[Biofuel] The End of the Internet
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet. The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing platinum, gold and silver levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of ATT, told Business Week in November, Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, ATT and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. Price discrimination, noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, drives the market-based capitalist economy. Net Neutrality To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are calling for new federal policies requiring network neutrality on the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or undesirable content. Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care about -- civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair elections -- will be further threatened by this push for corporate control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if major political advertisers could make strategic payments to Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates with less funds. Consider what would happen if an online advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a cable broadband page, while a competing message from an environmental group was relegated to the margins. It is possible that all forms of civic and noncommercial online programming would be
[Biofuel] Raking in Profits at the World's Expense
http://www.alternet.org/story/31789/ Raking in Profits at the World's Expense By Matthew Wheeland, AlterNet. Posted February 6, 2006. The record-breaking profits recently announced by ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco come hand-in-glove with exceptionally -- and artifically -- high energy prices. Last week, within days of each other, Chevron and ExxonMobil announced record quarterly and annual profits for the second year running. These are not your average earnings statements. These are profits on an inconceivable scale, profits that dwarf the income levels of most countries. ExxonMobil announced $36 billion in profits -- in profits -- last year. That's three billion dollars every month, which if ExxonMobil were a country would make it the 90th richest country in the world. This astronomical number is a 42-percent increase from last year's record-breaking profits. Chevron also bested its record profits for the second year in a row, raking in $27.4 billion in 2005. This is, once again, the company's highest profits in its 126-year history. It is no surprise that these announcements come as Americans are paying record prices at the pump, as well as for heating oil and natural gas. Many oil industry critics, as well as most drivers, can connect the dots. Tyson Slocum, acting director of Public Citizen's energy program, said oil companies are taking advantage of consumers. Oil prices are definitely arificially high, Slocum said, in large part because of anti-competetive practices by major oil companies. We've documented it, government investigations have documented it. Slocum testified before the Senate on Wednesday about the price squeeze induced by mergers in the oil industry. In the past 15 years, there have been more than 2,600 mergers in the oil industry, which Slocum says makes this kind of price manipulation almost inevitable. In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission did a major investigation of gasoline markets and found that oil companies could intentionally withold capacities from the marketplace in order to create some scarcity to drive prices up. Now when they create scarcity, they're not actually creating scarcity like long gas lines, but they're creating shortages that, in the wholesale market translate to higher retail prices. If that sounds familiar to you, because that's exactly the economic strategy pursued by Enron and other electricity companies in California where they literally were taking power plants off line, creating shortages that caused the prices of electricity to skyrocket and they made tons of money. It's not just the big-business-friendly policies that rule Washington these days that have caused both high gas prices and even higher oil company profits. Between last year's intense hurricane season (which is expected to be as bad or worse this year), and ongoing concerns about Middle East oil, the public has been primed to expect high prices. But many experts dispute the reality of those facts on the ground. Antonia Juhasz, author of The Bush Agenda and an AlterNet contributor, says that blaming high prices on the war in Iraq is a misleading argument. One of the reasons that high oil prices have been sold to the American public is that there is a tighter supply because of a disruption in supply coming out of iraq, Juhasz said in a recent phone interview. The reality is that there is more oil coming out of Iraq today to the U.S. than at almost any other time in history. It's not steady or as much as the Bush Administration had hoped for, but it's certainly more than was the case in the last 30 years and it certainly there's no reason to justify increased oil prices. The sad truth of the matter is that gas companies have always been quick to raise prices, and glacially slow to bring them back down. Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, explained the trend: The oil industry takes the opportunity of the price of crude going up to pass on the price increase to the pump. They basically take whatever excuse they can get to raise it. And then you'll notice, when the price goes back down there's nowhere close to a corresponding decrease in the price of gas. It's pretty clear that they're getting this coming and going. As he wrote on his blog at PriceofOil.org, ExxonMobil is Old School, the Bad Boy of Oil. ExxonMobil pretty much ignores the ruckus about looming environmental catastrophe and goes about their business. Kretzmann said ExxonMobil has earned this reputation as the biggest, baddest player in the biggest, baddest industry through a few well-established tactics. Exxon is pretty much the top funder of climate skeptics, and of the major oil companies they have the smallest investments in alternative energy, Kretzmann said. In the past, former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond has made it clear that he thought climate change was a hoax. Bringing up discussions of Exxon Valdez right now are
[Biofuel] The Republican Noise Machine
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_400.html The Republican Noise Machine News: David Brock, the reformed conservative noise-maker, on how the Right has sabotaged journalism, democracy, and truth. David Brock Interviewed By Bradford Plumer September 1, 2004 As a young journalist in the 1990s, David Brock was a key cog the Republican noise machine. Writing for the American Spectator, a conservative magazine funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, Brock gained fame for his attack pieces on Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton. Then, in 2002, Brock came clean. In his memoir, Blinded by the Right, Brock admitted that his work was based on lies and distortion, and part of a coordinated smear campaign funded by wealthy right wing groups to discredit Clinton and confuse the public. Since then, Brock has continued to expose the conservative media onslaught. In his newest book, The Republican Noise Machine, Brock documents how right-wing groups pressure the media and spread misinformation to the public. It's easy to see how this is done. Fringe conspiracies and stories will be kept alive by outlets like Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, until they finally break into the mainstream media. Well-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation overwhelm news reporters with distorted statistics and conservative spin. Mainstream cable news channels employ staunchly rightwing pundits -- like Pat Buchanan and Sean Hannity -- to twist facts and echo Republican talking points, all under the rubric of balance. Meanwhile, media groups like Brent Bozell's Media Research Center have spent 30 years convincing the public that the media is, in fact, liberal. As Brock says, it's all a sham: I have seen, and I know firsthand, indeed from my own pen, how the organized Right has sabotaged not only journalism but also democracy and truth. Not content to merely complain, Brock launched Media Matters for America in May, a media watchdog organization devoted to exposing rightwing distortions in the news, and to chart undue conservative influence in the media. Brock recently chatted with MotherJones.com about Media Matters, Swift Boat Vets, convention coverage, and the conservative stranglehold on the media. MotherJones.com: What's your impression of the campaign coverage so far? David Brock: I've been interested in watching the level of conservative misinformation that circulates through the media. Now before Media Matters launched, I talked for quite some time in my book about the last election, where certain messages and themes would start in the Republican Party and then get into the media. The Republicans knew they couldn't win on the issues in 2000, so they developed an explicit strategy to attack Gore's character -- and that ultimately seemed to have worked. If you looked at the exit polls from 2000 you see that on all the issues -- even on taxes -- voters preferred Gore and his policies, but the election was lost on the issues of trust and integrity. So it has always been my working theory that the same thing would happen this year, no matter who the candidate was. MJ.com: So when did the Republican noise machine start attacking John Kerry? DB: Well, it seemed to me that, in the first few months leading up to the Democratic National Convention, the conservative attack machine was very busy trying to shore up President Bush and hadn't really turned its guns on John Kerry. Then during the spring, after it was clear that Kerry would be the nominee, I think they were still throwing various things at him and kind of hoping that something would stick and didn't really find anything. MJ.com: And with the Swift Boat story, they've finally found something. DB: Right. I think the dynamic that has unfolded for the last three weeks is one that is very familiar to me, resembling the worst of the anti-Clinton activities that I was involved in. Back then, we were able to create a so-called story that had a lot of political motivation behind it, had partisan money behind it, and we were able to take that and get a lot of attention for it in explicitly conservative media -- on radio talk shows, on internet sites like the Drudge Report. Eventually the story would spill over into the regular media. I think the exact same thing has happened in the last three weeks, whereby a supposedly outside group, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, had been working as early as the spring, through a rather small ad buy and book published by Regnery --a publisher, note, that has the worst record in terms of putting out books filled with falsehoods. Then the group was able to get a lot of free media time for it -- first starting on the internet and radio, then moving to cable shows like Fox, and finally getting into the New York Times and NBC News. And so you have something that has very little basis in fact spreading like a virus, and it's creating
