[biofuel] Air Pollution Even Worse for Heart Than Lungs
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23143/story.htm Air Pollution Even Worse for Heart Than Lungs USA: December 17, 2003 NEW YORK - Long-term exposure to fine particles - so-called particulate matter - in polluted air is more likely to cause death from cardiovascular disease than from respiratory conditions, researchers reported Monday. In a study looking at pollution effects in U.S. metropolitan areas, 45.1 percent of deaths were attributable to cardiovascular disease, whereas only 8.2 percent were related to respiratory diseases. "While we know that air pollution is not the dominant cause of atherosclerotic diseases (hardening of the arteries), these results are consistent with findings that air pollution provokes inflammation, accelerates atherosclerosis, and alters cardiac function," lead author Dr. C. Arden Pope III, from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, said in a statement. The new findings, published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation, are based on an analysis of data on deaths classified according to specific cause, combined with air pollution data from 116 US cities. Data on 500,000 subjects were included in the analysis. During the 16-year study period, 22.5 percent of the subjects died, the researchers note. Further analysis confirmed a direct link between long-term particulate matter exposure and cause-specific mortality. For each unit rise in particulate matter, the risk of death from cardiovascular disease plus diabetes rose by 12 percent. Respiratory disease deaths were not consistently associated with particulate matter exposure, the authors note. Among people who had never smoked, such exposure was positively linked to mortality from pneumonia and influenza. Interestingly, however, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) and related deaths seemed to decrease as levels of particulate matter rose. Smoking was found to be a stronger risk factor than air pollution for deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, the researchers found. However, as expected, the two factors often work together to produce a larger increase in risk. "There is no question that active cigarette smoking is a much, much larger risk factor than air pollution," Pope said. "We don't know precisely how the two relate, but there is some evidence in our study that the mechanisms are similar or complementary." Although "non-smokers exposed to high levels of air pollution will probably not die of COPD," an editorial points out, "they may develop a higher than normal risk of death from pneumonia or influenza." SOURCE: Circulation, December 16th rapid access issue, 2003. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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] Air Pollution Even Worse for Heart Than Lungs
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23143/story.htm Air Pollution Even Worse for Heart Than Lungs USA: December 17, 2003 NEW YORK - Long-term exposure to fine particles - so-called particulate matter - in polluted air is more likely to cause death from cardiovascular disease than from respiratory conditions, researchers reported Monday. In a study looking at pollution effects in U.S. metropolitan areas, 45.1 percent of deaths were attributable to cardiovascular disease, whereas only 8.2 percent were related to respiratory diseases. "While we know that air pollution is not the dominant cause of atherosclerotic diseases (hardening of the arteries), these results are consistent with findings that air pollution provokes inflammation, accelerates atherosclerosis, and alters cardiac function," lead author Dr. C. Arden Pope III, from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, said in a statement. The new findings, published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation, are based on an analysis of data on deaths classified according to specific cause, combined with air pollution data from 116 US cities. Data on 500,000 subjects were included in the analysis. During the 16-year study period, 22.5 percent of the subjects died, the researchers note. Further analysis confirmed a direct link between long-term particulate matter exposure and cause-specific mortality. For each unit rise in particulate matter, the risk of death from cardiovascular disease plus diabetes rose by 12 percent. Respiratory disease deaths were not consistently associated with particulate matter exposure, the authors note. Among people who had never smoked, such exposure was positively linked to mortality from pneumonia and influenza. Interestingly, however, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) and related deaths seemed to decrease as levels of particulate matter rose. Smoking was found to be a stronger risk factor than air pollution for deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, the researchers found. However, as expected, the two factors often work together to produce a larger increase in risk. "There is no question that active cigarette smoking is a much, much larger risk factor than air pollution," Pope said. "We don't know precisely how the two relate, but there is some evidence in our study that the mechanisms are similar or complementary." Although "non-smokers exposed to high levels of air pollution will probably not die of COPD," an editorial points out, "they may develop a higher than normal risk of death from pneumonia or influenza." SOURCE: Circulation, December 16th rapid access issue, 2003. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuels-biz/ 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] City Council Approves Bill To Curb Diesel Emissions
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=3456 Environmental Defense NEWS RELEASE 12/15/2003 City Council Approves Bill To Curb Diesel Emissions Law Makes New York National Leader In Fight Against Environmental Triggers Of Asthma (15 December 2003 -- New York) Environmental Defense called today's City Council unanimous vote to approve 191A a groundbreaking action and a tremendous step forward for healthy air in New York City. "Today, New York is one step closer to being a national leader in the fight against urban asthma," said Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense. "With this bill, New York City will be the first major American city to make a comprehensive commitment to require advanced retrofits and ultra low sulfur fuel in all public construction project." Intro 191A will require city owned or leased construction equipment to use cleaner fuel and be equipped with pollution control technology. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel combined with the best available retrofit technology has the ability to reduce diesel emissions by up to 90%. As written, Intro 191-A provides a reasonable timeframe for implementation and provides flexibility for agencies and contractors to adapt to its requirements. "One million people in New York City have asthma ? and the non-road diesel sector, which includes construction machinery, emits more dangerous fine particles than cars, trucks and power plants combined," said Darrell. "We urge Mayor Bloomberg to sign the bill. There is no reason not to. The technologies are available, the cost is reasonable and the benefits for health are significant." A press conference is expected to be held Wednesday, December 17, at 2:30PM on the steps of City Hall. Speakers will include; Councilmen James Gennaro and Alan Gerson; Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense; Catherine McVay Hughes, Founder and President of Asthma Moms; and a representative of the General Contractors Association. The bill passed today was based on a successful project to cut emissions from construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site. Environmental Defense worked with Governor Pataki to establish a commitment that would require all state construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site to use retrofits and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. Like the state, the City would start downtown but would then extend further to bring the benefits citywide within a reasonable timeframe. Find out more at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/airquality. ### Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 400,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. www.environmentaldefense.org Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuels-biz/ 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/
[biofuel] City Council Approves Bill To Curb Diesel Emissions
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=3456 Environmental Defense NEWS RELEASE 12/15/2003 City Council Approves Bill To Curb Diesel Emissions Law Makes New York National Leader In Fight Against Environmental Triggers Of Asthma (15 December 2003 -- New York) Environmental Defense called today's City Council unanimous vote to approve 191A a groundbreaking action and a tremendous step forward for healthy air in New York City. "Today, New York is one step closer to being a national leader in the fight against urban asthma," said Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense. "With this bill, New York City will be the first major American city to make a comprehensive commitment to require advanced retrofits and ultra low sulfur fuel in all public construction project." Intro 191A will require city owned or leased construction equipment to use cleaner fuel and be equipped with pollution control technology. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel combined with the best available retrofit technology has the ability to reduce diesel emissions by up to 90%. As written, Intro 191-A provides a reasonable timeframe for implementation and provides flexibility for agencies and contractors to adapt to its requirements. "One million people in New York City have asthma ? and the non-road diesel sector, which includes construction machinery, emits more dangerous fine particles than cars, trucks and power plants combined," said Darrell. "We urge Mayor Bloomberg to sign the bill. There is no reason not to. The technologies are available, the cost is reasonable and the benefits for health are significant." A press conference is expected to be held Wednesday, December 17, at 2:30PM on the steps of City Hall. Speakers will include; Councilmen James Gennaro and Alan Gerson; Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense; Catherine McVay Hughes, Founder and President of Asthma Moms; and a representative of the General Contractors Association. The bill passed today was based on a successful project to cut emissions from construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site. Environmental Defense worked with Governor Pataki to establish a commitment that would require all state construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site to use retrofits and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. Like the state, the City would start downtown but would then extend further to bring the benefits citywide within a reasonable timeframe. Find out more at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/airquality. ### Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 400,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. www.environmentaldefense.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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/
[biofuel] EPA goes soft on heavy metal power plant emissions
