Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia WasTestimonials as Evidence)
I saw Kevin on TV two months ago, so his ban must have expired. I got his last two books. They do seem to written in haste. But I don't doubt the things he says. I have seen too many people, friends and family, die from drugs. Myself, I don't want to take a chance with drugs, and as long as alt therapies are available, I will continue to use them exclusively. It is a fact that all alt practioners are under attack. The more successful they are, the more they're stymied in their work by the FDA. This is one of the primary functions of the AMA. It has no enforcement powers so it calls on the FDA. It is called protecting thy turf. Alt medicine is growing by leaps and bounds and is the wave of the future, if, a big if, it can survive the onslaught from the FDA, AMA, and Codex Alimentarius. Big Pharma is the creator/backer of the Codex and I have no doubt that many Repugs and a few key Dems are being primed to pass legislation to make it a done deal in the U$ of A. Peace, D. Mindock - Original Message - From: bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia WasTestimonials as Evidence) Terry, are you aware that the FTC has banned him from infomercials due to many many false statements? If you have ever seen any infomercials, you should know that the standard of acceptability very, very low. Well, Trudeau went below that. Or that he has spent time in prison for felony fraud? If you have ever seen any infomercials, you should know that the standard of acceptability very, very low. Well, Trudeau went below that. here is the ftc statement http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/09/trudeaucoral.htm and here is a little vox populi. Note this is not big pharma or a federal agency, but rather individuals talking about how they have been treated by the man. http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?q1=ALLq5=kevin+trudeausubmit2=Search%21q4=q6=q3=q2=q7=searchtype=0 you could have picked any number of better examples than this guy. Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Bob, The book titled Natural Cures they don't want you to know about, by Kevin Trudeau explains examples of what really goes on in our commercial world. Kevin was a CEO of a huge Pharmactical corporation and did a lot of corrupt work to please the share holders of his company. then he is corrupt to do it. and just what company was that? I don't mean to imply that that sort of thing is not done, just that I question whether Trudeau was a CEO of a huge Pharma. He was expected to do this corrupt work in order to keep his job. He also explains that the FDA quite often picks on small natural food companies and has there products banned for no health reason but because they may interfere with the bottom line of Drug companies profits. got a verifiable example? You are right, Bob, members on this list do understand how profits can influence information. Exxon Oil and other oil corporations have paid scientists for years to publish untruthful info about Global Warming, etc. now here we agree. From: bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia WasTestimonials as Evidence) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:58:51 -0500 That last one from me was dashed off a little too hastily. Here is what I should have sent: Howdy Terry, Terry Dyck wrote: Because my name was mentioned in this thread I would like to join Joe and D. Mindock in stating that I to believe in science. There is good science and bad science. bad science has little meaning in my mind. One can pursue information via methods that attempt to control for confounding variables or not. There is hype, marketing, downright lies etc. but that is not science. When it comes to the western world and health money seems to be a huge factor and prevention of disease does not get as much published science in a good light as does big profit pharmacetical corportations. or big profit for little guys like mercola, hulda clark, and an endless array of hucksters? So we seem to mostly here what the big corporations have to say. not on this list, huh. But we do see mercola et al. I really don't see much difference, other than greater regulation of big pharma. This is not good for human health. Terry Dyck From: D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia WasTestimonials as Evidence) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 02:33:15 -0500 Yep, I too admire scientists, real truth seeking ones, not those who can be bought to produce desired outcomes. My degree is in science, atmospheric. Basically I am trained to run computer models of the atmosphere and to
[Biofuel] Savage America
Published on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 by CommonDreams.org Savage America by Bob Burnett PARIS -- We invite our French friend to visit us and he says, "I'm afraid to go to America." It's a common response: the French are curious about the United States, understand it's a beautiful, complicated country, but are nervous about visiting. Of course, since 9/11, it's a lot harder to get a visa. But underneath the security-related paperwork looms a more ominous reality: America is no longer seen as a welcoming place. It's viewed as unpredictable. Savage. The news reports reinforce the impression that the U.S. is a dangerous, brutal country. Every day there's an item about Iraq: more troops are needed, sectarian violence rages, occupation forces are accused of atrocities, and George Bush stubbornly defends his policies. This news is accompanied by disturbing American vignettes: a gunman kills five children at a Pennsylvania school, a Congressman is said to be a sexual predator, and the Republican Congress gives their President the power to deny human rights to suspected terrorists. The cumulative effect of the media coverage is corrosive. Europeans believe the U.S. is becoming less civilized. Our French friends ask: What happened to America? We respond defensively: Say the U.S. is a wonderful country. Claim the media emphasizes the negative, where there are many positives. Argue that President Bush does not speak for all Americans. But they know he represents a large segment of American society. And his base believes in him. Supports his vision of savage America. As we scramble for an answer to what has happened to the U.S., we explain that the brutalization of America is the product of three separate factors: The first is historical. America is a young country and the people who founded it, the pioneers, were a hardy group. They didn't always play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. A fair number of American folk heroes-Kit Carson and Andrew Jackson, to name two-engaged in conduct that today's standards would view unfavorably. As the borders of America crept westward, explorers often were a law unto themselves. On the frontier, the strongest set the rules. American culture treasures the memory of the frontier. Venerates entrepreneurs, today's version of the pioneers. Accepts a moral code where winners not only take all, but also define the rules of the game. As a result, American society is sometimes governed by a morality more concerned with money than justice. This is the savage America revered by economic conservatives. Paradoxically, another element that contributed to the brutalization of American life was Christianity. Fundamentalist Christians have been a factor in our society from the beginning. They came here to escape religious persecution in Europe. Sought religious freedom. Wanted to be left alone. And, initially, treasured the separation of church and state. As a result, for most of our history, Americans were privately religious, but publicly secular. Until the last thirty years. 