[Biofuel] Government Eavesdropping: The Biggest Secret
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/01/biggest_secret.html MotherJones.com / Commentary / Columns Government Eavesdropping: The Biggest Secret A Review of State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen. Thomas Powers February 01 , 2006 This article appears in the February 23 issue of the New York Review of Books. It also appears, with an introduction by Tom Engelhardt, at Tomdispatch.com. 1. The challenges posed to American democracy by secrecy and by unchecked presidential power are the two great themes running through the history of the Iraq war. How long the war will last, who will win, and what it will do to the political landscape of the Middle East will not be obvious for years to come, but the answers to those questions cannot alter the character of what happened at the outset. Put plainly, the President decided to attack Iraq, he brushed caution and objection aside, and Congress, the press, and the people, with very few exceptions, stepped back out of the way and let him do it. Explaining this fact is not going to be easy. Commentators often now refer to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq as a war of choice, which means that it was not provoked. The usual word for an unprovoked attack is aggression. Why did Americans -- elected representatives and plain citizens alike -- accede so readily to this act of aggression, and why did they question the President's arguments for war so feebly? The whole business is painfully awkward to consider, but it will not go away. If the Constitution forbids a president anything it forbids war on his say-so, and if it insists on anything it insists that presidents are not above the law. In plain terms this means that presidents cannot enact laws on their own, or ignore laws that have been enacted by Congress. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is such a law; it was enacted to end years of routine wiretapping of American citizens who had attracted official attention by opposing the war in Vietnam. The express purpose of the act was to limit what presidents could ask intelligence organizations to do. But for limits on presidential power to have meaning Congress and the courts must have the fortitude to say no when they think no is the answer. In public life as in kindergarten, the all-important word is no. We are living with the consequences of the inability to say no to the President's war of choice with Iraq, and we shall soon see how the Congress and the courts will respond to the latest challenge from the White House -- the claim by President Bush that he has the right to ignore FISA's prohibition of government intrusion on the private communications of Americans without a court order, and his repeated statements that he intends to go right on doing it. Nobody was supposed to know that FISA had been brushed aside. The fact that the National Security Agency (NSA), America's largest intelligence organization, had been turned loose to intercept the faxes, e-mails, and phone conversations of Americans with blanket permission by the President remained secret until the New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau learned over a year ago that it was happening. An early version of the story was apparently submitted to the Times' editors in October 2004, when it might have affected the outcome of the presidential election. But the Times, for reasons it has not clearly explained, withheld the story until mid-December 2005 when the newspaper's publisher and executive editor -- Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller -- met with President Bush in the Oval Office to hear his objections before going ahead. Even then certain details were withheld. What James Risen learned in the course of his reporting can be found in his newly published book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, a wide-ranging investigation of the role of intelligence in the origins and the conduct of the war in Iraq. Risen contributes much new material to our knowledge of recent intelligence history. He reports in detail, for example, on claims that CIA analysts quit fighting over exaggerated reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as word spread in the corridors at Langley that the President had decided to go to war no matter what the evidence said; that the Saudi government seized and then got rid of tell-tale bank records of Abu Zubaydah, the most important al-Qaeda figure to be captured since September 11; and that a handful of the most important al Qaeda detainees have been sent for interrogation to a secret prison codenamed Bright Light. One CIA specialist in counterterror operations told Risen, The word is that once you get sent to Bright Light, you never come back. Digging out intelligence history is a slow process, resisted by officials at every step of the way, and Risen's work will be often quoted in
[Biofuel] Following Orders Is No Excuse
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11817.htm Following Orders Is No Excuse By Paul Craig Roberts 02/07/06 ICH -- -- A hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council. That is how Secretary of State General Colin Powell's February 2003 Iraq WMD speech to the UN was described last Friday (Feb. 3) on PBS by one who ought to know, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary Powell. In a February 2005 interview with Barbara Walters on ABC News 20/20 program, Powell himself declared his UN Iraq speech to be a blot on his reputation. Since departing the Bush administration, both Wilkerson and Powell have made it completely clear that they had serious doubts about the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and malevolent Iraqi intentions that was loaded by the White House into Powell's UN speech, a speech designed by neoconservatives to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Both Powell and Wilkerson knew that the evidence was greatly overstated if not an outright fabrication. What if Secretary Powell had shared his doubts with the UN? What if instead of reading the Speech of Lies Powell had addressed the UN as follows: As a loyal soldier following orders I came here today intending to deliver the Bush administration's evidence against Saddam Hussein. Now that I am standing here before you, I find myself caught in conflict between following orders and doing the right thing. I should have resolved this conflict before I arrived. I do so now by delivering the speech to you in its written form - here it is - but I refuse to deliver it out of my mouth. I cannot participate in an act of deception against the United Nations Security Council, the international community, and the American people. I have no confidence in the evidence in the speech. Under the Nuremberg Standard established by the United States in the trials of Nazi war criminals, following orders is no excuse. I will not participate in the war crime of naked aggression against another state. I hereby resign as Secretary of State of the United States. Powell would have saved the world from a strategic blunder, the disastrous consequences of which are only beginning to unfold. The maelstrom set in motion by the treachery of the neoconservatives, people who Powell has described as crazy, has already cost tens of thousands of dead and wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed America's reputation, and radicalized Middle East politics. If Powell had refused three years ago to deliver the Speech of Lies, we would not now be watching an identical duplicity being rolled out against Iran. The ultimate cost of the deception being practiced on the American people will dwarf the terrible price that has already been paid. Why didn't Powell do the right thing? His own reputation would have been forever secure as a man of integrity. Why did he sacrifice his integrity to the crooked scheme of his commander in chief? Alas, that is the way our generals are bred. In the politicized US military, no officer can advance beyond the rank of Lt. Col. unless he toes the political line. The game is played to advance in rank as high as possible, collect the pension, and be rewarded for compliant behavior with consultancies. Real leadership means making waves, and that is not tolerated. Even in rare instances of a real man, concerned with the honor of his country and the safety of his troops, reaching the top, he is powerless to prevent disastrous mistakes of the ignorant civilian authorities. Consider the fate of US Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who correctly informed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that the US invasion force was not sufficiently numerous to successfully occupy and subdue Iraq once the pitched battles were over. Shinseki was fired for telling the truth - as was Secretary of the Army Thomas White, Lt. Gen. John Riggs, and four-star general Kevin P. Byrnes. Riggs was framed, demoted, and retired for saying that the US army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops. Byrnes, who was in charge of Army training, was framed on adultery charges for objecting to bottom of the barrel recruitment policies that accepted criminals and immigrants with a lack of English proficiency. Nothing like having an army that can't understand orders. The only way a military can constrain their civilian masters from cooking up a war is to resign in mass. If every general and colonel had resigned, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. But this would require a military with leadership and a tradition of sticking together. A military in which promotion is the highest virtue is powerless to prevent disastrous mistakes, such as the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration went to war on the basis of its fantasy that if merely a few US troops marched into Iraq, the regime would collapse and the