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-16/s_11330.asp EPA goes soft on heavy metal power plant emissions Tuesday, December 16, 2003 By John Heilprin, Associated Press WASHINGTON - Days after a scientific panel urged the government to strongly warn pregnant women and children about mercury levels in certain fish, the Bush administration is proposing to give power plants up to 15 years to install technology to reduce mercury pollution. The proposal, released by the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, would require immediate action in some cases once the new regulations took effect a year from now. The move comes a week after scientists told the Food and Drug Administration that it should issue stronger warnings to pregnant women and young children about mercury levels in fish, particularly tuna. White, or albacore, tuna has nearly three times as much mercury as cheaper "light" tuna. Mercury pollution can taint fish once it enters water and turns into a more dangerous form, methyl mercury. In high levels, it can damage the growing brains of fetuses and young children. EPA's first-ever proposed controls on mercury pollution from power plants would ease limits envisioned by the Clinton administration, letting owners in some cases delay meeting requirements until 2018. They would let industry meet the first six years' goals by using pollution controls already installed to stem smog and acid rain. The controls were issued to meet a deadline under a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group sued during the Clinton administration to force mercury limits on power plants. The rule must be made final within a year. "These actions represent the largest air reductions of any kind not specifically mandated by Congress," Mike Leavitt, the new EPA administrator, said Monday. "We are calling for the largest single industry investment in any clean air program in U.S. history." In a related measure, EPA proposed that power plants in 30 states cut smog- and soot-forming chemicals from their smokestacks. EPA estimates the industry will pay at least $5 billion to comply with both programs. The Bush administration mercury plan is a departure from the Clinton administration approach. In 2001, EPA estimated that mercury could be cut by as much as 90 percent, to 5.5 tons, by 2008 if the best available technology were used as the Clinton EPA had hoped, according to EPA documents obtained by advocacy group National Environmental Trust. But the White House and Leavitt want to let utilities meet mercury pollution limits the first six years using the benefits of controls installed for other pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. That approach, EPA says, would eliminate about 14 tons a year of mercury emissions from the currently unregulated 48 tons a year generated by coal-fired power plants. Such plants account for about 40 percent of the nation's mercury pollution. After that, the proposal would cut an additional 19 tons a year of mercury emissions, EPA says. The result would be a 70 percent reduction - from 48 tons to 15 tons - by 2018, the agency says. The Clinton administration listed mercury as a "hazardous air pollutant." The Bush administration would undo that by placing mercury into a less strict category of the Clean Air Act, which will allow companies to buy and sell pollution rights with other plants. "What we're trying to do is to maximize the total reduction of pollution from power plants," said Jeffrey Holmstead, head of EPA's air office. He said an interim cap on tons of mercury pollution would be set between "the high 20s to low 30s" by 2010. Proponents frequently point to the acid rain trading program begun in 1990 as the model for using market forces to reward companies that surpass their pollution reduction targets. But it would mean the toughest mercury requirements would not take force until 2018. EPA's regulation for cutting smog and soot would require power plants in 30 states to cut sulfur dioxide emissions, which contain soot and lead to acid rain, to 3.2 million tons by 2015 from current levels of about 10 million tons a year. It also would require cutting smog-forming nitrogen oxides to 1.7 million tons from current levels of 4 million tons. Source: Associated Press http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/politics/16MERC.html?ex=1072501200&e n=42476aececcb8c9f&ei=5070 New Policy on Mercury Pollution Was Rejected by Clinton E.P.A. By JENNIFER 8. LEE Published: December 16, 2003 WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The Bush administration's new proposal to regulate mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants is essentially the same as one discussed and rejected by the Clinton White House, former Clinton Environmental Protection Agency officials said Monday. E.P.A. officials ruled in December 2000 that since mercury was a human neurotoxin, it had to be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That d
[biofuels-biz] EPA goes soft on heavy metal power plant emissions
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-16/s_11330.asp EPA goes soft on heavy metal power plant emissions Tuesday, December 16, 2003 By John Heilprin, Associated Press WASHINGTON - Days after a scientific panel urged the government to strongly warn pregnant women and children about mercury levels in certain fish, the Bush administration is proposing to give power plants up to 15 years to install technology to reduce mercury pollution. The proposal, released by the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, would require immediate action in some cases once the new regulations took effect a year from now. The move comes a week after scientists told the Food and Drug Administration that it should issue stronger warnings to pregnant women and young children about mercury levels in fish, particularly tuna. White, or albacore, tuna has nearly three times as much mercury as cheaper "light" tuna. Mercury pollution can taint fish once it enters water and turns into a more dangerous form, methyl mercury. In high levels, it can damage the growing brains of fetuses and young children. EPA's first-ever proposed controls on mercury pollution from power plants would ease limits envisioned by the Clinton administration, letting owners in some cases delay meeting requirements until 2018. They would let industry meet the first six years' goals by using pollution controls already installed to stem smog and acid rain. The controls were issued to meet a deadline under a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group sued during the Clinton administration to force mercury limits on power plants. The rule must be made final within a year. "These actions represent the largest air reductions of any kind not specifically mandated by Congress," Mike Leavitt, the new EPA administrator, said Monday. "We are calling for the largest single industry investment in any clean air program in U.S. history." In a related measure, EPA proposed that power plants in 30 states cut smog- and soot-forming chemicals from their smokestacks. EPA estimates the industry will pay at least $5 billion to comply with both programs. The Bush administration mercury plan is a departure from the Clinton administration approach. In 2001, EPA estimated that mercury could be cut by as much as 90 percent, to 5.5 tons, by 2008 if the best available technology were used as the Clinton EPA had hoped, according to EPA documents obtained by advocacy group National Environmental Trust. But the White House and Leavitt want to let utilities meet mercury pollution limits the first six years using the benefits of controls installed for other pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. That approach, EPA says, would eliminate about 14 tons a year of mercury emissions from the currently unregulated 48 tons a year generated by coal-fired power plants. Such plants account for about 40 percent of the nation's mercury pollution. After that, the proposal would cut an additional 19 tons a year of mercury emissions, EPA says. The result would be a 70 percent reduction - from 48 tons to 15 tons - by 2018, the agency says. The Clinton administration listed mercury as a "hazardous air pollutant." The Bush administration would undo that by placing mercury into a less strict category of the Clean Air Act, which will allow companies to buy and sell pollution rights with other plants. "What we're trying to do is to maximize the total reduction of pollution from power plants," said Jeffrey Holmstead, head of EPA's air office. He said an interim cap on tons of mercury pollution would be set between "the high 20s to low 30s" by 2010. Proponents frequently point to the acid rain trading program begun in 1990 as the model for using market forces to reward companies that surpass their pollution reduction targets. But it would mean the toughest mercury requirements would not take force until 2018. EPA's regulation for cutting smog and soot would require power plants in 30 states to cut sulfur dioxide emissions, which contain soot and lead to acid rain, to 3.2 million tons by 2015 from current levels of about 10 million tons a year. It also would require cutting smog-forming nitrogen oxides to 1.7 million tons from current levels of 4 million tons. Source: Associated Press http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/politics/16MERC.html?ex=1072501200&e n=42476aececcb8c9f&ei=5070 New Policy on Mercury Pollution Was Rejected by Clinton E.P.A. By JENNIFER 8. LEE Published: December 16, 2003 WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The Bush administration's new proposal to regulate mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants is essentially the same as one discussed and rejected by the Clinton White House, former Clinton Environmental Protection Agency officials said Monday. E.P.A. officials ruled in December 2000 that since mercury was a human neurotoxin, it had to be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That d
[biofuel] Soybeans: the new threat to Brazilian rainforest
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-18/s_11441.asp Soybeans: the new threat to Brazilian rainforest Thursday, December 18, 2003 By Michael Astor, Associated Press QUERENCIA, Brazil - The paved highway peters out more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) back, but roadside billboards still sprout across a landscape of interminable green fields - proclaiming the presence of multinational agribusiness giants like Cargill and Bunge. In town, cowboy-hatted ranchers, recently transplanted from Brazil's prosperous south, rub shoulders with Amazon Indians as streams of tractor-trailers kick up dust hauling fertilizer in and huge tree trunks out. Nowhere is the doubled-edge thrust of soybeans more apparent than in this dusty boom town on the rainforest's southern edge. "The farmers are cutting down everything to make way for soy and that's good business for me," said Ivo de Lima, a lumber man who moved here recently. A new variety of soybean developed by Brazilian scientists to flourish in this punishing equatorial climate is good for farmers, too, putting South America's biggest country on the verge of supplanting the United States as the world's leading exporter. But, to the horror of environmental activists, soybeans are claiming increasingly bigger swaths of rainforest to make way for plantations, adding to the inroads by ranching. The Amazon lost some 10,000 square miles (25,476 square kilometers) of forest cover last year alone - 40 percent more than the year before. "After cattle ranching, soybeans are the main driver of Amazon destruction," said Roberto Smeraldi of Friends of the Earth Brazil. "Today, we have lots of areas being cut down by small holders with the idea of selling them to soybean farmers and in other areas pasture is being converted to soy." With soybean prices at a five-year high, thanks to a smaller than expected crop this year in the United States, Brazilian farmers are rushing into the jungle to take advantage of cheap land. A bag of soybeans sells for about 35 reals (US$11.85), allowing a good profit because soybeans cost 17.6 reals-22 reals (US$6-US$7.50) to produce, said Anderson Galvao Gomes, director of the Celeres agricultural consulting firm. "The price would have to drop considerably for the expansion to stop," he said. The front line of the soybean advance is in Querencia, a municipality of nearly 6,800 square miles (17,600 square kilometers) that includes the Xingu National Park, a near-pristine slice of rainforest where 14 Indian tribes live in much the way they have for thousands of years. Indians say the soybean boom is beginning to change all that. "The soy is arriving very fast. Every time I leave the reservation I don't recognize anything anymore because the forest keeps disappearing," said Ionaluka, a director of the Xingu Indian Land Association. The area around Xingu lost about 500 square miles (1,280 square kilometers) of forest last year. "Across the state, deforestation increased by 30 percent between 2001 and 2002. This year, I don't know about the whole state, but in the region of Querencia I believe the numbers for deforestation will certainly grow," said Rodrigo Justus Brito, director of forest resources for the state environmental agency. Indians fear deforestation will dry up the rivers that run through the Xingu reservation and the chemicals used to keep lizards and termites off crops will poison their fish. Satellite photos reveal that the southern half of the 10,800-square-mile (27,648-square-kilometer) reservation is almost completely surrounded by farm fields. Environmentalists fear that is a picture of the Amazon's future. Soybean producers are lobbying to pave roads through the jungle and Cargill recently opened a major port in the Amazon River city of Santarem. Critics say that if left unchecked, soybean cultivation will eventually eat up large swaths of rainforest and wreck the environment. Gov. Blairo Maggi of Mato Grosso state, who also is one of the world's largest soybean producers, says those fears are unfounded. He argues damage can be kept to a minimum if the state's strict environmental rules are followed and he accuses environmental groups of stirring unnecessary worry. "Behind the environmental concerns are economic interests," Maggi said. "They are trying to impede or slow the growth of Brazilian production." Maggi said that ideally 40 percent of his state's 349,807 square miles (906,000 square kilometers) will be devoted to agriculture and 60 percent will be preserved. He hopes that by the time he leaves office in 2007, Mato Grosso will be producing 100 million tons of soybeans a year, five times the state's current crop and equal to all of Brazil's harvest in 2002. The state does have strict environmental regulations as well as Brazil's most advanced system for monitoring and preventing Amazon destruction, but critics question whether they will be enforced. The st
