[Biofuel] Japan - was Re: Check your Beliefs
Hi Mike >Hi Keith...thanks for the references. You're welcome. >I'm curious, why do you live in >Japan? :-) Well, if you mean something like "home", that's nowhere in particular, home's where I hang my hat (if I had a hat). Midori's Japanese, my partner and wife and co-founder of Journey to Forever, but I think she feels much the same way about it (we met in Hong Kong, not Japan). Journey to Forever is based here, mainly because it sort of grew out of Hong Kong. Building such a thing from scratch out of nothing with nothing needed us to be in a major world economy, and there were good reasons for choosing Japan rather than the other two. No regrets about that decision, and we're nearly there now. We haven't decided yet if we'll keep our base here once the project is fully launched, it depends how things shape up, probably we will keep it if we can. >You've seen a lot of the planet and its' governments up close and >personal and there you are in Japan. Yes, so I am. I carry the required Alien Registration Card but it doesn't say which planet I'm from, not Planet Japan though, LOL! All best Keith >Thanks. Mike DuPree > >- Original Message - >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:35 AM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs > > > > Hi Bob > > > > You say: > > > >>... The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel > >>as a member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate > >>state) was in my view the only possible point of departure. There > >>are many others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when > >>the most modern international organisation we had then in existence > >>chose to do so. ... > > > > Previous: > > > >>And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's a brief sketch. I found > >>it > >>on my thumbnail... > > > > It all began in 1948? That's like saying a person's life only begins > > when they turn 21 and anything before that is irrelevant (or didn't > > even happen maybe). > > sn ___ 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] Digester question
Hmmm, long time little type. I'm becoming a lurker. Anyway, yes, questions. Questions are good. I've crawled through the archives for a little while, don't think I found anything on this, so bear with me and direct as needed. I've been looking into the possibilities of installing an anaerobic digester on our property. Reduce how much "trash" we generate and as an added bonus I could probably power one of our shorter commutes on the gas produced. I was looking into getting something of a consistent feed for it, since we tend to produce digestible waste somewhat erratically, and it hit me while I was working (Fast food) just how much /garbage/ a fast-food restaurant generates. Most of it is actually fairly (I say fairly to play it safe) digestible material: food scraps, prep waste, paper and the like. But what about things like those wax-covered cups, or wax paper? I'm not sure how easily the waxes used in the treatment of such, but I know those cups don't last too awfully long even with just water in them. Could it just be a matter of increasing their hold time in the digester, to get a more complete breakdown, or would it be better to do something else with them? I'd love to do something about reducing this ugly, ugly /waste/ I unfortunately contribute to every day, but at the moment it's mostly theoretical. 'preciation in advance for all your help, stuff like this is why I keep sticking around. -Kurt ___ 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] Fwd: Cool article: Going Green
Hi Kirk and List...what a wonderful article. Of course there will be the naysayers who will tell us blah blah blah but good lord at least we're hearing about people in wasteful America trying to make a difference. Refreshing. I have a question for you and the List: any ideas on how I might collect the scraps from restaurants and eventually individuals to turn into compost and do so profitably? I'm talking about a need for more industrial sized composting. Not sure what that might involve. I would prefer to do this as a business rather than try and involve the local government, but if our local government eventually got involved, that would be okay with me. Maybe my efforts would push them to act. Not sure I've asked a specific enough question, but would at least like to get the ball rolling with ideas from the List. Thanks for everyone's help beforehand. Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: Kirk McLoren To: biofuel Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 8:01 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: Cool article: Going Green Going GreenWith windmills, low-energy homes, new forms of recycling and fuel-efficient cars, Americans are taking conservation into their own hands.By Jerry AdlerNewsweekJuly 17, 2006 issue - One morning last week ... 29 years after president Jimmy Carter declared energy conservation "the moral equivalent of war" ... 37 years after the first reference to the "greenhouse effect" in The New York Times ... one day after oil prices hit a record peak of more than $75 per barrel ... Kelley Howell, a 38-year-old architect, got on her bicycle a little after 5 a.m. and rode 7.9 miles past shopping centers, housing developments and a nature preserve to a bus stop to complete her 24-mile commute to work. Compared with driving in her 2004 Mini Cooper, the 15.8-mile round trip by bicycle conserved approximately three fifths of a gallon of gasoline, subtracting 15 pounds of potential carbon dioxide pollution from the atmosphere (minus the small additional amount she exhaled as a result of her exertion). That's 15 pounds out of 1.7 billion tons of carbon produced annually to fuel all the vehicles in the United States. She concedes that when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like very much. "But if you're not doing something and the next family isn't doing anything, then who will?"On that very question the course of civilization may rest. In the face of the coming onslaught of pollutants from a rapidly urbanizing China and India, the task of avoiding ecological disaster may seem hopeless, and some environmental scientists have, quietly, concluded that it is. But Americans are notoriously reluctant to surrender their fates to the impersonal outcomes of an equation. One by one—and together, in state and local governments and even giant corporations—they are attempting to wrest the future from the dotted lines on the graphs that point to catastrophe. The richest country in the world is also the one with the most to lose.Environmentalism waxes and wanes in importance in American politics, but it appears to be on the upswing now. Membership in the Sierra Club is up by about a third, to 800,000, in four years, and Gallup polling data show that the number of Americans who say they worry about the environment "a great deal" or "a fair amount" increased from 62 to 77 percent between 2004 and 2006. (The 2006 poll was done in March, before the attention-getting release of Al Gore's global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth.") Americans have come to this view by many routes, sometimes reluctantly; Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, thinks unhappiness with the Bush administration's environmental record plays a part, but many of the people NEWSWEEK spoke to for this story are Republicans. "Al Gore can't convince me, but his data can convince me," venture capitalist Ray Lane remarks ruefully. Lane is a general partner in the prominent Silicon Valley firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has pledged to invest $100 million in green technology. He arrived at his position as a "Republican environmentalist" while pondering three trends: global warming, American dependence on foreign oil and the hypermodernization of Asian societies.Others got to the same place by way of religion, most prominently Richard Cizik, director of governmental relations for the National Association of Evangelicals—but also people like Sally Bingham, an Episcopal priest in San Francisco and a founder of the religious environmental group Interfaith Power and Light. A moderate Republican, she had to defend herself on a talk-radio sho