[Biofuel] Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent By Brandon Garcia 02/06/06 (Santa Fe New Mexican, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran. We just don't know when, but it's going to happen, Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night. Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth. He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves. How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter, Ritter said. Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran. The only way to prevent a war with Iran is to elect a Democratically controlled Congress in November, said Ritter, a lifelong Republican. He later said he wasn't worried his advice would be seen as partisan because, It's a partisan issue. He said the problem is one party government and if Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, he would advise people to elect Republicans. Most of Ritter's hour-long speech focused on Iraqi weapons programs from shortly before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq. He also discussed the weapons-inspections process during that time. Ritter was in charge of U.N. weapons inspections until he resigned in 1998. Before the Iraq invasion, Ritter said, he told Congress that inspections needed to continue. He also said he was a Marine in the Persian Gulf War and was part of an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. Throughout the 1990s, Ritter said, America's real policy for Iraq was regime change -- not forcing Iraq to disarm and destroy chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. The U.S. insisted on regime change, he said, because it believes transforming the Middle East countries into democracies will help ensure American access to oil. The policy, he said, was borne from a political problem, not a threat to national security. Ritter said the CIA knew Iraq had no ballistic, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by 1995. We knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, he said. Ritter blamed Americans' apathy for allowing Bush to claim there was an intelligence failure. Presidents can lie to the public too easily about national security issues because Americans aren't paying attention, he said. It's a damn shame there's so many more people interested in the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers, he said in reference to the two teams that played in Sunday's Super Bowl. After his speech, Ritter took questions from the audience. The first questioner wondered whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were faked. Ritter, a fiery speaker, seemed irritated by the question and said the attacks were real. Someone else asked if he was interested in running for Congress. While the question drew applause, Ritter responded, I hate politics. Ritter, 44, was promoting his book Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speech was sponsored by Peace Action New Mexico. Contact Brandon Garcia at 995-3826 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Trial of the True Believers
http://www.alternet.org/story/31894/ Trial of the True Believers By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted February 7, 2006. The mindset that led Enron to defraud millions of people is the same that created the Bush administration's legal quagmires. As the trial of Enron's Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay enters its second week, journalists are again pointing to the connections between the Bush family and administration and the former corporate Goliath. It's certainly not difficult to unearth the laundry list of ties between Bush's tight-knit Republican circle and the company that cheated Americans out of over $1 billion in retirement funds and some 4,500 jobs. But perhaps the more interesting connection between the Bush administration and Enron is how people from both entities have flouted the law by spinning their own versions of reality and defending their actions with claims of good intent. No one can deny Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling's leadership of Enron was creative. As Peter Elkind, senior writer at Fortune and co-author of The Smartest Guys in the Room, told AlterNet in a recent interview, It was the most innovative company in America, we just didn't know how innovative. Enron traders were encouraged to seek out every loophole in any law that stood in the way of Enron making another buck. This kind of market manipulation has been referred to as a phantom deal. In the case of the California energy crisis, there was no shortage of electricity, and yet Enron was getting profits by shutting down power plants to artificially push up the price. Without creating anything, Enron was making billions in profits. But while many of their deals -- as well as the company's profits -- were phantom, the fallout from the company's collapse was hardly apparitional. Even now, the repercussions of the energy crisis are being felt. Residents in many parts of California are paying record electricity costs as the remaining debt hovers. Thousands of employees lost their jobs, and an even larger number of people lost retirement benefits. Despite the diligent cataloguing of the many disingenuous deals made by Enron, the outcome of Skilling and Lay's trial is hardly predictable. That's because the prosecution team has to prove that Skilling and Lay intended to mislead investors, and that they knew the company was headed for disaster. But Skilling and Lay repeatedly insist that they were true believers and never thought the company would collapse. This may come down to the issue of what Skilling and Lay allowed themselves to believe. It may come as no surprise, then, that both men are eager to take the stand. Rather than feeling ashamed or repentant for the collapse of Enron, Skilling and Lay's lawyers have promised the jury that both men will take the stand. In fact, they're eager to let jurors know just how passionately they felt about Enron. From Peter Elkind and Bethany McLean's interviews in The Smartest Guys in the Room, it becomes clear that Enron was a cult of personalities -- driven in large part by Jeff Skilling. It was Skilling's repeated refusal to accept defeat that revealed the chink in Enron's armor: The only thing keeping Enron from failing was Skilling and Lay's desperate insistence that Enron was a success. The alternate reality that Skilling and Lay had so successfully fabricated, by keeping it sealed off from the public and using every loophole to keep afloat, collapsed as soon as the public started asking questions. And while the illegitimacy of the company's deals revealed Enron to be a house of cards, the repercussions from its collapse -- high energy prices, the loss of jobs and retirement funds -- remain a stark reminder of the very real consequences of allowing those with a fervent ideology access to unchecked power. For those so driven, facts become secondary, mere details to be fabricated in order to further furnish their version of reality. It's an interesting irony that the more incapable Skilling and Lay are of seeing how their actions were wrong or illegal, the more likely they are to escape discipline. Fortune writer Roger Parloff likens this kind of defense to the Emperor's clothes metaphor: To commit most crimes, one has to intend to do something wrong. Accordingly, truly deluding oneself -- gullibly trusting a deceitful subordinate (in the emperor's case, the tailor), relying on yes-men advisors, resting undue confidence on one's own innovative brilliance -- is a defense. An individual cannot be a criminal unless he has a certain baseline level of self-knowledge. Without that, psychiatrists may have labels for him, but the penal code does not. In the world of seeking legal relief, it is harder to legally prosecute someone who truly believes in their own sense of reality, regardless of how clearly it may conflict with that of the general public. It's a strange incentive to believe your own lies, to surround yourself with
[Biofuel] Paying The Iraq Bill
Soldiers and their families are bearing the biggest cost of the war in Iraq-while oil companies make out like bandits, says TomPaine.com's billing for Stiglitz's article below. Er, excuse me, Iraq and Iraqis are paying the cost of the war. Number Of Iraqi civilians Slaughtered In America's War 100,000+ (up to 500,000, depending on who's counting) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7170.htm Number of U.S. Military Personnel Slaughtered (Officially acknowledged) In Bush's War 2258 http://icasualties.org/oif/ If Americans are so worried about the money it's costing them maybe they should have thought of that in the first place, along with rather a hell of a lot of other things they should have thought of in the first place. Maybe they should have thought at all. Or maybe they could have taught their occupying forces how to shoot straight, might have saved them a little money on bullets: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0925-02.htm US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed By Andrew Buncombe in Washington The Independent Published: 25 September 2005 Do they use that many bullets to slaughter innocent civilians there too? Or is that cheaper? No wonder they think they need this thing, just the job for surgical strikes and zero collateral: http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060120-070112-5273r New super-gun to be tested in Feb By PAMELA HESS UPI Pentagon Correspondent WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a family of guns that can fire at speeds of up to 240,000 rounds per minute, albeit in short bursts. Think the bullets-per-kill ratio will go up or down? The real cost to the US of the Iraq occupation is all the credibility and goodwill it ever had. - K -- http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060206/paying_the_iraq_bill.php Paying The Iraq Bill Joseph E. Stiglitz February 06, 2006 Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank. The most important things in life, like life itself, #173;are priceless. But that doesn't mean that issues involving the preservation of life (or a way of life), like defense, should not be subjected to cool, hard economic analysis. Shortly before the current Iraq war, when Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, other officials quickly demurred. For example, Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels put the number at $60 billion. It now appears that Lindsey's numbers were a gross underestimate. Concerned that the Bush administration might be misleading everyone about the Iraq war's costs, just as it had about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda, I teamed up with Linda Bilmes, a budget expert at Harvard, to examine the issue. Even we-opponents of the war-were staggered by what we found, with conservative to moderate estimates