[biofuels-biz] Soybeans: the new threat to Brazilian rainforest
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-18/s_11441.asp Soybeans: the new threat to Brazilian rainforest Thursday, December 18, 2003 By Michael Astor, Associated Press QUERENCIA, Brazil - The paved highway peters out more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) back, but roadside billboards still sprout across a landscape of interminable green fields - proclaiming the presence of multinational agribusiness giants like Cargill and Bunge. In town, cowboy-hatted ranchers, recently transplanted from Brazil's prosperous south, rub shoulders with Amazon Indians as streams of tractor-trailers kick up dust hauling fertilizer in and huge tree trunks out. Nowhere is the doubled-edge thrust of soybeans more apparent than in this dusty boom town on the rainforest's southern edge. "The farmers are cutting down everything to make way for soy and that's good business for me," said Ivo de Lima, a lumber man who moved here recently. A new variety of soybean developed by Brazilian scientists to flourish in this punishing equatorial climate is good for farmers, too, putting South America's biggest country on the verge of supplanting the United States as the world's leading exporter. But, to the horror of environmental activists, soybeans are claiming increasingly bigger swaths of rainforest to make way for plantations, adding to the inroads by ranching. The Amazon lost some 10,000 square miles (25,476 square kilometers) of forest cover last year alone - 40 percent more than the year before. "After cattle ranching, soybeans are the main driver of Amazon destruction," said Roberto Smeraldi of Friends of the Earth Brazil. "Today, we have lots of areas being cut down by small holders with the idea of selling them to soybean farmers and in other areas pasture is being converted to soy." With soybean prices at a five-year high, thanks to a smaller than expected crop this year in the United States, Brazilian farmers are rushing into the jungle to take advantage of cheap land. A bag of soybeans sells for about 35 reals (US$11.85), allowing a good profit because soybeans cost 17.6 reals-22 reals (US$6-US$7.50) to produce, said Anderson Galvao Gomes, director of the Celeres agricultural consulting firm. "The price would have to drop considerably for the expansion to stop," he said. The front line of the soybean advance is in Querencia, a municipality of nearly 6,800 square miles (17,600 square kilometers) that includes the Xingu National Park, a near-pristine slice of rainforest where 14 Indian tribes live in much the way they have for thousands of years. Indians say the soybean boom is beginning to change all that. "The soy is arriving very fast. Every time I leave the reservation I don't recognize anything anymore because the forest keeps disappearing," said Ionaluka, a director of the Xingu Indian Land Association. The area around Xingu lost about 500 square miles (1,280 square kilometers) of forest last year. "Across the state, deforestation increased by 30 percent between 2001 and 2002. This year, I don't know about the whole state, but in the region of Querencia I believe the numbers for deforestation will certainly grow," said Rodrigo Justus Brito, director of forest resources for the state environmental agency. Indians fear deforestation will dry up the rivers that run through the Xingu reservation and the chemicals used to keep lizards and termites off crops will poison their fish. Satellite photos reveal that the southern half of the 10,800-square-mile (27,648-square-kilometer) reservation is almost completely surrounded by farm fields. Environmentalists fear that is a picture of the Amazon's future. Soybean producers are lobbying to pave roads through the jungle and Cargill recently opened a major port in the Amazon River city of Santarem. Critics say that if left unchecked, soybean cultivation will eventually eat up large swaths of rainforest and wreck the environment. Gov. Blairo Maggi of Mato Grosso state, who also is one of the world's largest soybean producers, says those fears are unfounded. He argues damage can be kept to a minimum if the state's strict environmental rules are followed and he accuses environmental groups of stirring unnecessary worry. "Behind the environmental concerns are economic interests," Maggi said. "They are trying to impede or slow the growth of Brazilian production." Maggi said that ideally 40 percent of his state's 349,807 square miles (906,000 square kilometers) will be devoted to agriculture and 60 percent will be preserved. He hopes that by the time he leaves office in 2007, Mato Grosso will be producing 100 million tons of soybeans a year, five times the state's current crop and equal to all of Brazil's harvest in 2002. The state does have strict environmental regulations as well as Brazil's most advanced system for monitoring and preventing Amazon destruction, but critics question whether they will be enforced. The st
[biofuel] Scientists Say Human Impact on Climate Change Certain
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252267 NDOL: DLC | New Dem Daily | December 17, 2003 Scientists Say Human Impact on Climate Change Certain The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth, ocean, and climate scientists, has always been extremely cautious in interpreting the growing evidence that human activities -- especially carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and utility plants -- are a major contributor to global climate change. Indeed, American conservatives often distort AGU's "let's-see-all-the-evidence" approach into support for their position that the whole global warming controversy is some sort of environmentalist hoax. But yesterday AGU issued a strongly worded statement -- adopted unanimously by a special panel convened for that purpose -- concluding that "human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate." The statement also calls for actions to reduce "the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events." As The Wall Street Journal reported, "The scientific committee that drafted the statement includes John Christy, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist who has often sided with warming skeptics in the past. But scientific dissent now increasingly involves details of the warming phenomenon, not the basic result that man-made gas emissions are a probably cause of the warming trend." In an interview with National Public Radio today, Christy said it was "scientifically inconceivable" that natural influences are solely responsible for climate change. It will be interesting to see if the Republican politicians who like to quote Christy are paying attention. Just last week, a group of conservative Members of Congress led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) contributed to the world-wide impression that the Bush administration and its supporters are dangerously irresponsible on this subject, holding a press conference outside a United Nations conference on global climate change in Milan to air their claims that "the science is flawed; it is anything but certain." At some point, preferably right now, Republicans need to stop embarrassing their country with this kind of ignorant hokum. If AGU's scientific conclusions bear repeating, so, too, does its call for action before climate change potentially becomes catastrophic. At a minimum, the administration should risk upsetting its flat-earth fans in the GOP "base" by agreeing to restart the international negotiations on climate change that it torpedoed as one of George W. Bush's first actions in foreign relations. And both Congress and the administration need to get serious about limiting our own greenhouse gas emissions, preferably through a "cap-and-trade" system that will impose mandatory limits while encouraging market means to reach them. This kind of system could avoid the false choice between economic growth and environmental improvement that conservatives so often cite, by stimulating the development of new "clean technologies" that would give the U.S. a big comparative advantage in one of the global economy's fastest growing sectors. The time for denial on global climate change is long over. The time for action is now. http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1551355 NPR : Science Group Issues Climate Change Warning Science Group Issues Climate Change Warning Morning Edition audio Dec. 17, 2003 The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth scientists, issues a consensus statement linking human activity to unprecedented climate changes that present cause for concern. The statement follows a debate in Congress in which some senators downplayed or even denied the existence of global warming. NPR's Richard Harris reports http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html Human Impacts on Climate Human Impacts on Climate Adopted by Council December, 2003 Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possib
[biofuels-biz] Scientists Say Human Impact on Climate Change Certain