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
Hi Tom, Agreed, the price does sound a bit stiff even though it includes installation of a 1,000 litre holding tank on your property as part of the deal. I felt it made the payback time for a single vehicle barely worth it. He seemed to be more interested in fleet owners. As far as warranties are concerned I talked to Renwick who assured me that "all diesel engine warranties in the usual range of SUVs are covered" by his conversation kit. Granted, I didn't check it out with any particular manufacturer, my assumption being that if he was happy to make those statements to the media then he was taking a major risk of being clobbered by someone in the industry. Certainly any fleet owner who found his warranties voided would be screaming for compensation. His business base is almost 1,000 km from where I live so I can't personally vouch for his bona fides but I did have someone else look into it and Envirocar appears to be what Renwick claims it is. I saw the business of pouring cooking oils into fuel tank as simply a gimmick to catch audience attention at his press conference and give the media something to hang the story on. He assured me the engine normally ran on BD100. Send a query to him at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd be interested to hear how it pans out. Regards, Bob. Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry Hello Bob, I did read the post you mentioned. It appeared to be referring to the use of waste veg oil directly rather than to using biodiesel. "To illustrate his vehicle's versatility he urged his audience to pour a range of standard cookng oils into the tank while the engine was running." and "the conversation kit (fitted by a trained technician) comes in at $4,000" $4000 NZD ($2500 USD) for fuel line alteration (pre-heater?) + installation of a separate diesel tank. If it was for biodiesel the only alterations would involve replacing rubber hoses/seals with viton ... certainly less than $4000, and there's no need for a separate tank. "By agreement with car makers the fuel was acceptable." Which car makers? Here in the US, some diesels (ex. Jeep Liberty) are sold with 5% BD in the tanks. This is, however, the highest blend that will not void the warantee. The warantees on Cummins diesel engines in our large pickup trucks also limit blends to 5% BD. I've been told that they are re-thinking this limit and will probably go to 20% blends as did New Holland. I've been told that it is a fuel quality issue. Commercially produced biodiesel does not always meet quality standards. The thinking is that 2% or 5% blends, of low quality BD, will not cause harm to engines. Tom - Original Message - From: Bob Molloy To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry Hi Thomas, You may have missed this item posted recently. It concerned a New Zealand company formed to make, promote and sell bio-diesel. They solved the problem of manufacturer's warranty by confining their engine alterations to the fuel lines only. Might be worth contacting them for further information. Regards, Bob. Here it is: PUT AN OLIVE IN YOUR TANK Well not quite, but if David Renwick has his way it could be olive oil or even used cooking oil for that matter - once it has been refined into biodiesel. His conversion kit, which allows diesel engines to run on biodiesel offers considerably lower fuel costs and higher efficiency. He demonstrated both in Kerikeri this week with a late model SUV, modified to run on either standard diesel or biofuels, or a mix of the two. To illustrate his vehicle's versatility he urged his audience to pour a range of standard cookng oils into the tank while the engine was running. A test drive showed good acceleration, no smoke from the exhaust and an absence of diesel smell. Instead a slight fragrance of Mom's kitchen. .Renwick, Operations Director of Envirocar - a company he grew from a garage-based idea four years ago into a national organisation, is an enthusiastic exponent of the new wave of environmentally friendly fuels. He claims his fuel gives cleaner burning engines, lower emissions, efficiencies of 15% or more and costs half that of standard diesel. Asked the hard questions as to cost, availability, payback time and risk to vehicle warranty Renwick was open and frank. Biofuel supplied by his organisation
[Biofuel] Fwd: Cool article: Going Green
Going GreenWith windmills, low-energy homes, new forms of recycling and fuel-efficient cars, Americans are taking conservation into their own hands.By Jerry AdlerNewsweekJuly 17, 2006 issue - One morning last week ... 29 years after president Jimmy Carter declared energy conservation "the moral equivalent of war" ... 37 years after the first reference to the "greenhouse effect" in The New York Times ... one day after oil prices hit a record peak of more than $75 per barrel ... Kelley Howell, a 38-year-old architect, got on her bicycle a little after 5 a.m. and rode 7.9 miles past shopping centers, housing developments and a nature preserve to a bus stop to complete her 24-mile commute to work. Compared with driving in her 2004 Mini Cooper, the 15.8-mile round trip by bicycle conserved approximately three fifths of a gallon of gasoline, subtracting 15 pounds of potential carbon dioxide pollution from the atmosphere (minus the small additional amount she exhaled as a result of her exertion). That's 15 pounds out of 1.7 billion tons of carbon produced annually to fuel all the vehicles in the United States. She concedes that when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like very much. "But if you're not doing something and the next family isn't doing anything, then who will?"On that very question the course of civilization may rest. In the face of the coming onslaught of pollutants from a rapidly urbanizing China and India, the task of avoiding ecological disaster may seem hopeless, and some environmental scientists have, quietly, concluded that it is. But Americans are notoriously reluctant to surrender their fates to the impersonal outcomes of an equation. One by oneâand together, in state and local governments and even giant corporationsâthey are attempting to wrest the future from the dotted lines on the graphs that point to catastrophe. The richest country in the world is also the one with the most to lose.Environmentalism