ranging from slightly less than a trillion dollars to more than $2 trillion. Our analysis starts with the $500 billion that the Congressional Budget Office openly talks about, which is still 10 times higher than what the administration said the war would cost. Its estimate falls so far short because the reported numbers do not even include the full budgetary costs to the government. And the budgetary costs are but a fraction of the costs to the economy as a whole. For example, the Bush administration has been doing everything it can to hide the huge number of returning veterans who are severely wounded-16,000 so far, including roughly 20 percent with serious brain and head injuries. So it is no surprise that its figure of $500 billion ignores the lifetime disability and health care costs that the government will have to pay for years to come. Nor does the administration want to face up to the military's recruiting and retention problems. The result is large re-enlistment bonuses, improved benefits and higher recruiting costs-up 20 percent just from 2003 to 2005. Moreover, the war is wearing extremely hard on equipment, some of which will have to be replaced. These budgetary costs (exclusive of interest) amount to $652 billion in our conservative estimate and $799 billion in our moderate estimate. Arguably, since the government has not reined in other expenditures or increased taxes, the expenditures have been debt financed, and the interest costs on this debt add another $98 billion (conservative) to $385 billion (moderate) to the budgetary costs. Of course, the brunt of the costs of injury and death is borne by soldiers and their families. But the military pays
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Keith,So, it seems as though the federal government (a.k.a.corporate America) is threatened bythe Second Superpower and is making preparations for war.MikeKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/The End of the InternetBy Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006.America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet.The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency.According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of ATT, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, ATT and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."Net NeutralityTo ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or undesirable content.Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care about -- civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair elections -- will be further threatened by this push for corporate control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if major political advertisers could make strategic payments to Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates with less funds.Consider what would happen if an online advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a cable broadband page, while a competing message from an
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
I found this interesting. Since I've been using my Window XP system some email threads have been deleted regarding global warming exchanges. One thread started to discuss one persons belief that one billion cows flatulent methane emissions were the cause of global warming. I thought this amusing. So I wrote something along the lines: With 6 billion people farting around spewing fossil energy out their chimneys, smokestacks and tailpipes you believe its the cows disrupting the climate ? http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Canada gone really neo-con
Texan paragliders!!?? Joe, please. Even well-heeled Manhattan stage producers could have missed the delicacies of our government. Or their own. Or anyone's! Perhaps it was one person's comment. This certainly has been MY comment. You're not one of those Extreme Chemists, are you? Jumping out of airplanes with a bunsen burner? Jesse From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: University of Waterloo Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:23:21 -0500 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Canada gone really neo-con I just got back from a vacation in rural Mexico. There were four paraglider pilots from the US sharing accomodations with us two Canucks. Within 30 seconds of introducing myself to one guy ( from Texas) after I said I was Canadian, he says to me Y'all shouldn't be saying the things y'all are sayin about America Man did I have to bite my tongue ( He was bigger than me). Later after we got a little better aquainted and I explained that most Canadians do not have a grudge against US citizens but only their government's actions, he made the friendly comment that it was good to see that we all came back to our senses. He was willing to allow that we had made a mistake going to the left for so long but that it was encouraging that we came back to our senses. Bite Bite Bite. Joe Darryl McMahon wrote: Those without an interest in Canadian politics (our second-favourite bloodsport after hockey) can skip this message. OK, the election's over, now can the left-leaning wingnut media in particular, and the Liberal fear-mongers and those taken in by their hysteria, get over themselves? It's a campaign that I felt sank to new lows in terms of advertising in the mass media, and more so in the whispering campaigns. Both major parties were guilty. More frightening to me however is how the negative messages keep resonating, in spite of clear denials and being contrary to known facts (for the few prepared to actually determine facts). Realistically, how scary can a party with roots in the populist Reform party and the traditional Progressive Party (remember the Red Tories?) really be? And anyone who leaps to the conclusion that this group is in league with the U.S. neo-cons just because the party name is Conservative needs a long lesson in Canadian political history. While they may seem the right edge of the spectrum in Canada, I think you'll find they are hardly right-wing in terms of U.S. ideology (or is that idolatry?). snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Round the Second: coop vrs. corp
When I first joined this list, I somewhat naively commented on the the co-operative association as a legitimate way to counter corporate aggression. I was immediately chastised by the list manager, and I don't think that post ever made it to the list, and I assumed it was a list unconcerned with political analysis, only with biodiesel production. Over the past year, it is obvious many of you share my concerns over the corporatization of our lives. And it seems many of you share the satisfaction of gaining independence from the petro cartels through biodiesel production. For every gallon of biodiesel we make ourselves, is a hefty chunk of money we don't give the big boys. By that same logic, incorporating a coop with a well-planned charter would only further this 'boycott'. It seems there are several biodiesel business individuals out there. Are there any others with motivations like I've just outlined? As I write up my memorandum of association for a coop in BC, Canada, I wonder if any of you out there who could offer advice/warnings? And if I'm going to be labelled 'old-paradigm' again, could you please elaborate? (So far, the memoranda are very influenced by the Piedmont Coop document). Hope to get feedback. Kenji Fuse ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] help
Hey Bob; Thanks for the info. I assume this is for virgin oil. What do you suppose happens after the oil sits in a deep fryer for a few days at high temperature. I know the free fatty acid content increases and there is an obvious darkening and the inclusion of particulate matter. What do you suppose is the overall effect on density? As I posted previously I tried to measure it and got about 0.92 and this seems high according to your information especially since I was a few degrees above the 15 deg C temperature that the hydrometer (hygrometer? sp?) was calibrated for. Could this explain the discrepancy? Joe bob allen wrote: google canola density: http://www.canola-council.org/Chemical1-6/Chemical1-6_1.html The relative density of canola oil was first reported by Ackman and Eaton in 1977 and later confirmed by Vadke et al. (1988) and Lang et al. (1992). Noureddini et al. (1992) reported a density for high erucic acid rapeseed oil of 0.9073 g/cm3 while Appelqvist Ohlson (1972) reported a range from 0.906 g/cm3 to 0.914 g/cm3. Ackman and Eaton (1977) indicated that a different proportion of eicosenoic (C20:1) and C18 polyunsaturated acids could be a major factor for the increase in relative density of canola oil. The higher specific gravity of 0.9193 g/cm3 observed for soybean oil can be attributed to the higher content of linoleic acid (Ackman and Eaton, 1977). As for other liquids, the density of vegetable oils is temperature dependent and decreases in value when temperature increases R Heron wrote: Hi every body this my first post to biofuel but I can say I am enjoying what most of you have to offer. Can anyone tell me what the weight of canola oil is? any size measure as long as its .00 actuate. Russel ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Ok so we go wireless. The original idea for internet protocol came from packet radio which was an amateur radio thing. Granted the bandwidth was not to be compared but I can easily set up an ad hock net over several kilometers using a standard wireless adapter and a high gain antenna which is nothing more than a tin can pressed into service as a coaxial to waveguide transition feeding into the feedpoint on a surplus primestar satelite tv dish giving plenty of gain for a line of sight link over a fairly long haul with no amplifiers or anything other than what is on the card. A server centrally located and operating on an omidirectional antenna can serve many subscribers within a line of sight path using this scheme. Repeaters can be added to expand the network. Where there is a will there is a way. See here http://www.wwc.edu/~frohro/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html other useful network info here http://epanorama.net/links/tele_lan.html Joe Michael Redler wrote: Keith, So, it seems as though the federal government (a.k.a.corporate America) is threatened bythe Second Superpower and is making preparations for war. Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet. The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of ATT, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!" The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, ATT and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy." Net Neutrality To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information