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252267 NDOL: DLC | New Dem Daily | December 17, 2003 Scientists Say Human Impact on Climate Change Certain The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth, ocean, and climate scientists, has always been extremely cautious in interpreting the growing evidence that human activities -- especially carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and utility plants -- are a major contributor to global climate change. Indeed, American conservatives often distort AGU's "let's-see-all-the-evidence" approach into support for their position that the whole global warming controversy is some sort of environmentalist hoax. But yesterday AGU issued a strongly worded statement -- adopted unanimously by a special panel convened for that purpose -- concluding that "human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate." The statement also calls for actions to reduce "the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events." As The Wall Street Journal reported, "The scientific committee that drafted the statement includes John Christy, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist who has often sided with warming skeptics in the past. But scientific dissent now increasingly involves details of the warming phenomenon, not the basic result that man-made gas emissions are a probably cause of the warming trend." In an interview with National Public Radio today, Christy said it was "scientifically inconceivable" that natural influences are solely responsible for climate change. It will be interesting to see if the Republican politicians who like to quote Christy are paying attention. Just last week, a group of conservative Members of Congress led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) contributed to the world-wide impression that the Bush administration and its supporters are dangerously irresponsible on this subject, holding a press conference outside a United Nations conference on global climate change in Milan to air their claims that "the science is flawed; it is anything but certain." At some point, preferably right now, Republicans need to stop embarrassing their country with this kind of ignorant hokum. If AGU's scientific conclusions bear repeating, so, too, does its call for action before climate change potentially becomes catastrophic. At a minimum, the administration should risk upsetting its flat-earth fans in the GOP "base" by agreeing to restart the international negotiations on climate change that it torpedoed as one of George W. Bush's first actions in foreign relations. And both Congress and the administration need to get serious about limiting our own greenhouse gas emissions, preferably through a "cap-and-trade" system that will impose mandatory limits while encouraging market means to reach them. This kind of system could avoid the false choice between economic growth and environmental improvement that conservatives so often cite, by stimulating the development of new "clean technologies" that would give the U.S. a big comparative advantage in one of the global economy's fastest growing sectors. The time for denial on global climate change is long over. The time for action is now. http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1551355 NPR : Science Group Issues Climate Change Warning Science Group Issues Climate Change Warning Morning Edition audio Dec. 17, 2003 The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth scientists, issues a consensus statement linking human activity to unprecedented climate changes that present cause for concern. The statement follows a debate in Congress in which some senators downplayed or even denied the existence of global warming. NPR's Richard Harris reports http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html Human Impacts on Climate Human Impacts on Climate Adopted by Council December, 2003 Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possib
[biofuel] Ecuador: More Conflict Over Oil, Indigenous Rights
See also: http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/EC/toxico/index.php?page_number=99 Amazon Watch - In the Amazon - Ecuador The Chevron-Texaco Toxic Legacy http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/75273/1/ OneWorld US - Ecuador: More Conflict Over Oil, Indigenous Rights Amazon Watch On the eve of an historic march to protest plans for oil extraction on their sacred homeland and denounce the series of human rights violations that their community endured over the last year, members of the Kichwa nationality from Sarayacu were violently attacked and detained last Thursday by pro-oil forces, while en route to Puyo, the nearest city and site of the march. Sarayacu, a community of approximately 1,500 has been waging an unprecedented nonviolent campaign of resistance to plans by the Argentinean oil company CGC, Houston-based Burlington Resources, and UK Perenco to explore for oil in their territory. Traveling up the Río Bobonaza by canoe, some 120 Sarayacu men, women, and children were stopped by members of the Canelos Kichwa community upriver, employed by CGC. Warning shots were fired at members of Sarayacu and dozens were detained by force. Several were able to escape into the forest, where they hid and spent three days lost until they found their way to the closest town. The others were not as fortunate. While detained, men and women leaders of Sarayacu, including the former president of the community, were attacked during the night with wooden clubs, stones and machetes. Several suffered serious wounds (for photo documentation, go to: www.sarayacu.com). These leaders were eventually released and transported to the local hospital in Puyo. Despite the repressive measures to keep the Sarayacu and their allies from marching, the next day some 1,000 leaders from throughout the Ecuadorian Amazon joined them in the March for Peace and in Defense of the Collective Rights of all Nationalities of the Amazon. "Nobody can impede us from defending our Mother Earth, said one community representative. Against the backdrop of the landmark trial of ChevronTexaco in Ecuadorian courts for environmental crimes in the country's northern rainforest, the opposition of Sarayacu has become a flashpoint for the oil industry in Ecuador, as well as the Ecuadorian government, which plans to open the remaining pristine rainforests of the Southern Ecuadorian Amazon to oil companies. The sustained and adamant opposition of Sarayacu, combined with a new alliance of all five indigenous nationalities on the front lines of the countrys expanding oil frontier reflects a powerful growing movement of indigenous resistance to resource extraction and towards a true indigenous autonomy and greater corporate accountability. Amazon Watch urges concerned readers to send a letter of protest to Ecuadorian authorities. A sample letter can be found at Sarayacu.com. Also, read New York Times coverage of the battle between oil companies and indigenous peoples in Ecuador. "Seeking Balance: Growth vs. Culture in Amazon" December 10, 2003 New York Times by JUAN FORERO PUMPUENTSA, Ecuador - As international energy companies move into the Amazon basin to tap some of the last untouched oil and natural gas reserves, more and more natives are fighting to keep them out. Oil workers and contractors have been kidnapped, company officials say. Equipment has been vandalized. Protests, injunctions and lawsuits are piling up as Indian groups grow increasingly savvy in their cooperation with environmentalists. The governments may increasingly regard the Amazon as an engine for economic growth, but native groups are struggling to balance development with the desire to preserve a nearly primordial way of life. "Let the military come in, because we will defend to the last," said Medardo anti, a leader of Kichwa Indians in an unspoiled jungle region that has been apped for oil exploration in Ecuador, where the dispute is most contentious. "As long as we live here, we will defend our rights." How this struggle plays out will determine whether Amazon resources become a critical part of Latin America's development and an important component of the American strategy to diversify energy supplies beyond the Middle East. Latin America already provides more oil to the United States than the Middle East does. Plans for new oil and gas fields are speeding ahead, pushed by companies from as far afield as China and including Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles, Repsol-YPF of Spain, EnCana of Canada and Petrobras of Brazil. Governments are increasingly trying to lure investors and identify potential reserves along 1,000 miles of forests and Andean foothills, from Colombia to Bolivia. In Peru, one of the largest energy projects in Latin America is under way, a development that could cost $3.6 billion and include nearly 800 miles of pipeline and coastal plants to ship butane, propane and liquefied natural gas to California
[biofuels-biz] Ecuador: More Conflict Over Oil, Indigenous Rights
See also: http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/EC/toxico/index.php?page_number=99 Amazon Watch - In the Amazon - Ecuador The Chevron-Texaco Toxic Legacy http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/75273/1/ OneWorld US - Ecuador: More Conflict Over Oil, Indigenous Rights Amazon Watch On the eve of an historic march to protest plans for oil extraction on their sacred homeland and denounce the series of human rights violations that their community endured over the last year, members of the Kichwa nationality from Sarayacu were violently attacked and detained last Thursday by pro-oil forces, while en route to Puyo, the nearest city and site of the march. Sarayacu, a community of approximately 1,500 has been waging an unprecedented nonviolent campaign of resistance to plans by the Argentinean oil company CGC, Houston-based Burlington Resources, and UK Perenco to explore for oil in their territory. Traveling up the Río Bobonaza by canoe, some 120 Sarayacu men, women, and children were stopped by members of the Canelos Kichwa community upriver, employed by CGC. Warning shots were fired at members of Sarayacu and dozens were detained by force. Several were able to escape into the forest, where they hid and spent three days lost until they found their way to the closest town. The others were not as fortunate. While detained, men and women leaders of Sarayacu, including the former president of the community, were attacked during the night with wooden clubs, stones and machetes. Several suffered serious wounds (for photo documentation, go to: www.sarayacu.com). These leaders were eventually released and transported to the local hospital in Puyo. Despite the repressive measures to keep the Sarayacu and their allies from marching, the next day some 1,000 leaders from throughout the Ecuadorian Amazon joined them in the March for Peace and in Defense of the Collective Rights of all Nationalities of the Amazon. "Nobody can impede us from defending our Mother Earth, said one community representative. Against the backdrop of the landmark trial of ChevronTexaco in Ecuadorian courts for environmental crimes in the country's northern rainforest, the opposition of Sarayacu has become a flashpoint for the oil industry in Ecuador, as well as the Ecuadorian government, which plans to open the remaining pristine rainforests of the Southern Ecuadorian Amazon to oil companies. The sustained and adamant opposition of Sarayacu, combined with a new alliance of all five indigenous nationalities on the front lines of the countrys expanding oil frontier reflects a powerful growing movement of indigenous resistance to resource extraction and towards a true indigenous autonomy and greater corporate accountability. Amazon Watch urges concerned readers to send a letter of protest to Ecuadorian authorities. A sample letter can be found at Sarayacu.com. Also, read New York Times coverage of the battle between oil companies and indigenous peoples in Ecuador. "Seeking Balance: Growth vs. Culture in Amazon" December 10, 2003 New York Times by JUAN FORERO PUMPUENTSA, Ecuador - As international energy companies move into the Amazon basin to tap some of the last untouched oil and natural gas reserves, more and more natives are fighting to keep them out. Oil workers and contractors have been kidnapped, company officials say. Equipment has been vandalized. Protests, injunctions and lawsuits are piling up as Indian groups grow increasingly savvy in their cooperation with environmentalists. The governments may increasingly regard the Amazon as an engine for economic growth, but native groups are struggling to balance development with the desire to preserve a nearly primordial way of life. "Let the military come in, because we will defend to the last," said Medardo anti, a leader of Kichwa Indians in an unspoiled jungle region that has been apped for oil exploration in Ecuador, where the dispute is most contentious. "As long as we live here, we will defend our rights." How this struggle plays out will determine whether Amazon resources become a critical part of Latin America's development and an important component of the American strategy to diversify energy supplies beyond the Middle East. Latin America already provides more oil to the United States than the Middle East does. Plans for new oil and gas fields are speeding ahead, pushed by companies from as far afield as China and including Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles, Repsol-YPF of Spain, EnCana of Canada and Petrobras of Brazil. Governments are increasingly trying to lure investors and identify potential reserves along 1,000 miles of forests and Andean foothills, from Colombia to Bolivia. In Peru, one of the largest energy projects in Latin America is under way, a development that could cost $3.6 billion and include nearly 800 miles of pipeline and coastal plants to ship butane, propane and liquefied natural gas to California
[biofuels-biz] Re: What's wrong with corporations?