waxes and wanes in importance in American politics, but it appears to be on the upswing now. Membership in the Sierra Club is up by about a third, to 800,000, in four years, and Gallup polling data show that the number of Americans who say they worry about the environment "a great deal" or "a fair amount" increased from 62 to 77 percent between 2004 and 2006. (The 2006 poll was done in March, before the attention-getting release of Al Gore's global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth.") Americans have come to this view by many routes, sometimes reluctantly; Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, thinks unhappiness with the Bush administration's environmental record plays a part, but many of the people NEWSWEEK spoke to for this story are Republicans. "Al Gore can't convince me, but his data can convince me," venture capitalist Ray Lane remarks ruefully. Lane is a general partner in the prominent Silicon Valley firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has pledged to invest $100 million in green technology. He arrived at his position as a "Republican environmentalist" while pondering three trends: global warming, American dependence on foreign oil and the hypermodernization of Asian societies.Others got to the same place by way of religion, most prominently Richard Cizik, director of governmental relations for the National Association of Evangelicalsâbut also people like Sally Bingham, an Episcopal priest in San Francisco and a founder of the religious environmental group Interfaith Power and Light. A moderate Republican, she had to defend herself on a talk-radio show from a listener who accused her of buying into the liberal myth of global warming. "I am," she pronounced frostily, "a religious person called to care for creation from this platform." And many followed their own idiosyncratic paths, like Howell, who started researching the connections between food, health and the environment after her mother died of cancer. Soon she and her husband, JD, found themselves caught up in replacing all their light bulbs and toilets with more-efficient versions and weighing their garbage, which by obsessive recycling they have reduced to less than 10 pounds a week.But probably the most common formative experience is one that Wendy Abrams of Highland Park, Ill., underwent six years ago, as she was reading an article about global climate change over the next century; she looked up from her magazine and saw her four children, who will be alive for most of it. That was the year the hybrid Prius went on sale in the United States, and she bought one as soon as she could. This reflects what Pope describes as a refocusing of environmental concern from issues like safe drinking water, which were local and concrete, to climate change, which is global and abstract. Or so it was, anyway, until it came crashing into New Orleans last summer with the force of a million tons of reprints from The Journa
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
Thomas, A) The subsidy is for blended fuel only, up to $1.00 per gallon for B-99 from first use feedstock and up to $0.50 per gallon for WVO feedstock. B) Taking existing inventory of B-100 and dilluting it, to let's say 10%, allows the blender to net the entire subsidy plus charge a premium of several cents per gallon for the blended fuel. If that premium is $0.05 per gallon, this amounts to $0.50 on top of the subsidy dollar, or fifty cents if WVO is the parent stock. C) The biggest bang for the buck relative to environmental benefits is at approximately B-75. Running blends higher than that, up to B-99 or straight B-100 means that the ratio of emissions gains is reduced in comparison to B-75. The environmentally logical pursuit would be to not run anything more than B-75 until there is enough biodiesel for the entire market to run B-75. Unfortunately, the primary motivation in both the private and commercial sectors is often soley to reduce personal or corporate fuel costs. As home-brewers and most intermediate users/producers such as fleet operators are not set up for high ratio blending and aren't in the game for distribution, they simply run the B-99 and take the subsidy dollar. Money trumps environmental benefit in such cases. In commercial distribution cases, money is still the motivator, but the moderate blends become available to the market. Market wins and environment benefits. If this were about the environment, there would be legislation forbidding use of any biodiesel in blends above B-75 until the market was saturated enough for everyone to run higher blends. Todd Swearingen Thomas Kelly wrote: >Todd, > You wrote: > " There's greater profit in blending biodiesel rather than selling >straight." > > and later: > >"Unfortunately, economic benefits aren't in line with environmental >benefits. And the subsidy dollar doesn't help that matter either." > >Could you explain these two points? > Thanks, > Tom > >- Original Message - >From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:43 PM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry > > > > >>Thomas, >> >>Why? You asked... >> >>1) There's greater profit in blending biodiesel rather than selling >>straight. >> >>2) Scrap all the misinformation about engine problems at higher blends. >> >>3) Also scrap his misinformation about emissions benefits tapering off >>at 10%. They actually do little until after B-10, rising sharply to >>approximately B-75, where it plateaus. >> >>4) Although his ratios on benefits are quite off, he is right in the >>environmental benefit of everyone running a blend, rather than some >>people running B-100. It's better for the environment (greater emissions >>benefits across the board) if everyone runs B-10 until the market-wide >>supply is sufficient for everyone to run B-15, then B-20, etc >> >>Essentially, if people were looking out for the planet first and their >>wallets second, anyone producing biofuel for personal use should share >>with others who don't have it. One vehicle at B-100 achieves less >>emissions benefits than two vehicles, one running B-25 and another at >>B-75. >> >>Unfortunately, economic benefits aren't in line with environmental >>benefits. And the subsidy dollar doesn't help that matter either. Then >>again, if there weren't a subsidy it's rather doubtful that the industry >>would be growing leaps and bounds as it is. >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >>Thomas Kelly wrote: >> >> >> >>> I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the >>>speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his >>>repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or >>>20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can >>>occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve >>>exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement >>>tapers off "better to have 10 people driving with B10 than 1 >>>person driving with B100." >>> I questioned his assertions regarding gelling of fuel and pointed >>>out that I drop from BD100 to BD70 in winter months w/o gelling. I >>>explained the cleansing effect of BD and how this may clog fuel >>>filters during initial use, but mentioned that this will also happen >>>w blends as low as 5%. Actual engine damage is more a function of >>>fuel quality than the nature of the fuel itself ... even homebrewers >>>can make quality fuel shouldn't commercial producers be >>>expected to do the same? I conceded that at BD10 there is a 10% >>>reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and that at BD100 there is "only a >>>70% reduction", but suggested that I'd like to see all 10 drivers >>>using BD100 to achieve the 70% reduction. >>> >>> There were 60 - 70 people at the forum; some from local newspapers, >>>others from Communi