Re: [Biofuel] Canada gone really neo-con
Are you nuts? Trust my life to a parachute? I'm a hang glider pilot dude! I need something I can trust to hold me up! :) J mark manchester wrote: Texan paragliders!!?? Joe, please. Even well-heeled Manhattan stage producers could have missed the delicacies of our government. Or their own. Or anyone's! Perhaps it was one person's comment. This certainly has been MY comment. You're not one of those Extreme Chemists, are you? Jumping out of airplanes with a bunsen burner? Jesse From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: University of Waterloo Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:23:21 -0500 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Canada gone really neo-con I just got back from a vacation in rural Mexico. There were four paraglider pilots from the US sharing accomodations with us two Canucks. Within 30 seconds of introducing myself to one guy ( from Texas) after I said I was Canadian, he says to me " Y'all shouldn't be saying the things y'all are sayin about America" Man did I have to bite my tongue ( He was bigger than me). Later after we got a little better aquainted and I explained that most Canadians do not have a grudge against US citizens but only their government's actions, he made the friendly comment that it was good to see that we all came back to our senses. He was willing to allow that we had made a mistake going to the left for so long but that it was encouraging that we came back to our senses. Bite Bite Bite. Joe Darryl McMahon wrote: Those without an interest in Canadian politics (our second-favourite bloodsport after hockey) can skip this message. OK, the election's over, now can the left-leaning wingnut media in particular, and the Liberal fear-mongers and those taken in by their hysteria, get over themselves? It's a campaign that I felt sank to new lows in terms of advertising in the mass media, and more so in the whispering campaigns. Both major parties were guilty. More frightening to me however is how the negative messages keep resonating, in spite of clear denials and being contrary to known facts (for the few prepared to actually determine facts). Realistically, how scary can a party with roots in the populist Reform party and the traditional Progressive Party (remember the Red Tories?) really be? And anyone who leaps to the conclusion that this group is in league with the U.S. neo-cons just because the party name is "Conservative" needs a long lesson in Canadian political history. While they may seem the right edge of the spectrum in Canada, I think you'll find they are hardly right-wing in terms of U.S. ideology (or is that idolatry?). snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. Joe MH wrote: I found this interesting. Since I've been using my Window XP system some email threads have been deleted regarding global warming exchanges. One thread started to discuss one persons belief that one billion cows flatulent methane emissions were the cause of global warming. I thought this amusing. So I wrote something along the lines: With 6 billion people farting around spewing fossil energy out their chimneys, smokestacks and tailpipes you believe its the cows disrupting the climate ? http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Bush Administration's FY 2007 Budget for Nuclear Power Is Waste of Taxpayer Money, Threatens Global Security
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0206-13.htm FEBRUARY 6, 2006 Public Citizen http://www.citizen.org (202) 588-1000 Bush Administration's FY 2007 Budget for Nuclear Power Is Waste of Taxpayer Money, Threatens Global Security Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Program WASHINGTON - February 6 - The Bush administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear power programs squanders vast amounts of taxpayer dollars in pursuit of policies that further subsidize the 50-year-old nuclear industry, threaten global security and fail to solve the radioactive waste problem. The White House is asking for $347 million for nuclear power research and development, a 55 percent increase over last year's budget. The budget includes $54 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program, which pays the wealthy nuclear industry for half the cost of applying for new reactors. Within the Nuclear Power 2010 program, $1.8 million is allocated to developing the regulations, criteria and process by which DOE would provide risk insurance to pay the industry for delays in obtaining an operating license caused by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or by litigation. This is one of the most egregious subsidies slipped into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 during 11th hour negotiations. The budget request includes another $32 million for developing the next generation of nuclear reactors - a drop in the bucket for designs that are estimated to range in cost from $610 million to $1 billion. None the proposed designs will solve the cost, waste, safety and security problems of the current generation of reactors. It simply does not make sense to continue to dump money into expensive and dangerous nuclear technology. According to the credit rating agency Standard Poor's in a January report, the $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 may still not be enough to prevent the credit downgrading of a company that decides to build one or more new nuclear reactors. New reactors, of course, mean more radioactive waste, but the Bush administration has no solution. The budget proposes to dump another $544.5 million into the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which - if ever licensed - cannot legally hold waste produced after 2010. The DOE's Yucca Mountain Project is in complete disarray. The DOE recently went back to the drawing board on its design for the site, because it failed to acknowledge the long-standing issue of contamination in the fuel handling building on the surface. The DOE also recently stopped work on key areas of the site because of additional quality assurance problems - the same problems that have been occurring since the 1980s. In addition to pursuing Yucca Mountain, the Bush administration is proposing $250 million for a new program to promote reprocessing, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). But GNEP cannot accomplish the administration's proliferation or waste management goals. The reprocessing (or separation) technologies that DOE is currently researching are far from proliferation-resistant and are decades from commercialization. The available reprocessing technology (as is currently used in France) results in irradiated fuel that is hotter than our current spent fuel, cannot be reused and must be kept away from the public and environment. No country in the world has been able to operate the fast reactors that reduce the long-lived radionuclides in a safe or economically viable manner. The full cost of the GNEP program will break the national budget. According to the National Academy of Sciences, reprocessing and transmutation of irradiated fuel from existing U.S. reactors would easily cost more than $100 billion (1996 dollars). This estimate does not include the costs of reprocessing and managing imported foreign irradiated fuel, as the Bush administration is proposing. This budget proposal is only the tip of the iceberg for what taxpayers and ratepayers are on the hook if plans for new reactors and for reprocessing are pursued. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Hi Mike Keith, So, it seems as though the federal government (a.k.a. corporate America) is threatened by the Second Superpower and is making preparations for war. :-) Maybe. Or maybe it's just what corporations do all the time anyway, they want to own everything. They had such an easy time with concentration of media ownership they probably think the Internet will be easy meat too, then they can turn it into FauxTV in drag. It's supposed to be immune to nuclear attack, do you think it'll be somewhat immune to hostile corporate take-over too? Wasn't the US government also supposed to be immune to nuclear attack? Didn't help them much with the take-overs though. Seems to me I've been reading stories like this for at least 10 years. It keeps upping the ante each time but nothing much seems to happen. Except that the Internet keeps growing and spreading and getting faster and better and ever more firmly rooted in all our societies. How much of this stuff could they make stick without running afoul of international agreements or stirring up international opposition? Let alone world opposition? Isn't it all just a hacker-magnet anyway? Would you include the hacker community in the Second Superpower? (Or do they all work for the CIA these days?) Best Keith Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet. The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing platinum, gold and silver levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of ATT, told Business Week in November, Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, ATT and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. Price discrimination, noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, drives the market-based capitalist economy. Net Neutrality To ward off the prospect of
Re: [Biofuel] Round the Second: coop vrs. corp
Hey Kenji, As it turns out, there's a few of us here in Waterloo that are looking at doing exactly that, starting up a co-operative specifically to promote the production and use of biofuels. If you'd care to share, I'd love to hear/read your progress to date, your co-operative's goals, policies, and vision, and anything else that we might be able to emulate. There's no sense in retracing steps that have already been taken, right? (We'd also like to learn from your mistakes, if any!) Have you incorporated your co-operative, as a non-profit or otherwise? If not yet, consider incorporating as a Canadian corporation (not just provincial), and then we could simply expand what you've already done there here in Ontario. Something to consider. Best of luck! Andrew Netherton On 2/8/06, Kenji James Fuse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I first joined this list, I somewhat naively commented on thethe co-operative association as a legitimate way to counter corporateaggression.I was immediately chastised by the list manager, and I don't think that post ever made it to the list, and I assumed it was a list unconcernedwith political analysis, only with biodiesel production.Over the past year, it is obvious many of you share my concerns over thecorporatization of our lives. And it seems many of you share the satisfaction of gaining independence from the petro cartels throughbiodiesel production. For every gallon of biodiesel we make ourselves, isa hefty chunk of money we don't give the big boys.By that same logic, incorporating a coop with a well-planned charter would only further this 'boycott'.It seems there are several biodiesel business individuals out there. Arethere any others with motivations like I've just outlined?As I write up my memorandum of association for a coop in BC, Canada, I wonder if any of you out there who could offer advice/warnings? And ifI'm going to be labelled 'old-paradigm' again, could you please elaborate?(So far, the memoranda are very influenced by the Piedmont Coop document). Hope to get feedback.Kenji Fuse___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Bush's state of the Union speech