www.thecorporation.com > -Original Message- > From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 1:43 AM > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [biofuels-biz] What's wrong with corporations? > > http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/corporations.html > Corporate Watch > > What's wrong with corporations? > > Some things you'd probably prefer weren't true about corporations > > Corporations are people too > > Corporations are benefit scroungers > > Corporations are persistent offenders > > Corporations are as rich as countries > > But what does all this mean > > What can we do about it? > > Some things you'd probably prefer weren't true about corporations: > Corporations aren't allowed to be nice Company directors are legally > obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders' > investments - i.e. to make them as much money as possible. Genuine > efforts to sacrifice profits in favour of human rights and > environmental protection are off-limits. Even if a company's > directors took the long view that environmental sustainablity is > ultimately essential for economic sustainability, their share price > would drop and they would probably be swallowed up by competitors. > This is why corporate social and environmental initiatives can't > really get beyond the marketing and greenwash stage. > > Corporations are people too > They may not have human feelings, they may be bloodless and soulless, > but in the eyes of the law they are 'persons' with many of the same > rights as flesh-and-blood humans. Corporations can claim, for > example, the right to freedom of speech, the right to sue, the right > to 'enjoyment of possessions' (problematic in planning and > environment law). They even have a number of advantages over ordinary > people - specifically, corporations can be in two or more places at > once (so cannot be jailed) and can divide themselves to dodge > liability for their crimes. It is normal, for example, to transfer > ownership of a dangerous cargo to a distant subsidiary while the > cargo is at sea, so the parent company is not liable if it causes a > toxic spill. Also, corporations are ruthless in claiming their rights > - after all, they can afford the best lawyers. > > Corporations are benefit scroungers > In 1997, British Aerospace (BAe) demanded £120m from the UK > government to build a new jet. If the money were not forthcoming, BAe > would fund the project itself - abroad. In 1998 the government paid > up, and in March 2000 handed over a further £530m for another model. > This is routine corporate behaviour. If individuals did it, it would > be called blackmail. On the other end of the equation, corporations > pay less and less tax. It is estimated that Rupert Murdoch's media > empire in the UK paid no net corporation tax in the twelve years to > 1999. This means they're living off the services paid for by everyone > else - they rely on publicly funded roads to move goods and staff, on > the police to protect them from crime, on the NHS to treat sick > workers and the education system to train new ones. But these > essential services are paid for predominantly by individuals and > small businesses. > > Corporations are persistent offenders > In the UK, commercial corporations emerged in the 17th century, as a > direct result of merchant groups breaking the laws banning > corporations from making a profit. From 1825 a few legal companies > were set up - initially restricted to building canals and waterworks. > After 1844 companies could be established to engage in any business > activity stated in their constitution. Even this wasn't enough - up > until 1965 corporations consistently broke the law by engaging in > other activities not in their articles. In 1965 this law was > repealed. On a day to day level, this 'battle to free corporations' > continues; in tax and labour law, health and safety and environmental > protection corporations consistently break the rules then lobby > government, often successfully, to say the rule shouldn't have been > there in the first place. Imagine if ordinary criminals had such > opportunitiesÉ > > Corporations are as rich as countries > In 1999, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, 51 of the > world's 100 largest economies were corporations. To put this in > perspective, General Motors is now bigger than Denmark and > three-and-a-half times the size of New Zealand; the top 200 > corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies > of all countries minus the biggest 10. Is it any surprise that they > are able to dictate terms to many countries? National governments are > often of a dubious moral character, but corporations are by their > nature (see above) greedy, inhumane and parasitic, as well as lacking > even a veneer of democratic control. Moreover, they share a common > ha
[biofuel] mad cow ;mad profit mongers
Years ago i was talking with the manager of a huge animal waste processing center and he was proudly showing about a dozen or more products salvaged from these dead creatures [many died in feedlots days before processing]He laughed and said that i would be suprised how many of them went one way or another back into our food supply! He picked up a container of chicken feathers and said that they ground them up ,along with bones,and put them into pellets for cattle and sheep. I thought then how long would it be until this greed came back to haunt us.Sea food processing is little better,since it is rotten when the ships get back to port and the fish is lifted over and put into huge vats of vinegar to firm up the texture and kill the stench. ken malone [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation?
The 53% came from a fema report a couple years ago about likely casualties in the wake of a widespread disater (they were specifically talking plauge) should basic services (such as electricty and water) be disrupted for any significant time (2 weeks). It is not about "top or bottom" 53%. The basis of the numbers thaty gave was that roughly 53% of the population of America lacks the ability to feed themselves, acquire fresh water and provide the other requirements for life either through lack of knowledge or due to geographic location (you cannot hunt or farm in NY city). This has nothing to do with comfort, it is about survival. Most people have no idea where to get fresh, clean water if they turn their faucet on and nothing comes out. As far as turning wilderness areas into a "central park", you are seeing what you want to see in my response, not what is really there (the true mark of a moron or a zealot). I am NOT for drilling alsakan oil, and I am NOT for building roads. Again, you are makig it apparent that you have NOT been there. Right now, there are almost NO roads into the area. The courts have ruled that SOME type of access must be provided to public lands (and I am clearly NOT talking about wheelchair ramps or any of that other crap). It was not long ago that they closed several areas in Colorado to off road vehicular travel. They were only able to do this once they had shown the court that "resonable access" was prvided through roads. I say drive a road right through the middle of it, THEN you can ban off road vehicular travel AND defend it in court. The question is, do you want 1 road stabbing in there w/ an environmetal impact area of say 3 miles on ech side, or do we leave it as it is now, and eventually the off roaders will manage to destroy the entire area. If the goal is to conserve the area, building roads then restricting off road vehicles is the only way that is going to happen. Look at the areas in colorado that they have done this. If you travels any real distance from the road, you are into virgin woods. Personally, I have no problem whatsever with not drilling the oil, and I firmly believe that there should be NO vehicular travel allowed at all in wilderness areas. This is not going to happen. So we compromise, which is something that many of the hard core environmentalists cannot do. As for you "mach survivalist" crap, I am anything but. I am an executive, I work in a tech industry. I am as far from a survivalist as you can get. I am a realist, though. And right on to your "armchair bitching..gas guzzling jeep cheroke.". My house is powered by a generator that is powered by a wood gasifier. I am completely off the grid. Every bit of power I use is in my home is form a renewable, sustainable, non polluting resource. I have 2 pickup trucks. One is a diesel that until recently ran from SVO, now I am going to run it with biodiesel. The other has a gas engine that is operated by a biomass gasifer. I have been spending a good deal of my "spare" time lately working on a low pressure methanol synthesis process that is viable for home producers. This is reality..Right now, fossil fuels are what our world runs on. Someday, we will probably have something else, but for now, fossil fuels are IT. Get that through your head (there is obviously plenty of room in there). There is not enough oil left right now to set aside reserves sufficent for the future. We are using everything we can get right now. No matter how much complaining the hardcore zealots want to do, that is not going to change. The oil in Alaska WILL be pumped. It WILL be pumped because the corporations need it to keep the wheels of industry turning. Corporations have the money, politicians need money to get elected. It does not take a genius (lucky for you) to see the likely results of this scenario. The only question is, do we pump it now, while there is plenty of oil elsewhere to supply our needs, so we can regulate the process, or do we wait until later when we are in a panic and the regulations are likely to be a lot more lax. From an environmental standpoint, the former is the better option. You can argue all you want, but you need a better argument. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, but as full of holes as your argument is, it takes all the joy out of it. Also, I would really be interested in seeing the industrialised country that is not dependant on fossil fuels. There are none. Othere countries are better when it comes to conservation, other countries are more willing to try out alternative energy sources. you ned up witht he same problem, though, there is still just nothing as good as oil. - Original Message - From: Appal Energy To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation?
[biofuel] Re: opinions on alaska forest situation?
The biggest problem is not roads, is not caribou, is not the cost, but the fact that the atmosphere cannot hold more carbon dioxide without still more climate disruption. We sure are dependent on oil, and we had better start learning to get along without it. We in the US may have to learn to live on less energy. I believe we can innovate ourselves into a much less energy- intensive economy, but we will never do so as long as oil is abundant and cheap. Carter Kennedy --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Jahnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First off, I generally consider myself an environmentalist. I am also a realist (which a lot of environmentalists don't tend to be). We need oil. There is oil in alaska. We should drill the oil. You are talking about an incrdibly small section of land when you look at the whole picture. > snip Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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: [biofuel] Just looking of some advice.
Larry, > Do I need to learn to process vegetable oil before I start on the rapeseed oil? Yes and no. Your three options lay in 1) buying your own extruder/expeller system (or just expeller press if you want to leave a high oil fraction in the meal, 2) Co-op with a group of oilseed growers and split the cost of setting up your own micro-feed mill, or 3) Have an established mill press your grain and retrieve the feed and oil for your own fuel making and animal feed purpuses. If you're organic, there is no way possible to preserve the organic identity of your oil and feed products if you utilize another mill. That will instantly reduce any possible profits to be derived from what was once a feedstock of certain identity. You may not be able to preserve identity even if you co-op, due to the oilseed types (GMO) and/or the chemicals/fertilizers that other co-op members may be utilizing. To do so you would have to literally scrub the system down from stem to stern when switching from non-organic to organic. You will also need to literally hand clean every crack and crevice of every auger, grain bin, truck bed, combine, etc. to eliminate any residual non-organic grains. Identity preservation, while worthwhile, is none-the-less a moderate pain in the rump. If you choose the self-mill route, you'll need to create a balance ledger every penny of capital presently going to vendors and compare that to conservative numbers of what your savings/margins would be if you provided your own services and marketed your own end products. Ask yourself what you're paying for feed meal versus what you could save (pay yourself) and what you could market the rapeseed meal for to neighbors in comparison to what they are presently accustomed to paying. What are you presently paying for off-road fuel versus what you would save? What are you presently paying for heating fuel versus what you could save by utilizing waste products (co-products) from the biodiesel making process? Were I in your shoes, I'd start the calculations using equivalent dollar values to non-organic products, rather than premium values for organic. If the numbers work there everything above that is icing on the cake. If you're intending to produce your own biodiesel, you can tentatively calculate a cost of $0.25 - $0.30 per gallon. That's including electricity, alcohol recovery and discounting your time and the cost of the oil feedstock by 100% (based upon $1.50 per gallon methanol cost). Obviously the virgin oil has value. So that has to be set opposite of what your savings per gallon of diesel will be in your overall equation, or what you can market the biodiesel for to your immediate neighbors. If they see that it's keeping money in their neighborhood at an equivalent or nearly equivalent cost to fossil diesel, rather than exporting money to fossil fuel companies, they'll probably bite. And even if you don't personally have all the tanks and other "stuff" that you will need to do a yeoman's job, I can guarantee you that a combination of your neighbors will have enough "stuff" laying around that they would be willing to throw into the pot to get it off the ground. The farming community is a peculiar lot in that way. Next Friday night my be the perfect time to invite a small circle of people over for a pot luck to discuss some of the possibilities. There is, of course, one other means to help achieve your madness... :-) That would be to start producing biodiesel from waste vegetable oil (WVO) supplies from local restaurants, presuming that you have a moderate number of restaurants within a 25 mile radius of your location. There would be relatively little difference in the costs or production method of the biodiesel when using WVO and you could free up your organic rape for other end uses that might net a better return than dedicating it for tractor fuel. Such a course could also allow you to work your way into the complete cycle that you've suggested one phase at a time, rather than finding out that you're biting off more than you can chew in one sitting and putting your investments at greater risk. Whatever you do, it will be challenging. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Larry Little" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: [biofuel] Just looking of some advice. > BlankI am some what new to the group. I have just been watching the email and enjoying the various comments. I am a farmer at heart. I have learned that I am pretty organic in my production methods. We use no pesticides, fertilizer and very few if any chemicals in general. (I have honey bees) > > The real reason I joined the group is because I found rapeseed grows on my farm here in Oklahoma and grows very easily. I planted rapeseed the first time for many different reasons other than oil production. I thought it was pretty. I used the plants for bees and honey and to feed wildlife. This year I planted more. I love it.
