article June 2002 Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Beyond Oil The Future of Energy NEWSWEEK
Beyond Oil The Future of Energy NEWSWEEK http://www.msnbc.com/news/nw-futureenergy_front.asp When Wells Go Dry Energy: The rate of global oil production will start to fall in just a few years, says a controversial geologist. And alternative technologies arenât ready yet Hot Springs Eternal Hydrogen Power: People mocked Bragi Arnasonâs vision of producing energy from the H in H2O. Now the first test is about to be launched in his native Iceland. Next: the world? Sun in the Forecast Solar Energy: The price isnât competitive yet, but the technology gets closer all the time Taking the Breeze Electricity: New technologies make Europe take another look at wind as a power source The Thirst for Oil Bush warns of the worst energy crisis since the â70s. But even if thatâs so, his strategy÷pump more U.S. oil÷wouldnât solve it. The anatomy of a bad policy Pipeline Brigade President Bush is arming troops to protect Occidental Petroleum in Colombia. What next? The Atom Option The world is warming and oil is politically troublesome, but nuclear power is being left out of most energy plans. A noted physicist argues that this is shortsighted Web Exclusives The Future of Fuel-Efficient Cars Designers have built cars that can run on everything from soybean oil to solar power. So why arenât we driving them? Interactives MSNBC: High-tech Oil Drilling Thanks to technology, drilling for oil has become more of a science than a matter of luck MSNBC: The U.S. Power Grid An interactive outlining how the U.S. power grid system works, with a spotlight on California ` Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study
I've got 40. used to have 400. can't say I've consumed it. I do wonder how much resources our toys consume in construction and delivery. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] FW: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study - Original Message - From: Neoteric Biofuels Inc. For example, Wackernagel and his team found that in 1999, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. The global average was significantly lower than industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where 24 acres and 13.3 acres, respectively, were consumed per person. Sorry, I have a hard time believing something like this when a statement is left open, each person consumed an average of 5.7 acres. 5.7 acres of what? When broad sweeping statments like this are made, that person sounds just like a scam artist setting someone up. Greg H. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