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
Hello Bob, I did read the post you mentioned. It appeared to be referring to the use of waste veg oil directly rather than to using biodiesel. "To illustrate his vehicle's versatility he urged his audience to pour a range of standard cookng oils into the tank while the engine was running." and "the conversation kit (fitted by a trained technician) comes in at $4,000" $4000 NZD ($2500 USD) for fuel line alteration (pre-heater?) + installation of a separate diesel tank. If it was for biodiesel the only alterations would involve replacing rubber hoses/seals with viton ... certainly less than $4000, and there's no need for a separate tank. "By agreement with car makers the fuel was acceptable." Which car makers? Here in the US, some diesels (ex. Jeep Liberty) are sold with 5% BD in the tanks. This is, however, the highest blend that will not void the warantee. The warantees on Cummins diesel engines in our large pickup trucks also limit blends to 5% BD. I've been told that they are re-thinking this limit and will probably go to 20% blends as did New Holland. I've been told that it is a fuel quality issue. Commercially produced biodiesel does not always meet quality standards. The thinking is that 2% or 5% blends, of low quality BD, will not cause harm to engines. Tom - Original Message - From: Bob Molloy To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry Hi Thomas, You may have missed this item posted recently. It concerned a New Zealand company formed to make, promote and sell bio-diesel. They solved the problem of manufacturer's warranty by confining their engine alterations to the fuel lines only. Might be worth contacting them for further information. Regards, Bob. Here it is: PUT AN OLIVE IN YOUR TANK Well not quite, but if David Renwick has his way it could be olive oil or even used cooking oil for that matter - once it has been refined into biodiesel. His conversion kit, which allows diesel engines to run on biodiesel offers considerably lower fuel costs and higher efficiency. He demonstrated both in Kerikeri this week with a late model SUV, modified to run on either standard diesel or biofuels, or a mix of the two. To illustrate his vehicle's versatility he urged his audience to pour a range of standard cookng oils into the tank while the engine was running. A test drive showed good acceleration, no smoke from the exhaust and an absence of diesel smell. Instead a slight fragrance of Mom's kitchen. .Renwick, Operations Director of Envirocar - a company he grew from a garage-based idea four years ago into a national organisation, is an enthusiastic exponent of the new wave of environmentally friendly fuels. He claims his fuel gives cleaner burning engines, lower emissions, efficiencies of 15% or more and costs half that of standard diesel. Asked the hard questions as to cost, availability, payback time and risk to vehicle warranty Renwick was open and frank. Biofuel supplied by his organisation currently costs 69 cents a litre (against the present Kerikeri price of diesel at $1.26), the conversation kit (fitted by a trained technician) comes in at $4,000 and includes a 1,000 litre storage tank for your backyard. Payback time depended on mileage i.e. the further you travelled on an annual basis the faster you could amortise the cost of conversation. For one large diesel fleet in Wellington it was four months. Any diesel engine, even those used on farm machinery, could be converted to biofuel.By agreement with car makers the fuel was acceptable. Conversion was limited to the fuel lines only and did not affect engine warranties. As a backup, Envirocar-converted vehicles retained a separate tank for ordinary diesel. Envirocar is supported by Korean car maker SSangYong and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology which this year pumped in $93,000 to take the operation from backyard to production line. Interested biofuellers can contact Mr Renwick at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly To: biofuel Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:53 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or 20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement tap
Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
Hi Keith...thanks for the references. I'm curious, why do you live in Japan? You've seen a lot of the planet and its' governments up close and personal and there you are in Japan. Thanks. Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:35 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs > Hi Bob > > You say: > >>... The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel >>as a member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate >>state) was in my view the only possible point of departure. There >>are many others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when >>the most modern international organisation we had then in existence >>chose to do so. ... > > Previous: > >>And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's a brief sketch. I found >>it >>on my thumbnail... > > It all began in 1948? That's like saying a person's life only begins > when they turn 21 and anything before that is irrelevant (or didn't > even happen maybe). > > Prior to 1948 you don't have to go all the way back to Moses to find > another important event, there's this one for instance, in 1917: > > http://ajedrez_democratico.tripod.com/balfour_declaration.htm > The Balfour Declaration > A history of perfidy and betrayal in the Mideast gives insight into > the motivations behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. > By Dr. Robert John > > That's in the archives, along with much else that takes all the wind > out of your arguments (along with Bill Blum's latest piece, just > posted separately). > > Why not explain how it is that the US has vetoed just about every UN > resolution on Israel since then? (Lists in the archives.) Or how it > is that Ariel Sharon could announce in Israel that the US would do > exactly what he told it to, and then went to the White House and > proved it? Eg: > > "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American > pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the > Americans know it."-- Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, > 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. > > http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0406sharon.html > Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary | > Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon's Annexation Plans > By Stephen Zunes | June 25, 2004 > "The vote, therefore, constitutes nothing less than an overwhelming > bipartisan renunciation of the post-World War II international > system, effectively recognizing the right of conquest." > > Or why US academics Mearsheimer and Walt recently had to publish a > foreign policy article on Israel in the London Review of Books > because it could not be published in the Land of the Free? > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html > LRB | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt : The Israel Lobby > 23 March 2006 > > Now why would that be? > > We've been through all this here, most definitively in the "Oil and > Israel" thread I referred you to. This is the original "Oil and > Israel" post: > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35017.html > [biofuel] Oil and Israel > 27 May 2004 > > One hundred and twenty posts in that thread, through fire and > brimstone to get it all sorted out and in its proper perspective, > despite the vast amount of deliberate and very high-powered confusion > concerning Jews and Israel and Judaism and anti-Semitism when > actually what we're discussing is colonial Zionism and its > unconditional backing by the US. > > Kind of sad to see it all being ignored in so many posts right now, > as if the list was born yesterday and we've never discussed this > before nor established some foundation for further discussion, and > that for just the reasons Bill Blum states. > > These are some of the things that thread and others covered: > > Tanya Reinhart is a much-published Israeli professor (Tel Aviv > University and the University of Utrecht) who wrote a book called > "Israel/Palestine: How To End The War Of 1948". There's an interview > with her here: > http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=50&ItemID=2595 > Interview With Tanya Reinhart > > "... the Gaza strip, where 6000 Israeli settlers occupy one third of > the land, and a million Palestinians are crowded in the rest. As > years went by since Oslo, Israel extended the "Arab-free" areas in > the occupied Palestinian territories to about 50% of the land. Labor > circles began to talk about the "Alon Plus" plan, namely - more lands > to Israel. However, it appeared that they would still allow some > Palestinian self-rule in the other 50%, under conditions similar to > the Bantustans in South Africa." > > That's all changed since 1999. Reinhart makes it clear that what has > been happening is opposed by the majority of Israelis. Three chapters > of her book are online: > http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/books_ME/index.html > > She wrote this too: > http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=1805
Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
This seems to match my thoughts as well. I have held back because I feel I cannot take sides in this conflict. I really feel for the Palestinians. I also really feel for the minority of Israelis who would like peace with the Arab states. I hope for all our sakes that a peaceful resolution is found where both sides can save face, otherwise I can see no end to the hate between Western nations & the people of the Islamic faith. I really feel sorry for the minority of Moslems in Australia, who are beginning to see the start of anti Islam sentiment in Australia. Most of these people are peace loving as are the majority of Australians. Unfortunately, our government seems to be blindly following the policies of the US, with no thought to the consequences of relations with our crowded Islamic neighbor, Indonesia. regards Doug On Sunday 23 July 2006 5:35, Keith Addison wrote: > Once again I'm much in agreement with Bill Blum. He seems to get > inundated by a lot of the arguments that happen here too. (Poor guy.) > I think we've had all this stuff now that he debunks, and more, not > for the first time, and it's tiresome. Please see next. Thankyou. > > Keith Addison > Journey to Forever > KYOTO Pref., Japan > http://journeytoforever.org/ > Biofuel list owner > > > > http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer35.htm > > The Anti-Empire Report > Some things you need to know before the world ends > July 22, 2006 >by William Blum > > The End Is Near, but first, this commercial. > > There are times when I think that this tired old world has gone on a > few years too long. What's happening in the Middle East is so > depressing. Most discussions of the eternal Israel-Palestine conflict > are variations on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior -- "He > started it!" Within a few minutes of discussing/arguing the latest > manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then > 1948, then biblical times. I don't wish to get entangled in who > started the current mess. I would like instead to first express what > I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one > conflict to the next: > > 1) Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades, > if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements > by Arab leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with > its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and > respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely > strive for a viable two-state solution, even those who are opposed to > the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the > state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would > scarcely arise in people's minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the > issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world > use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. > > 2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's > the gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the two sides > to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the > way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent > attacks of any kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante > bellum -- a life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people > forced upon them by Israel. Peace without justice. > > Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of > their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two > soldiers being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too > seriously when Israel is holding literally thousands of captured > Palestinians, many for years, typically without any due process, many > tortured; as well as holding a number of prominent Hezbollah members. > A few years ago, if not still now, Israel wrote numbers on some of > the Palestinian prisoners' arms and foreheads, using blue markers, a > practice that is of course reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of > Jews in World War II. [1] > > Israel's real aim, and that of Washington, is the overthrow of the > Hamas government in Palestine, the government that came to power in > January through a clearly democratic process, the democracy that the > Western "democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the > result doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than > "hypocrisy"? There is now "no Hamas government," declared a senior US > official a week ago, "eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the > government is in jail [kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in > hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little."[2] To make > the government-disappearance act even more Orwellian, we have > Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in late June about > Iraq: "This is the only legitimately elected government in the Middle > East with a possible exception of Leban