[biofuel] Just looking of some advice.
BlankI am some what new to the group. I have just been watching the email and enjoying the various comments. I am a farmer at heart. I have learned that I am pretty organic in my production methods. We use no pesticides, fertilizer and very few if any chemicals in general. (I have honey bees) The real reason I joined the group is because I found rapeseed grows on my farm here in Oklahoma and grows very easily. I planted rapeseed the first time for many different reasons other than oil production. I thought it was pretty. I used the plants for bees and honey and to feed wildlife. This year I planted more. I love it. Right now it is thickly scattered across 70 acres. I produce Arrow leaf Clover seed to sell. The combine will gather the rapeseed as I combine the clover seed. It is pretty neat. I first considered the rapeseed to be a real pain because I have to separate it from my clover seed. Reading your comments makes me think there is hope for the rapeseed. I have now built a seed cleaner that separates the two seeds well. Now that I know a little more about the plant and its uses, I am excited about the possibilities of producing biodiesel. Besides, I believe we need renewable energy. If all goes well I could have several thousand pounds of rapeseed by this fall and every year after this. There is a limited market for the seed in this region. I can only sell a little for seed for pasture.. My production cost are very low. The rapeseed is basically a by product to my operation. I need it for my bees in the spring. I need the bees for the clover pollination.I plant the rapeseed in the fall. So far it has over wintered well. Blooms in the spring. My actual cost are the seed I plant, the extra bulk at combining time, and the separation cost. My clover products enough nitrogen for the crop to grow well. I have been amazed. So if I could make some good use of the rapeseed it would just really be exciting. I do need for it pay its way. So, I have been reading about processing rapeseed for oil and about the process of making Biodiesel. If it is on the internet I have probably at the least looked at it. However, the two processes I know nothing about. What I know I am not understanding very well. So far I have not done anything. Like all other beginners I have many questions. For now, most of them can wait. Too ignorant to ask a good question. Too overwhelmed to understand a good answer. Be that as it may, My goal is to build a small scale system. Looks like I could have 10 ton of seed to start with. If I had something that would work well, there would be several neighbors that would join me. I am pretty creative and have lots of tools, but don't have lots of funds. What I put together needs to work. I want to build something that would be useful if I want to grow the process. We have cattle that could eat some of the rapeseed cake that is left from the processing. We have diesel, trucks, tractors, and combines to use the fuel. I do hope that within the group there may be someone that has used a small processing unit that might be willing to direct me through some of the steps so that I do as little experimentation as possible. I am pretty convinced that there could be a steady supply of rapeseed.. I am very visual and hands on. The pictures of systems are not making much sense to me. If there are some parts of the processing that are within driving distance from Oklahoma I would do well to watch the process. Right now the processes are tremendously overwhelming to me. I have looked at the pictures of the processing equipment. I have not been able to get a complete mental picture of the size equipment or process.that I might need to be gathering. Thought perhaps that if I identified myself and my fears there might be help. It will be July or August before I will have my own seed ready to use. I could buy enough seed to test the a system. I would to love to start putting something together this winter. I need to do all the cheap stuff first I want to try to process by this time next year.. If there is someone that has the time and interest to get me started, I will appreciate it . Thanks Do I need to learn to process vegetable oil before I start on the rapeseed oil? I will want to know where to buy what I need at competitive prices Best Regards Larry Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or m
[biofuel] Re: Military diesel motorcycles and other cool stuff...
I had heard that there was someone doing conversions in Germany, I wonder if that isn't the case referenced? At any rate it's quite easy, if you can handle the power issue, to put the factory identical Lombardini engine into an Enfield or any light bike. As a matter of fact a distrubutor picked up 40 suitable engines under a contract gone bad situation Ie. real cheap and is off-loading them for a heavy discount on ebay currently, search Lombardini. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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/
[biofuel] Just say no to "Old Whistle Ass."
http://dean2004.bmgbiz.net/defeatbush.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation?
Reality Greg, is that the entire industrialized world has a great deal of
thanks to offer for the invention of fossil fuels, but that it's time to
move on and stop paying homage to the carbon gods.
And of equal reality Greg, is that most of the world hardly needs a
neophytic primer on what makes the world turn, much less what happens when
the world's skids run dry of grease.
But Bushies and other mindless sorts might, as they are of the mentality
that we suck the resources dry with abandon until the straw starts to pull
air - all the while failing miserably, if not intentionally, to move into
renewable energy supplies and legislate them into full blown market reality
as have always been fossil and nuclear fuels.
That's reality. Perfectly ignorant, but none the less reality.
And your death "without oil" mindset is not exactly what one would call
"well rounded." So which 53% of ["me"] can't subsist without fossil fuels?
The top 53 % or the bottom 53%?
No Greg. What you're actually saying is that the comfort level of 53% of the
globe's population will be out the window and they'll be forced to actually
live and fend for themselves for once in their lives if the despotism of the
westernized corporate economy is permitted to pluck all the plums and then
burn all the branch stock.
Of course it would be nice if "Old Whistleass"
http://dean2004.bmgbiz.net/defeatbush.html would put into reserve enough
liquid fossil so that plowshares can be somewhat readily transported to the
masses for the next thousand or more years and a painless market
stabilization/de-escalation could occur in our immediate future, rather than
the inevitable market, social and environemental chaos that will occur as a
result of radical shortages in liquid fossil fuel supply.
But ahhh heck. What the hell. Let's drill the bejeebers out of whatever oil
is remaining under the Earth's crust. Damn the caribou burn it up in a flash
pan as you would have it. Then leave the world's sons, daughters,
grandchildren and great grandchildren to deal with the crushing consequences
brought on by present day greed and avarice that leaves them without
adequate mineral supplies to parachute safely to a moderately soft landing.
As for "YOUR" (quote unquote) no roads crap "A solution in search of a
problem?" You're oh so close to having that mantra down to a stand-up comedy
routine. Nice phraseology your premise that forests should be "at the
disposal of every [A]merican," for that is exactly the end result of road
networks.
Forests have survived remarably well with no human help for millions of
years. Roads will enlist a quicker end to that track record. Perhaps someone
should point you back to your original remark that people "might have to
WALK through the woods." But you want to make the walks nothing but day
trips with pick-a-nick baskets ("eh, Booboo?") through green islands
surrounded by roads - one gigantic Central Park if you had your way.
Sorry. But the courts have already agonizingly plowed through the concept
that there should be an access ramp for the handicapped to every mountaintop
on public lands. There response was a resounding no. And you might want to
research the decision before you think about blithering that they were
liberal judges. (No doubt you, Rush, Ann and George would declare them
conservatively wise had they rendered differently.)
Oh...by the by bucko. I've worked a few more crews fighting forest fires
than you've roasted marshmallows in your junior forestry career. So you can
refold your ill founded surmise nice and tightly and refile it back in any
one of those poorly lit corners of your mind.
As for your portrayal of being a hardened and macho survivalist type? It's
a safe bet that the balance of the population outside of yourself would
perceive you as something consderably less than that, as would the horse
that you rode in on. [Horse thinks: "Why doesen't he get of his ass and my
back and walk through those woods for three weeks like he says everyone else
should or could?"]
Naw Greg. You're one of those guys who's perfectly in his comfort zone -
armchair bitching because the road doesn't encroach another 30 miles deep,
all the while sitting at the wheel of your idling Jeep Cherokee with a still
full reserve tank of petrol.
And no need to apologize for not going into any further depth on your
platform of how technology is going to pull our collective bums out of the
deep fat fryer in the nick of time. You plumbed that shallow puddle rather
well in the course of but one or two breaths.
It's not the technology that's the problem, but the will (actually the lack
thereof) that is perfectly evidenced by empty mindsets of ["drill, mine,
grade, gravel and pave into oblivion."].