Molly Ivins says the $150 million (a truly pitiful amount by Washington standards) Bush promised would go to making biofuels more competitive is $50 million less than what was in last year's budget for that purpose. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-31.htm Is that right? They spent $200 million? On what? I do seem to recall the NBB getting a few million to spend on education. I'll bet the Biofuel list did a lot better on zilch. Anyway, if Ivins is right that's good business - it got much more publicity than last year and cost $50 million less, just by pressing a few jingo buttons. I wonder how many (enough?) of the Americans who got the message about cutting US dependence on Middle East oil didn't register the rapidly following message that he didn't really mean it. Best Keith Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Relatively modest subsidies for 'clean coal,' nuclear, ethanol, solar, and wind, Grist called the proposals. There's nothing there that the usual suspects aren't already investing in. Shell, eg, invests in biomass energy plantations, offshore wind, PVs, and indeed, ethanol from cellulose: 08 January 2006 -Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen to Study Feasibility of Producing Cellulose Ethanol in Germany. Ethanol from cellulose is a high-tech industrial process, not anything a farming community could do for itself. Shell etc don't invest in renewable energy that focuses on decentralised supply and local production. Shell does put funding into projects like improved cookstoves for 3rd World countries and so on, but that's greenwash, not investment. Bush's call to reduce US oil dependence could help curb global warming but does not herald conversion to a UN-led plan to slow climate change, experts say, Reuters says. Bush says nothing about reducing energy use, which is mostly waste anyway. A sustainable energy future requires great reductions in energy use, great improvements in energy efficiency, and decentralisation of supply to the local-economy level, along with the use of all ready-to-use renewable energy technologies in combination as local circumstances require. - Journey to Forever Bush says nothing about efficiency: More efficient use is already America's biggest energy source -- not oil, gas, coal, or nuclear power. Amory Lovins (search Negawatts in list archives). Gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles - anything like the 80mpg PNGV diesel-electric hybrids that had billions spent on them but Bush shelved them in favour of the Freedom Car? Just more handouts for the good ol' boys at everyone else's expense. More greenwash this time, is all. Bush proposed new tax credits and an Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- laudable ideas if not for the fact that the same promises have turned into giveaways for the energy industry throughout his presidency. This, a day after Exxon announced that it had turned an all-time record profit in 2005. http://www.alternet.org/story/31639 Dead Man Talking By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted February 1, 2006. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
And what about the permafrost thawing ? Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Termite Methane (was The End of the Internet)
The values I have come across show methane as 58 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 initially (first year), and 21 times more potent in the long term. This is why flaring methane or sour gas is seen as GHG friendly in some areas (the CO2 is better than venting the methane into the atmosphere). Here's more on methane, termites and cattle: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990030125710data_trunc_sys.shtml http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/final/c14s02.pdf (there's plenty more). My quick and inexpert synopsis. The jury's still out. Termites don't produce much methane per individual, and much less than cattle per unit of plant matter consumed, but there's a lot of termites on the planet. Just how many is a subject of conjecture, but where there's grant money, there's folks prepared to guess at an inventory in a rigourous manner. However, IMHO, there is no indication that termite contributions to methane inventories are increasing substantially over time, it's likely a fairly stable loop, and with human population encroaching on ever more territory, the termite population is likely diminishing over time (if slowly). On the other hand, there is little doubt that man-made contributions to greenhouse gases are rising over time. Darryl McMahon Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. Joe MH wrote: I found this interesting. Since I've been using my Window XP system some email threads have been deleted regarding global warming exchanges. One thread started to discuss one persons belief that one billion cows flatulent methane emissions were the cause of global warming. I thought this amusing. So I wrote something along the lines: With 6 billion people farting around spewing fossil energy out their chimneys, smokestacks and tailpipes you believe its the cows disrupting the climate ? http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. Joe According to this page: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmosphere/atmospheric_composition_p2.html termites are responsible for 20 to 40% of atmospheric methane. doug -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software. No Microsoft databits have been incorporated herein. All existing databits have been constructed from recycled databits. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Keith,Your last paragraph really jumped out at me for two reasons:"Except that the Internet keeps growing and spreading and getting faster and better and ever more firmly rooted in all our societies." These are some of the most encouraging words I've read in a while on this subject. I always wanted to believe it. Ihad the information to back a position on it but, what I really like is when there is consensus on it."Would you include the hacker community in the Second Superpower? (Or do they all work for the CIA these days?)" I find it extremely interesting how a society which is developing on an entirely different plane (and without any political hierarchy)can so closely resemble one which we are so accustomed to in the physical world.The hacker community has taken on behaviors which also resemble those of the CIA (for example). Both act on a certain ideology, are motivated largely by a resistance to be controlled (i.e. "sticking it to the 'man'"), feel a sense of community and pride. Last but not least, the intelligence community of every superpoweris somewhat troubled by various rogue elements. I don't want to portray hackers as people I admire - only as people who show familiar patterns of behavior when looked at in groups.One of my favorite examples is how they collectively express their position on Microsoft and during the earlier days of the Internet, how so many government and large corporations were the main targets.MikeKeith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi MikeKeith,So, it seems as though the federal government (a.k.a. corporate America) is threatened by the Second Superpower and is making preparations for war.:-) Maybe. Or maybe it's just what corporations do all the time anyway, they want to own everything. They had such an easy time with concentration of media ownership they probably think the Internet will be easy meat too, then they can turn it into FauxTV in drag.It's supposed to be immune to nuclear attack, do you think it'll be somewhat immune to hostile corporate take-over too? Wasn't the US government also supposed to be immune to nuclear attack? Didn't help them much with the take-overs though.Seems to me I've been reading stories like this for at least 10 years. It keeps upping the ante each time but nothing much seems to happen. Except that the Internet keeps growing and spreading and getting faster and better and ever more firmly rooted in all our societies. How much of this stuff could they make stick without running afoul of international agreements or stirring up international opposition? Let alone world opposition? Isn't it all just a hacker-magnet anyway? Would you include the hacker community in the Second Superpower? (Or do they all work for the CIA these days?)BestKeithMike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Fwd: [solar-ac] Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy
Cross Posted:I thought you might find this interesting.MikeArthur Hammeke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]From: "Arthur Hammeke" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:11:32 -0600Subject: [solar-ac] Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.htmlSweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations. The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months. The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises. "Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. "There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline." According to the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, there is growing concern that global oil supplies are peaking and will shortly dwindle, and that a global economic recession could result from high oil prices. Ms Sahlin has described oil dependency as one of the greatest problems facing the world. "A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices," she said. "The price of oil has tripled since 1996." A government official said: "We want to be both mentally and technically prepared for a world without oil. The plan is a response to global climate change, rising petroleum prices and warnings by some experts that the world may soon be running out of oil." Sweden, which was badly hit by the oil price rises in the 1970s, now gets almost all its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power, and relies on fossil fuels mainly for transport. Almost all its heating has been converted in the past decade to schemes which distribute steam or hot water generated by geothermal energy or waste heat. A 1980 referendum decided that nuclear power should be phased out, but this has still not been finalised. The decision to abandon oil puts Sweden at the top of the world green league table. Iceland hopes by 2050 to power all its cars and boats with hydrogen made from electricity drawn from renewable resources, and Brazil intends to power 80% of its transport fleet with ethanol derived mainly from sugar cane within five years. Last week George Bush surprised analysts by saying that the US was addicted to oil and should greatly reduce imports from the Middle East. The US now plans a large increase in nuclear power. The British government, which is committed to generating 10% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2012, last month launched an energy review which has a specific remit to consider a large increase in nuclear power. But a report by accountants Ernst Young yesterday said that the UK was falling behind in its attempt to meet its renewables target. "The UK has Europe's best wind, wave and tidal resources yet it continues to miss out on its economic potential," said Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst Young. Energy ministry officials in Sweden said they expected the oil committee to recommend further development of biofuels derived from its massive forests, and by expanding other renewable energies such as wind and wave power. Sweden has a head start over most countries. In 2003, 26% of all the energy consumed came from renewable sources - the EU average is 6%. Only 32% of the energy came from oil - down from 77% in 1970. The Swedish government is working with carmakers Saab and Volvo to develop cars and lorries that burn ethanol and other biofuels. Last year the Swedish energy agency said it planned to get the public sector to move out of oil. Its health and library services are being given grants to convert from oil use and homeowners are being encouraged with green taxes. The paper and pulp industries use bark to produce energy, and sawmills burn wood chips and sawdust to generate power.Archives of solar-ac messages are at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solar-ac/messages___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Termite Methane (was The End of the Internet)
Well, it seems that there are two questions here. 1) Is climate change happening, and 2) are we causing it. Pretty much everyone (except scientists hired by Exxon) agree that the answer to 1 is yes. By the nature of question 1, it only has one negative answer (climate will stay the same), but many positive answers -- which is what we can't agree on. What is strange is that people focus on the second question, and when they find that we don't quite know (although we have an awfully strong suspicion that it's humans) and in fact it may not be just one cause, they use the uncertainty about the 2nd to imply uncertainty about the 1st, and then somehow translate that uncertainty into certainty that one particular answer to the first (no climate change) is the right answer. The problem is that the answer to the 2nd is largely irrelevant to the 1st question. Even if we are not in any way contributing to climate change, it doesn't change the fact that climate change (in any of the possible outcomes) isn't going to be very good for society as we know it. This logical fallacy is what I hear over an over from the mainstream media and all my republican relatives -- if we're not sure it's our fault, we don't need to do anything about it. Well, whining that someone pushed you off the bridge and it wasn't your fault, doesn't change the fact that you're in the river now... so you better start swimming. Even if it is the evil termites trying to kill us, perhaps reducing our own CO2 emissions would be enough to offset their diabolically increased methane emissions. In the mean time, I think I just thought of something to do with all the new nuclear waste we're going to be generating -- forget Iran, lets kill the termites. wait, I forgot about all those old movies where nuclear waste made ordinary insects into monsters... Oops. Zeke On 2/8/06, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The values I have come across show methane as 58 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 initially (first year), and 21 times more potent in the long term. This is why flaring methane or sour gas is seen as GHG friendly in some areas (the CO2 is better than venting the methane into the atmosphere). Here's more on methane, termites and cattle: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990030125710data_trunc_sys.shtml http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/final/c14s02.pdf (there's plenty more). My quick and inexpert synopsis. The jury's still out. Termites don't produce much methane per individual, and much less than cattle per unit of plant matter consumed, but there's a lot of termites on the planet. Just how many is a subject of conjecture, but where there's grant money, there's folks prepared to guess at an inventory in a rigourous manner. However, IMHO, there is no indication that termite contributions to methane inventories are increasing substantially over time, it's likely a fairly stable loop, and with human population encroaching on ever more territory, the termite population is likely diminishing over time (if slowly). On the other hand, there is little doubt that man-made contributions to greenhouse gases are rising over time. Darryl McMahon Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. Joe MH wrote: I found this interesting. Since I've been using my Window XP system some email threads have been deleted regarding global warming exchanges. One thread started to discuss one persons belief that one billion cows flatulent methane emissions were the cause of global warming. I thought this amusing. So I wrote something along the lines: With 6 billion people farting around spewing fossil energy out their chimneys, smokestacks and tailpipes you believe its the cows disrupting the climate ? http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
I don't like the flimsy excuse give by that Telecom guy why should they use our pipes for free. Does anybody really think that they are not charging somebody for the use of their fibers and wires? Obviously they just want more for it. If my internet starts getting any more expensive, I will opt out of so many things. These mail lists will get pruned and stick with daily digests. If companies like the Walmarts of the world don't compensate for me looking/shopping on their site, then I won't pay extra to do it. The whole concept stinks. My 2 cents John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:54 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet Seems to me I've been reading stories like this for at least 10 years. It keeps upping the ante each time but nothing much seems to happen. Except that the Internet keeps growing and spreading and getting faster and better and ever more firmly rooted in all our societies. How much of this stuff could they make stick without running afoul of international agreements or stirring up international opposition? Let alone world opposition? Isn't it all just a hacker-magnet anyway? Would you include the hacker community in the Second Superpower? (Or do they all work for the CIA these days?) Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] help
Howdy Joe, Joe Street wrote: Hey Bob; Thanks for the info. I assume this is for virgin oil. What do you suppose happens after the oil sits in a deep fryer for a few days at high temperature. I know the free fatty acid content increases and there is an obvious darkening and the inclusion of particulate matter. also you will get mono and diglycerides, and water, What do you suppose is the overall effect on density? anybody's guess, it is multicomponent mixture, and not even homogeneous. As I posted previously I tried to measure it and got about 0.92 and this seems high according to your information especially since I was a few degrees above the 15 deg C temperature that the hydrometer right (hygrometer? sp?) measures water vapor in air was calibrated for. Could this explain the discrepancy? Joe bob allen wrote: google canola density: http://www.canola-council.org/Chemical1-6/Chemical1-6_1.html The relative density of canola oil was first reported by Ackman and Eaton in 1977 and later confirmed by Vadke et al. (1988) and Lang et al. (1992). Noureddini et al. (1992) reported a density for high erucic acid rapeseed oil of 0.9073 g/cm3 while Appelqvist Ohlson (1972) reported a range from 0.906 g/cm3 to 0.914 g/cm3. Ackman and Eaton (1977) indicated that a different proportion of eicosenoic (C20:1) and C18 polyunsaturated acids could be a major factor for the increase in relative density of canola oil. The higher specific gravity of 0.9193 g/cm3 observed for soybean oil can be attributed to the higher content of linoleic acid (Ackman and Eaton, 1977). As for other liquids, the density of vegetable oils is temperature dependent and decreases in value when temperature increases R Heron wrote: Hi every body this my first post to biofuel but I can say I am enjoying what most of you have to offer. Can anyone tell me what the weight of canola oil is? any size measure as long as its .00 actuate. Russel ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves — Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Termites, global warming
Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. I think the actual figure is that methane is ~24 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. For real information on global warming and climate change, move on over to http://www.realclimate.org. That's a site run by actual climate scientists, and there is no doubt in their minds about mankinds changes to the environment. As for termites, you can color me skeptical. http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html lists methane from livestock (see enteric fermentation) as about 20% of US methane emissions from human related sources, following landfills and natural gas systems. http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_02/AGU_news_100902.html certainly makes it sound like the majority of methane released (60%) to the atmosphere is related to human activity. Google doesn't seem to have much on termites, methane, and global warming in the first few pages of results, that would indicate termites are a significant source. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Breakup of the religious right?