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
Hi Thomas, You may have missed this item posted recently. It concerned a New Zealand company formed to make, promote and sell bio-diesel. They solved the problem of manufacturer's warranty by confining their engine alterations to the fuel lines only. Might be worth contacting them for further information. Regards, Bob. Here it is: PUT AN OLIVE IN YOUR TANK Well not quite, but if David Renwick has his way it could be olive oil or even used cooking oil for that matter - once it has been refined into biodiesel. His conversion kit, which allows diesel engines to run on biodiesel offers considerably lower fuel costs and higher efficiency. He demonstrated both in Kerikeri this week with a late model SUV, modified to run on either standard diesel or biofuels, or a mix of the two. To illustrate his vehicle's versatility he urged his audience to pour a range of standard cookng oils into the tank while the engine was running. A test drive showed good acceleration, no smoke from the exhaust and an absence of diesel smell. Instead a slight fragrance of Mom's kitchen. .Renwick, Operations Director of Envirocar - a company he grew from a garage-based idea four years ago into a national organisation, is an enthusiastic exponent of the new wave of environmentally friendly fuels. He claims his fuel gives cleaner burning engines, lower emissions, efficiencies of 15% or more and costs half that of standard diesel. Asked the hard questions as to cost, availability, payback time and risk to vehicle warranty Renwick was open and frank. Biofuel supplied by his organisation currently costs 69 cents a litre (against the present Kerikeri price of diesel at $1.26), the conversation kit (fitted by a trained technician) comes in at $4,000 and includes a 1,000 litre storage tank for your backyard. Payback time depended on mileage i.e. the further you travelled on an annual basis the faster you could amortise the cost of conversation. For one large diesel fleet in Wellington it was four months. Any diesel engine, even those used on farm machinery, could be converted to biofuel.By agreement with car makers the fuel was acceptable. Conversion was limited to the fuel lines only and did not affect engine warranties. As a backup, Envirocar-converted vehicles retained a separate tank for ordinary diesel. Envirocar is supported by Korean car maker SSangYong and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology which this year pumped in $93,000 to take the operation from backyard to production line. Interested biofuellers can contact Mr Renwick at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly To: biofuel Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:53 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or 20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement tapers off "better to have 10 people driving with B10 than 1 person driving with B100." I questioned his assertions regarding gelling of fuel and pointed out that I drop from BD100 to BD70 in winter months w/o gelling. I explained the cleansing effect of BD and how this may clog fuel filters during initial use, but mentioned that this will also happen w blends as low as 5%. Actual engine damage is more a function of fuel quality than the nature of the fuel itself ... even homebrewers can make quality fuel shouldn't commercial producers be expected to do the same? I conceded that at BD10 there is a 10% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and that at BD100 there is "only a 70% reduction", but suggested that I'd like to see all 10 drivers using BD100 to achieve the 70% reduction. There were 60 - 70 people at the forum; some from local newspapers, others from Community Action Groups, most were just curious about biofuels. Their enthusiasm was palpable, their questions polite. Before responding to a question, the speaker asked each person their name, and then spoke as if he was having a friendly, heart-to-heart conversation. To my questions he simply shrugged his shoulders and moved on. I contacted the friend who told me about the forum. He emailed me the actual invitation he had received. Re: the Biodiesel guy: " .Jerry --- has over 20 years of domain expertise in the petroleum distribution and marketing and is presently a member of a biodiesel business development team at a major independent energy supplier. ... Jerry does consulting in building biodiesel refineries and advocacy work i
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
Todd, You wrote: " There's greater profit in blending biodiesel rather than selling straight." and later: "Unfortunately, economic benefits aren't in line with environmental benefits. And the subsidy dollar doesn't help that matter either." Could you explain these two points? Thanks, Tom - Original Message - From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry > Thomas, > > Why? You asked... > > 1) There's greater profit in blending biodiesel rather than selling > straight. > > 2) Scrap all the misinformation about engine problems at higher blends. > > 3) Also scrap his misinformation about emissions benefits tapering off > at 10%. They actually do little until after B-10, rising sharply to > approximately B-75, where it plateaus. > > 4) Although his ratios on benefits are quite off, he is right in the > environmental benefit of everyone running a blend, rather than some > people running B-100. It's better for the environment (greater emissions > benefits across the board) if everyone runs B-10 until the market-wide > supply is sufficient for everyone to run B-15, then B-20, etc > > Essentially, if people were looking out for the planet first and their > wallets second, anyone producing biofuel for personal use should share > with others who don't have it. One vehicle at B-100 achieves less > emissions benefits than two vehicles, one running B-25 and another at > B-75. > > Unfortunately, economic benefits aren't in line with environmental > benefits. And the subsidy dollar doesn't help that matter either. Then > again, if there weren't a subsidy it's rather doubtful that the industry > would be growing leaps and bounds as it is. > > Todd Swearingen > > > Thomas Kelly wrote: > >> I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the >> speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his >> repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or >> 20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can >> occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve >> exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement >> tapers off "better to have 10 people driving with B10 than 1 >> person driving with B100." >> I questioned his assertions regarding gelling of fuel and pointed >> out that I drop from BD100 to BD70 in winter months w/o gelling. I >> explained the cleansing effect of BD and how this may clog fuel >> filters during initial use, but mentioned that this will also happen >> w blends as low as 5%. Actual engine damage is more a function of >> fuel quality than the nature of the fuel itself ... even homebrewers >> can make quality fuel shouldn't commercial producers be >> expected to do the same? I conceded that at BD10 there is a 