Given another four years Bush & Co. will push the US so far behind the curve
of energy efficient and renewable energy markets that it will take half a
full human lifetime just to climb to a level of par with countries that
already have the l
[biofuel] updates for beckett burners
Hello all, talked to a hvac guy this morning and asked him if he could get the viton seals for a beckett as everything I've read says the seals will eventually get eaten by the biodiesel and leak he called them up and was told that in 2004 they will have an upgraded pump for becketts to handle bio fuel and he gave me the enginers name and phone # thats working on this just figured someone would like to know this(I know my spelling is off but what the hey its after 2 in the morning) shawn Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation?
Well, let me introduce you to the realities of the world. The economy of the entire inustrialised world is based on oil. We use it to produce goods, transport goods, power our homes and vehicles. Without oil, there is no economy. Without an economy, 53% of you are DEAD (FEMA). Clintons idiotic "no roads" crap was a solution in search of a problem. It is pretty apparent from your post that you have never been to the region in question. An overabundance of roads is NOT a problem. There is a problem, though, with a myriad of random trails made by trucks and 4 wheelers. Roads, while they are ugly eyesores, prevent every swingin' dick who comes along from cutting their own road. There are several areas in colorado where vehicular traffic is limited to the roads. There doesn't seem to be a problem with getting people to adhere to this. The simple fact of the matter is, people passing through an area on foot or on horseback leave a a lot less of a mark than people on 4 wheelers or in 4x4 trucks. What Clinton did was not control access to the area. He simply deregulated it. If you go ahead and build the roads, you can regulate the access. There are those, of course, who would argue that we need to restrict access to the entire region. Besides being idiotic, that is illegal. Those are public lands, owned by the US government and at the disposal of every american. That is the way it should be. As much as your "real environmentalist" hate to admit it, we have now seen he effects of limited logging and they are not detrimental. And as for the oil question, that oil WILL be pumped out of there. The question is, now, or later. As the worlds petroleum supplies dwindle, there will be a lot less support for the argument against drilling in the alaskan wilderness. If we do it now, it can be done under regulation. Later, we might not be so lucky. If you look at the history of oil worldwide, you can see the pattern there. Things that they would not have dared try int he 40's and 50's are commonplace now. What do you think it will be like in anothr 20 or 30 years? The simple fact of the matter is, there is nothing ont he horizon right now that can replace oil. Solar is not cost effective, wind is unreliable, biomass has problems with regulation and scalibility, hydrogen fuels cells (despite what some of the pliticians in washington would like you to believe) are years away from being useful. Oil is it for now. That leads us back to our original question...Pump it now or pump it later. History has shown us that dealing with the situation as soon as it arises is FAR better than the crossing your fingers and hoping approach. Look at WWII. Could have been handles in the beginning pretty easily, we chose to wait w/ crossed fingers and toes. Aliens are not going to drop out of space tommorow and solve our energy problems, and there is no real relief in the forseeable future. This is the real world. I spent 3 weeks in traveling through that area on horseback 2 summers ago. I did not see another person, or a road, the entire time. I did see a bunch of trails that ahad been cut by morons in off road vehicles. I would suggest that you pay the region a visit and then maybe you will understand my viewpoint on this. IMNSHO If you haven't been there to see the problem for yourself, you have no business lecturing those of us who have. A few more realities for you: If we have ladders, people are going to fall off them If we are going to travel in SUV's and build factories, we are going to have dirty air. If we are going to base our economy on oil, we have to drill it. The carribou will just have to deal with this. These are just the ways of the world. Personally, I would fully support shutting down all the power plants, stopping all the oil pumps and doing away with all non-renewable sources of energy. Millions would die, of course, but that really doesn't bother me. Short of going back to the dark ages (and again, I have no problem with that) the world is what it is. We are stuck with it and wishful thinking is not going get us anwhere. Sorry that I didn't go into more depth on this in the original posting (such as why the no road policy was idiotic). It seemed to me that the simple common sense of the situation was apparent. - Original Message - From: Appal Energy To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? Greg, You should really listen to yourself. If you don't happen to up-chuck right off the bat at your classic disassociation tactics and sweeping generalizations, you'll quickly see them for what they are (or actually aren't). Yes. An "environmental realist" - as you describe yourself - understands that we need a few momentary drops of oil rather than a robust policy of renewables, efficiency and con
Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation?
Greg, You should really listen to yourself. If you don't happen to up-chuck right off the bat at your classic disassociation tactics and sweeping generalizations, you'll quickly see them for what they are (or actually aren't). Yes. An "environmental realist" - as you describe yourself - understands that we need a few momentary drops of oil rather than a robust policy of renewables, efficiency and conservation. After all, "It's there." "It's only a little bit of land." Such a perfectly convenient application of the proverbial "drop in a bucket" analogy. Funny how you can sweepingly declare a no road policy as a "poor one" while offering no qualifiers. But you'll probably try to apply the "incredibly small section of land" argument to road building as well. "Golly. It's only a 12' narrow strip of land. Think about all the acreage on both sides!" Well "Duh, Bullwinkle!" That's exactly what real environmentalists are precisely concerned about - all the acreage on both sides of every new road. Roads mean access. Access mean people. People mean degradation. Build roads for access and then shake your finger at the off-rudders and tell them "No, no. You can't go there." I suppose you're going to play traffic cop and keep all the off-rudders in check? You said you're a realist, eh? Well, the least I can do is thank you for that little holiday chuckle. Funny how "realism" is that which is in line with what you perceive. I suppose that leaves everything else in the realm of "unrealistic," eh? All rather convenient and tidy. Grossly selfish and near-sighted but rather tidy. By your account "environmentalists" should capitulate to your conception of reality so that they can better focus on other things. In corporate-speak that means focusing on the one pie remaining rather than the one about to be devoured by the dog. Of course the dog would call that a fair compromise - half, then half again, and then half of that and half all over again and again until there's nothing left and then move on to another window ledge in search of more pie leaving everyone else shortchanged and cleaning up the mess. Well Greg? Sorry, but an environmental realist would take a broom handle to the head of the dog and beat its ass away from the window and back where it belongs. And if the broom handle broke? Move to the axe handle. No doubt you'll have a generous dose of corporate forgiveness in your heart when I tell you that what you're trying to sell doesn't fly worth spit. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "Greg Jahnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? > First off, I generally consider myself an environmentalist. I am also a realist (which a lot of environmentalists don't tend to be). We need oil. There is oil in alaska. We should drill the oil. You are talking about an incrdibly small section of land when you look at the whole picture. > > The clinton era plan (no raods through the entire region) was a POOR one. I think the far better option would be no vehicular off road tarvel.the four wheelers and off roaders stay at home (my go, you might have to WALK through the woods). > > There is major benifit to drilling for oilin alaska, and very few drawbacks. I think part of the problem is that people have trouble conceptualizing 300,000 acres out of 16.8 million. that is like opening a 5 lb bag of sugar and taking out a teaspoon. > > I think a lot of environmental groups need to bring their views more into check with reality. When they take unrealistic views of things, it costs them credibility on issues where they actually have a chance to make a difference. > - Original Message - > From: murdoch > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:08 PM > Subject: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? > > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1224tongass24.html > > I'm of the view that there must be some balanced answer to exploitation of our > natural resources that does not go for the too-easy answer of use-nothing > do-nothing all-exploitation is bad. I'm trying to avoid ankle-biting criticisms > of this or that political administration (Bush, Clinton, whoever), so I want to > give credit where it's due. If credit is due for a decent policy proposal in > the face of a sort of dogmatic enviro opposition that in this case may not be in > the right, then I'd like to consider giving it. > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > Yahoo! Groups
[biofuel] Tenant Farmer or Researcher wanted for growing Biodiesel in California
Hello, I am looking for someone to live at my house in the Sierra Foothills of California to grow oil producing crops for Biodiesel. I have 12+acres which was operated as Hillside Organic Farm supplying produce to local markets and restaurants, but now my wife and I will be living in Europe for at least the next year. We can simply rent out the home, but want to first consider finding someone for Biodiesel farming or Biodiesel research. Rent could be greatly reduced for the right farmer. My wish would be to have someone grow Biodiesel crops, possibly mustards during the winter and soybean, sunflowers or whatever works during the summer. Extracting the oil and producing usable fuel would be yours to explore. You can have all the gas you grow. I would like to determine the ecology of plants that produce well on the varied life zones of the property, and consider working with different regional communities to grow gas. The area, Columbia, is an historic gold mining park, and there are lots fun things to do. Sonora is 5 miles away and has most anything that is needed. Yosemite Park, Emigrant & Carson-Iceberg Wildernesses, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers are in the county so it is a rather scenic area. I have some tools, tillers, drip hosing, [bio]diesel pickup, etc. that could be negotiable to use. The good: Scenic area, rural lifestyle, lots of activities (community, arts, outdoors, etc). Columbia Jr College 1 mile by trail, airport ö 2 miles. Southern exposure: 1 acre of good soils and 10 acres of varying hillsides, oaks, pines and meadows. Rarely snows, and winter growing is generally possible. I have a good ditch water supply, but the water is turbid and the filter needs to be back flushed weekly. Lots of fruit trees, grapes, and berries, are in place. The bad: Hot during the summer (but this helps the growing and the house has air-conditioning), deer are voracious (property is fenced for deer, but regular maintenance is required), Gophers are sometimes a problem depending on the crop. Please pass this on. We are leaving before the end of the year, so please contact us asap if interested: -Mark Zaller email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: +1-209-533-0398 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Zaller US mobile: 1-408-623-4303 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation?