From http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/ZNYT02/602080410 Published Wednesday, February 8, 2006 86 Evangelical Leaders Join to Fight Global Warming By LAURIE GOODSTEIN New York Times Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors. Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller The Purpose-Driven Life. For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority, the statement said. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough. The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an Evangelical Climate Initiative including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges. We have not paid as much attention to climate change as we should, and that's why I'm willing to step up, said Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, an influential evangelical institution in Illinois. The evangelical community is quite capable of having some blind spots, and my take is this has fallen into that category. Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, Global warming is not a consensus issue. Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Their letter was addressed to the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of churches and ministries, which last year had started to move in the direction of taking a stand on global warming. The letter from the 22 leaders asked the National Association of Evangelicals not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position. E. Calvin Beisner, associate professor of historical theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., helped organize the opposition into a group called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. He said Tuesday that the science is not settled on whether global warming was actually a problem or even that human beings were causing it. And he said that the solutions advocated by global warming opponents would only cause the cost of energy to rise, with the burden falling most heavily on the poor. In response to the critics, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard, did not join the 86 leaders in the statement on global warming, even though he had been in the forefront of the issue a year ago. Neither did the Rev. Richard Cizik, the National Association's Washington lobbyist, even though he helped persuade other leaders to sign the global warming initiative. On Tuesday, Mr. Haggard, the pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said in a telephone interview that he did not sign because it would be interpreted as an endorsement by the entire National Association of Evangelicals. But he said that speaking just for himself, There is no doubt about it in my mind that climate change is happening, and there is no doubt about it that it would be wise for us to stop doing the foolish things we're doing that could potentially be causing this. In my mind there is no downside to being cautious. Of those who did sign, said the Rev. Jim Ball, executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network: It's a very centrist evangelical list, and that was intentional. When people look at the names, they're going to say, this is a real solid group here. These leaders are not flighty, going after the latest cause. And they know they're probably going to take a little flak. The list includes prominent black leaders like Bishop Charles E. Blake Sr. of the West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles, the Rev. Floyd Flake of the Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral in New York City, and Bishop Wellington Boone of the Father's House
Re: [Biofuel] Termite Methane (was The End of the Internet)
From a post last week: The methane issue is something to be considered. It has been considered. The list archives gives 194 hits for methane and climate, though that includes methane hydrate and a few other things. Why don't you have a look? Methane gas is 24 times more potent as a green house gas than CO2. Yes. But it comes with a context. How much of each is human-caused (so to speak)? How much of each is new and how much cycled? How much of each gas would not be released but for industrialised agriculture methods? How much is just waste? What if you added all the greenhouse gas costs of the whole process of industrial livestock production (including the feed) and compared it with total greenhouse gas emissions from integrated mixed farms that grow their own inputs and energy and supply local markets? Whether CO2 or CH4 or whatever, I think greenhouse gases that are part of the natural cycle don't need fixing because they're not broken. Anyway I think methane is more complicated than that once it gets into the atmosphere, IIRC it's not only a greenhouse gas. Also in some areas of the planet such as the province of British Columbia, Canada, many good forests are clear cut to supply grazing land for ranchers. Those big evergreen trees they cut down are great carbon sinks. It's also been found that grazing pastures can hold as much carbon as forests do. How much and in which conditions trees and forests are carbon sinks and when they're not is not yet very clear. Best Keith On 2/8/06, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The values I have come across show methane as 58 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 initially (first year), and 21 times more potent in the long term. This is why flaring methane or sour gas is seen as GHG friendly in some areas (the CO2 is better than venting the methane into the atmosphere). Here's more on methane, termites and cattle: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990030125710data_trunc_sys.shtml http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/final/c14s02.pdf (there's plenty more). My quick and inexpert synopsis. The jury's still out. Termites don't produce much methane per individual, and much less than cattle per unit of plant matter consumed, but there's a lot of termites on the planet. Just how many is a subject of conjecture, but where there's grant money, there's folks prepared to guess at an inventory in a rigourous manner. However, IMHO, there is no indication that termite contributions to methane inventories are increasing substantially over time, it's likely a fairly stable loop, and with human population encroaching on ever more territory, the termite population is likely diminishing over time (if slowly). On the other hand, there is little doubt that man-made contributions to greenhouse gases are rising over time. Darryl McMahon Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. Joe MH wrote: I found this interesting. Since I've been using my Window XP system some email threads have been deleted regarding global warming exchanges. One thread started to discuss one persons belief that one billion cows flatulent methane emissions were the cause of global warming. I thought this amusing. So I wrote something along the lines: With 6 billion people farting around spewing fossil energy out their chimneys, smokestacks and tailpipes you believe its the cows disrupting the climate ? http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
John Mullan wrote: I don't like the flimsy excuse give by that Telecom guy why should they use our pipes for free. Wasn't all of that infrastructure built on the backs of rate payers anyway? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The End of the Internet
Wireless can easily supply the same speeds as most of the DSL in service right now. It takes planning and the correct gear but it works very well. WISP's will be the future if/when this is implemented. We are luck as Google was ABC's first target and they said go to H#LL! to SBC. In the end this wont last long as people run away from the ILEC's to anyone who is offering a less restricted pipe. WISPs will force ILECs to rethink this just as VoIP made them offer flat rate calling, this is just the strike back. Jeromie Reeves I own a WISP so my view is tainted Joe Street wrote: Ok so we go wireless. The original idea for internet protocol came from packet radio which was an amateur radio thing. Granted the bandwidth was not to be compared but I can easily set up an ad hock net over several kilometers using a standard wireless adapter and a high gain antenna which is nothing more than a tin can pressed into service as a coaxial to waveguide transition feeding into the feedpoint on a surplus primestar satelite tv dish giving plenty of gain for a line of sight link over a fairly long haul with no amplifiers or anything other than what is on the card. A server centrally located and operating on an omidirectional antenna can serve many subscribers within a line of sight path using this scheme. Repeaters can be added to expand the network. Where there is a will there is a way. See here http://www.wwc.edu/~frohro/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html other useful network info here http://epanorama.net/links/tele_lan.html Joe Michael Redler wrote: Keith, So, it seems as though the federal government (a.k.a. corporate America) is threatened by the Second Superpower and is making preparations for war. Mike */Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31753/ The End of the Internet By Jeffrey Chester, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2006. America's big phone and cable companies want to start charging exorbitant user fees for the supposedly-free internet. The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets -- corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers -- would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. Under the plans they are considering, all of us -- from content providers to individual users -- would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing platinum, gold and silver levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of ATT, told Business Week in November, Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because
[Biofuel] 330 miles to the gallon?
Hi All, Urban myths are forever in the making. This little snippet from Econews should add to the genre. A visit to the url isn'tmuch help either. Regards, Bob. Making Awesome Cars A Reality This concept car is amazing! It is a 2-seat, 3-wheel serial (bio)diesel hybrid called the Aptera: It achieves 330 miles per gallon (0.7 liter/100 kilometers!) in normal city and highway driving, has a 0.055-0.06 coefficient of drag (much lower than even the best current hybrids, and even than other cool prototypes like the 70 mpg Boxfish diesel hybrid by DaimlerChrysler) and a projected price of less than $20,000. Specs? Weighs 850 lbs, made almost entirely of lightweight composites, 060 mph in 11 seconds, top speed of 95 mph. Great uh? Go direct to ::Accelerated Composites www.ecostore.co.nz ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Termites, global warming
Maybe someone should tell Gorge W this it seems simple if we could just hook up hoses to the rear ends of all the cattle we gas could power our electrical generators. This would be much better than going back to the future with nuc power. Just a sarcastic thought. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:13 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Termites, global warming Joe Street wrote: Well there may be something to this. It may not be the main source of greenhouse gas but IIRC methane is 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are a lot of cows being grown to serve the north american obsession with beef. And they do fart a hell of a lot! Consider also that the lion's share of oxygen comes not from trees as many a tree hugger has suggested but from algae in the sea. Tiny bubbles. Well I have heard that more methane is released by termites than any other single source. Is this information debunkable? I'd like to know. I think the actual figure is that methane is ~24 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. For real information on global warming and climate change, move on over to http://www.realclimate.org. That's a site run by actual climate scientists, and there is no doubt in their minds about mankinds changes to the environment. As for termites, you can color me skeptical. http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html lists methane from livestock (see enteric fermentation) as about 20% of US methane emissions from human related sources, following landfills and natural gas systems. http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_02/AGU_news_100902.html certainly makes it sound like the majority of methane released (60%) to the atmosphere is related to human activity. Google doesn't seem to have much on termites, methane, and global warming in the first few pages of results, that would indicate termites are a significant source. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] About Methane
Human Influence CO2 CH4 N2O http://www.ghgonline.org/humaninfluencebig.htm --- About Methane http://www.ghgonline.org/aboutmethane.htm Natural methane sources Wetland methane emissions dominate the natural sources of methane. Global emissions from natural sources total around 250 million tonnes each year. Natural emissions of methane can be greatly affected by climate change and the stability of methane hydrates, with increasing global temperatures, is a cause of much concern for some climate scientists. 80% Wetlands 9% Termites 7% Oceans 4% Hydrates Man-made methane sources Energy related and ruminant methane dominate man-made methane sources. Global man-made methane emissions are estimated to total about 320 million tonnes each year. 26% Energy 24% Ruminants 19% Rice 11% Landfills 11% Biomass Burn 5% Waste 4% Other Methane sinks Tropospheric destruction of methane by hydroxyl (OH) radicals is the dominant sink for atmospheric methane. With stratospheric destruction and oxidation by soil bacteria, the total sink for methane is estimated to be between 500 and 600 million tonnes of methane each year. 88% Tropospheric hydroxyl (OH) 7% Stratospheric Loss 5% Soils ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