10% >> reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and that at BD100 there is "only a >> 70% reduction", but suggested that I'd like to see all 10 drivers >> using BD100 to achieve the 70% reduction. >> >>There were 60 - 70 people at the forum; some from local newspapers, >> others from Community Action Groups, most were just curious about >> biofuels. Their enthusiasm was palpable, their questions polite. >> Before responding to a question, the speaker asked each person their >> name, and then spoke as if he was having a friendly, heart-to-heart >> conversation. To my questions he simply shrugged his shoulders and >> moved on. >> >> I contacted the friend who told me about the forum. He emailed me >> the actual invitation he had received. >> Re: the Biodiesel guy: >>" .Jerry --- has over 20 years of domain expertise in the >> petroleum distribution and marketing and is presently a member of a >> biodiesel business development team at a major independent energy >> supplier. ... Jerry does consulting in building biodiesel >> refineries and advocacy work in promoting alternative and sustainable >> fuels. >> >> Jerry brings over 25 years of experience in the petroleum industry in >> technology in the distribution, logistics and terminal operations >> areas. Jerry has been personally involved in the alternative energy >> arena for the past 15 >> years, operating his personal car on biodiesel more than 10 years ago >> and presently driving a van powered by CNG (compressed natural gas) as >> well as a car on home made biodiesel." >> >> He was clearly advocating 2%, 5% blends. Why? Is it simply >> because the auto manufacturers will void warrantees at higher blends? >> If so, why not just say so. >> Somehow I know I should be following the money. It must involve >> dollars and cents. >> Any ideas? >> >> Thanks , I've been mulling this over for weeks. >>Tom >> >> >>
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel and the Petroleum Industry
Thomas, Why? You asked... 1) There's greater profit in blending biodiesel rather than selling straight. 2) Scrap all the misinformation about engine problems at higher blends. 3) Also scrap his misinformation about emissions benefits tapering off at 10%. They actually do little until after B-10, rising sharply to approximately B-75, where it plateaus. 4) Although his ratios on benefits are quite off, he is right in the environmental benefit of everyone running a blend, rather than some people running B-100. It's better for the environment (greater emissions benefits across the board) if everyone runs B-10 until the market-wide supply is sufficient for everyone to run B-15, then B-20, etc Essentially, if people were looking out for the planet first and their wallets second, anyone producing biofuel for personal use should share with others who don't have it. One vehicle at B-100 achieves less emissions benefits than two vehicles, one running B-25 and another at B-75. Unfortunately, economic benefits aren't in line with environmental benefits. And the subsidy dollar doesn't help that matter either. Then again, if there weren't a subsidy it's rather doubtful that the industry would be growing leaps and bounds as it is. Todd Swearingen Thomas Kelly wrote: > I attended a public forum on Biofuels a while back. One of the > speakers, the head of a biodiesel co-op, had me perplexed by his > repeated assertion that biodiesel can be used in 2, 5%, " even 10% or > 20% blends", but above these levels engine problems and gelling can > occur. He had graphs showing the benefit of using biodiesel to improve > exhaust emissions, but pointed out that above a 10% blend improvement > tapers off "better to have 10 people driving with B10 than 1 > person driving with B100." > I questioned his assertions regarding gelling of fuel and pointed > out that I drop from BD100 to BD70 in winter months w/o gelling. I > explained the cleansing effect of BD and how this may clog fuel > filters during initial use, but mentioned that this will also happen > w blends as low as 5%. Actual engine damage is more a function of > fuel quality than the nature of the fuel itself ... even homebrewers > can make quality fuel shouldn't commercial producers be > expected to do the same? I conceded that at BD10 there is a 10% > reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and that at BD100 there is "only a > 70% reduction", but suggested that I'd like to see all 10 drivers > using BD100 to achieve the 70% reduction. > >There were 60 - 70 people at the forum; some from local newspapers, > others from Community Action Groups, most were just curious about > biofuels. Their enthusiasm was palpable, their questions polite. > Before responding to a question, the speaker asked each person their > name, and then spoke as if he was having a friendly, heart-to-heart > conversation. To my questions he simply shrugged his shoulders and > moved on. > > I contacted the friend who told me about the forum. He emailed me > the actual invitation he had received. > Re: the Biodiesel guy: >" .Jerry --- has over 20 years of domain expertise in the > petroleum distribution and marketing and is presently a member of a > biodiesel business development team at a major independent energy > supplier. ... Jerry does consulting in building biodiesel > refineries and advocacy work in promoting alternative and sustainable > fuels. > > Jerry brings over 25 years of experience in the petroleum industry in > technology in the distribution, logistics and terminal operations > areas. Jerry has been personally involved in the alternative energy > arena for the past 15 > years, operating his personal car on biodiesel more than 10 years ago > and presently driving a van powered by CNG (compressed natural gas) as > well as a car on home made biodiesel." > > He was clearly advocating 2%, 5% blends. Why? Is it simply > because the auto manufacturers will void warrantees at higher blends? > If so, why not just say so. > Somehow I know I should be following the money. It must involve > dollars and cents. > Any ideas? > > Thanks , I've been mulling this over for weeks. >Tom > > > > >___ >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: 7.1.394 /
Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