First off, I generally consider myself an environmentalist. I am also a realist (which a lot of environmentalists don't tend to be). We need oil. There is oil in alaska. We should drill the oil. You are talking about an incrdibly small section of land when you look at the whole picture. The clinton era plan (no raods through the entire region) was a POOR one. I think the far better option would be no vehicular off road tarvel.the four wheelers and off roaders stay at home (my go, you might have to WALK through the woods). There is major benifit to drilling for oilin alaska, and very few drawbacks. I think part of the problem is that people have trouble conceptualizing 300,000 acres out of 16.8 million. that is like opening a 5 lb bag of sugar and taking out a teaspoon. I think a lot of environmental groups need to bring their views more into check with reality. When they take unrealistic views of things, it costs them credibility on issues where they actually have a chance to make a difference. - Original Message - From: murdoch To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: [biofuel] opinions on alaska forest situation? http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1224tongass24.html I'm of the view that there must be some balanced answer to exploitation of our natural resources that does not go for the too-easy answer of use-nothing do-nothing all-exploitation is bad. I'm trying to avoid ankle-biting criticisms of this or that political administration (Bush, Clinton, whoever), so I want to give credit where it's due. If credit is due for a decent policy proposal in the face of a sort of dogmatic enviro opposition that in this case may not be in the right, then I'd like to consider giving it. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ 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/
[biofuel] Friends' Ambulance Unit, China, 1939, SVO, rapeseed oil
"Friend's Ambulance Unit The Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU) was originally set up in World War I to provide a channel of service for Conscientious Objectors (C.O.), mainly Quakers. It was resurrected in 1939 for the same purpose; to provide opportunities for COs to take part in the relief of suffering brought on by war. One of these opportunities was the China Convoy. The only available land route into 'Free China', the part controlled by the Guomindang under Chiang Kaishek, was via Burma and the new Burma Road over the mountains from the railhead at Lashio in north Burma to Kunming. The original plan for the China Convoy was to carry out two tasks; to transport medical and relief supplies into 'Free China' via Rangoon and the Burma Road and to provide medical teams to work with the Chinese Red Cross in military hospitals. During the summer and autumn of 1941, members of the original team of 40 arrived in Rangoon and set about assembling their trucks, mobile operating theatre and mobile workshop, all of which had come from The States. Then came December 8th 1941 and by early 1942 the Unit was desperately engaged in getting trucks and supplies off the Rangoon docks and into China. By the end of 1942 a transport system was in operation; having no supplies of petrol some trucks were converted to run on charcoal-fuelled producer gas, others had diesel engines running on rapeseed oil installed and some were run on alcohol and 'petrol' distilled from tung oil." http://sacu.org/cifc2.html This seems at variance with the mention of the use of Tung oil directly in diesels (which struck me as odd odd, since it's a drying oil, correct?), by Mike Brown, in the article below "Then, in the twentieth century, the Chinese were hit by terribly inflated petroleum prices . . . and they solved the problem—in part—by running their diesel engines on vegetable oil! It seems that—prior to World War II—diesel fuel cost about twice as much as did vegetable oil in China . . . and the petroleum product’s price doubled and trebled following the war. So, under those circumstances the vegetable-based fuel made good economic sense. (For all I know, the folks in China may still be running their tractors on tung oil.) " http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/soybeanoil.htm ..and a bit more wartime trivia...about rapeseed oil and Canola in Canada... "The development of rapeseed as an oilseed crop on the prairies was also triggered by World War II. Rapeseed oil was an essential lubricant for marine engines, and the disruption of ocean shipping as a result of the war threatened to cut off Canada's supply from Europe. In 1942, Stevenson secured a supply of seed of Brassica napus from Argentina and distributed it the following spring. The first Canadian rapeseed crop was grown in 1943 on 1300 ha in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; by 1948 it had increased to 32,000 ha. Because of its origin, the first lot of seed was called "Argentine" rapeseed and the name stuck. In the meantime, a Shellbrook district farmer, Mr. Fred Solvoniuk, had been growing a different type of rapeseed in small plots on his farm since 1936. He had obtained the seed originally from a friend or relative who had brought it with him when he emigrated from Poland in 1927. As information on rapeseed cultivation became more available after 1943, Mr. Solvoniuk began field scale production of his rapeseed strain, and sold seed to his neighbors. It was quite different from the Argentine type and it soon bécame known as "Polish" rapeseed. It was determined later that it was a different species, Brassica campestris. It was much earlier than B. napus and it rapidly gained favor with farmers in the more northern growing areas. It was well known at the time that rapeseed was an important source of edible oil in other parts of the world. With the end of the war, and with it the critical need for marine engine lubricants, White, with an eye on the edible oil market, started a modest research program to breed a better rapeseed. The original material appeared highly variable and it was obvious that improved selections could be made from it. Mr. H.G. Neufeld of Nipawin was one of the original growers of Argentine rapeseed in 1943. With great foresight he had selected 40 single plants from that crop and kept the seed of each separate. He offered the seed to White, who grew it out in the first rapeseed yield test in 1944. At first, selection was limited to Argentine rapeseed, partly because it was the only type available initially. It was also fairly self-fertile and this made it relatively easy to develop pure lines. Selecting lines for higher seed yield and earlier maturity was routine, but determining oil content and oil quality was another matter. At that time, methods of analysis were cumbersome, requiring a lot of time and a large sample of seed. As a result, progress in breeding was very slow at first and it was
[biofuels-biz] Friends' Ambulance Unit, China, 1939, SVO, rapeseed oil
"Friend's Ambulance Unit The Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU) was originally set up in World War I to provide a channel of service for Conscientious Objectors (C.O.), mainly Quakers. It was resurrected in 1939 for the same purpose; to provide opportunities for COs to take part in the relief of suffering brought on by war. One of these opportunities was the China Convoy. The only available land route into 'Free China', the part controlled by the Guomindang under Chiang Kaishek, was via Burma and the new Burma Road over the mountains from the railhead at Lashio in north Burma to Kunming. The original plan for the China Convoy was to carry out two tasks; to transport medical and relief supplies into 'Free China' via Rangoon and the Burma Road and to provide medical teams to work with the Chinese Red Cross in military hospitals. During the summer and autumn of 1941, members of the original team of 40 arrived in Rangoon and set about assembling their trucks, mobile operating theatre and mobile workshop, all of which had come from The States. Then came December 8th 1941 and by early 1942 the Unit was desperately engaged in getting trucks and supplies off the Rangoon docks and into China. By the end of 1942 a transport system was in operation; having no supplies of petrol some trucks were converted to run on charcoal-fuelled producer gas, others had diesel engines running on rapeseed oil installed and some were run on alcohol and 'petrol' distilled from tung oil." http://sacu.org/cifc2.html This seems at variance with the mention of the use of Tung oil directly in diesels (which struck me as odd odd, since it's a drying oil, correct?), by Mike Brown, in the article below "Then, in the twentieth century, the Chinese were hit by terribly inflated petroleum prices . . . and they solved the problem—in part—by running their diesel engines on vegetable oil! It seems that—prior to World War II—diesel fuel cost about twice as much as did vegetable oil in China . . . and the petroleum product’s price doubled and trebled following the war. So, under those circumstances the vegetable-based fuel made good economic sense. (For all I know, the folks in China may still be running their tractors on tung oil.) " http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/soybeanoil.htm ..and a bit more wartime trivia...about rapeseed oil and Canola in Canada... "The development of rapeseed as an oilseed crop on the prairies was also triggered by World War II. Rapeseed oil was an essential lubricant for marine engines, and the disruption of ocean shipping as a result of the war threatened to cut off Canada's supply from Europe. In 1942, Stevenson secured a supply of seed of Brassica napus from Argentina and distributed it the following spring. The first Canadian rapeseed crop was grown in 1943 on 1300 ha in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; by 1948 it had increased to 32,000 ha. Because of its origin, the first lot of seed was called "Argentine" rapeseed and the name stuck. In the meantime, a Shellbrook district farmer, Mr. Fred Solvoniuk, had been growing a different type of rapeseed in small plots on his farm since 1936. He had obtained the seed originally from a friend or relative who had brought it with him when he emigrated from Poland in 1927. As information on rapeseed cultivation became more available after 1943, Mr. Solvoniuk began field scale production of his rapeseed strain, and sold seed to his neighbors. It was quite different from the Argentine type and it soon bécame known as "Polish" rapeseed. It was determined later that it was a different species, Brassica campestris. It was much earlier than B. napus and it rapidly gained favor with farmers in the more northern growing areas. It was well known at the time that rapeseed was an important source of edible oil in other parts of the world. With the end of the war, and with it the critical need for marine engine lubricants, White, with an eye on the edible oil market, started a modest research program to breed a better rapeseed. The original material appeared highly variable and it was obvious that improved selections could be made from it. Mr. H.G. Neufeld of Nipawin was one of the original growers of Argentine rapeseed in 1943. With great foresight he had selected 40 single plants from that crop and kept the seed of each separate. He offered the seed to White, who grew it out in the first rapeseed yield test in 1944. At first, selection was limited to Argentine rapeseed, partly because it was the only type available initially. It was also fairly self-fertile and this made it relatively easy to develop pure lines. Selecting lines for higher seed yield and earlier maturity was routine, but determining oil content and oil quality was another matter. At that time, methods of analysis were cumbersome, requiring a lot of time and a large sample of seed. As a result, progress in breeding was very slow at first and it was