Once again I'm much in agreement with Bill Blum. He seems to get inundated by a lot of the arguments that happen here too. (Poor guy.) I think we've had all this stuff now that he debunks, and more, not for the first time, and it's tiresome. Please see next. Thankyou. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer35.htm The Anti-Empire Report Some things you need to know before the world ends July 22, 2006 by William Blum The End Is Near, but first, this commercial. There are times when I think that this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What's happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the eternal Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior -- "He started it!" Within a few minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. I don't wish to get entangled in who started the current mess. I would like instead to first express what I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next: 1) Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by Arab leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people's minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. 2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's the gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent attacks of any kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante bellum -- a life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people forced upon them by Israel. Peace without justice. Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too seriously when Israel is holding literally thousands of captured Palestinians, many for years, typically without any due process, many tortured; as well as holding a number of prominent Hezbollah members. A few years ago, if not still now, Israel wrote numbers on some of the Palestinian prisoners' arms and foreheads, using blue markers, a practice that is of course reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of Jews in World War II. [1] Israel's real aim, and that of Washington, is the overthrow of the Hamas government in Palestine, the government that came to power in January through a clearly democratic process, the democracy that the Western "democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the result doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than "hypocrisy"? There is now "no Hamas government," declared a senior US official a week ago, "eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail [kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little."[2] To make the government-disappearance act even more Orwellian, we have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in late June about Iraq: "This is the only legitimately elected government in the Middle East with a possible exception of Lebanon."[3] What's next, gathering in front of the Big Telescreen for the Two Minutes Hate? In addition to doing away with the Hamas government, the current military blitzkrieg by Israel, with full US support, may well be designed to create "incidents" to justify attacks on Iran and Syria, the next steps of Washington's work in process, a controlling stranglehold on the Middle East and its oil. It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert[4]; words suitable for Israel's tombstone. These crimes against humanity -- and I haven't mentioned the terrible special weapons reportedly used by Israel -- are what the people of Palestine get for voting for the wrong party. It is i
Re: [Biofuel] Check your Beliefs
Hi Bob You say: >... The reason for starting from the moment when UNO accepted Israel >as a member (in other words as a legally constituted legitimate >state) was in my view the only possible point of departure. There >are many others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when >the most modern international organisation we had then in existence >chose to do so. ... Previous: >And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's a brief sketch. I found it >on my thumbnail... It all began in 1948? That's like saying a person's life only begins when they turn 21 and anything before that is irrelevant (or didn't even happen maybe). Prior to 1948 you don't have to go all the way back to Moses to find another important event, there's this one for instance, in 1917: http://ajedrez_democratico.tripod.com/balfour_declaration.htm The Balfour Declaration A history of perfidy and betrayal in the Mideast gives insight into the motivations behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By Dr. Robert John That's in the archives, along with much else that takes all the wind out of your arguments (along with Bill Blum's latest piece, just posted separately). Why not explain how it is that the US has vetoed just about every UN resolution on Israel since then? (Lists in the archives.) Or how it is that Ariel Sharon could announce in Israel that the US would do exactly what he told it to, and then went to the White House and proved it? Eg: "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-- Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0406sharon.html Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary | Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon's Annexation Plans By Stephen Zunes | June 25, 2004 "The vote, therefore, constitutes nothing less than an overwhelming bipartisan renunciation of the post-World War II international system, effectively recognizing the right of conquest." Or why US academics Mearsheimer and Walt recently had to publish a foreign policy article on Israel in the London Review of Books because it could not be published in the Land of the Free? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html LRB | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt : The Israel Lobby 23 March 2006 Now why would that be? We've been through all this here, most definitively in the "Oil and Israel" thread I referred you to. This is the original "Oil and Israel" post: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35017.html [biofuel] Oil and Israel 27 May 2004 One hundred and twenty posts in that thread, through fire and brimstone to get it all sorted out and in its proper perspective, despite the vast amount of deliberate and very high-powered confusion concerning Jews and Israel and Judaism and anti-Semitism when actually what we're discussing is colonial Zionism and its unconditional backing by the US. Kind of sad to see it all being ignored in so many posts right now, as if the list was born yesterday and we've never discussed this before nor established some foundation for further discussion, and that for just the reasons Bill Blum states. These are some of the things that thread and others covered: Tanya Reinhart is a much-published Israeli professor (Tel Aviv University and the University of Utrecht) who wrote a book called "Israel/Palestine: How To End The War Of 1948". There's an interview with her here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=50&ItemID=2595 Interview With Tanya Reinhart "... the Gaza strip, where 6000 Israeli settlers occupy one third of the land, and a million Palestinians are crowded in the rest. As years went by since Oslo, Israel extended the "Arab-free" areas in the occupied Palestinian territories to about 50% of the land. Labor circles began to talk about the "Alon Plus" plan, namely - more lands to Israel. However, it appeared that they would still allow some Palestinian self-rule in the other 50%, under conditions similar to the Bantustans in South Africa." That's all changed since 1999. Reinhart makes it clear that what has been happening is opposed by the majority of Israelis. Three chapters of her book are online: http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/books_ME/index.html She wrote this too: http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=1805 Jenin- The Propaganda War And this: http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/treinhart5.htm Sharon's Gaza plan and the freedom to starve and kill 22 April 2004 Also this: http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/treinhart3.htm The reality behind Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan 22 March 2004 These are the views of Rabbi Weiss on Israel: http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-08/26/article11.shtml Zionism, Israel Threat to Peace http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/nyc051404weiss.cfm Declaration on