1974 saw the birth of the Religious Right. A group that's become a powerful political force in the US: the core of George Bush's support. A movement that advocates theocracy; believes much of secular society to be evil. A major segment of American society that's aggressively dogmatic and narrow-minded. Intolerant, even hateful, towards non-believers and foreigners. That wants America to be a "Christian" nation. Is willing to sacrifice human rights to obtain their goal: a nation of true believers. This is the image of savage America coveted by social conservatives. The final factor that accounts for the brutalization of America is the philosophy of the Bush Administration. George W. Bush and his closest advisers-Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice-see the world as a jungle, where it is every person for his or herself. They believe survival in such a world requires the construction of fortress America: a society where the primary actor is the President as commander-in-chief and the primary instrument of public policy is the military. A nation where human rights are minimized in the interest of "national security." An America that subjugates freedom to order. The Bush Administration believes not only that the President is above the law, but also that he defines the law. That the office of the President prescribes American reality. While giving lip service to democracy, they disdain majority rule, seek to form a plutocracy. This is the savage America revered by political conservatives. These three circumstances, and three somewhat different political philosophies, combined to produce the savage America the French and other Europeans fear. A brutal, crude America governed by one rule: might makes right. It's hard to see this America. It helps to be outside the country, as we are at the moment, and to look at the
Re: [Biofuel] new alcohol ideas
Hello Jason Katie Yes , surely , glycerol can destroy the azeotropics ethanol water system , and has been proven industrial method to purify ethanol based on extractive distillation method of separation However the viscosity , high energy input related with cyclo hexane , this method is not that much economical in relation with preferred cyclo hexane method. There are some pataents made on the use of glycerol to recover and reuse the pure ethanol , as you believe , and this can be good approach to get pure ethanol With regardsPannirselvam P.V2006/9/29, Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: i just had a bizarre idea. someone please argue with me on this, but ifglycerine is categorized as an alcohol, would it work to use castor oil topurify it, the same as ethanol? ideas?comments?JasonICQ#:154998177 MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 9/27/2006 ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 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/ -- Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Custos e ProcessosDEQ – Departamento de Engenharia QuímicaCT – Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova – Natal/RNCampus Universitário. CEP: 59.072-970http://pannirbr.googlepages.com/gpecufrnhomepage3215-3769 ramal 210casa 3215-1557 ___ 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] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia WasTestimonials as Evidence)
D. Mindock wrote: I saw Kevin on TV two months ago, so his ban must have expired. no, the ban was for selling any kind of health care product, now he only sells books about health care products. I got his last two books. They do seem to written in haste. But I don't doubt the things he says. keep in mind he admitted to credit card fraud. He stole peoples money. what makes you think he's telling the truth now? did you read any of the comments at ripoffreport.com ? he is a scam artist I have seen too many people, friends and family, die from drugs. Myself, I don't want to take a chance with drugs, and as long as alt therapies are available, I will continue to use them exclusively. a commendable notion, but where do you get reliable information on efficacy? from a con artist? It is a fact that all alt practioners are under attack. The more successful they are, the more they're stymied in their work by the FDA. how do you measure success? The reason they are under attack as you call it not because of success, but because they make unsubstantiated claims. For example mercola -- Mercola gets second warning letter. The FDA has ordered Joseph Mercola, DO and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for four products. The order was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site. The objectionable claims include: **Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, claimed to help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future. **Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and degenerative diseases. **Momentum Health Products Vitamin K2, possibly useful in treating certain kinds of cancer and Alzheimer's disease. **Momentum Health Products Cardio Essentials Nattokinase NSK-SD, claimed to be a much safer and effective option than aspirin and other pharmaceutical agents to treating heart disease. --- This is one of the primary functions of the AMA. It has no enforcement powers so it calls on the FDA. It is called protecting thy turf. Alt medicine is growing by leaps and bounds and is the wave of the future, if, a big if, it can survive the onslaught from the FDA, AMA, and Codex Alimentarius. and another big if is can it be proven to really do anything. Big Pharma is the creator/backer of the Codex and I have no doubt that many Repugs and a few key Dems are being primed to pass legislation to make it a done deal in the U$ of A. Peace, D. Mindock - Original Message - From: bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia WasTestimonials as Evidence) Terry, are you aware that the FTC has banned him from infomercials due to many many false statements? If you have ever seen any infomercials, you should know that the standard of acceptability very, very low. Well, Trudeau went below that. Or that he has spent time in prison for felony fraud? If you have ever seen any infomercials, you should know that the standard of acceptability very, very low. Well, Trudeau went below that. here is the ftc statement http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/09/trudeaucoral.htm and here is a little vox populi. Note this is not big pharma or a federal agency, but rather individuals talking about how they have been treated by the man. http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?q1=ALLq5=kevin+trudeausubmit2=Search%21q4=q6=q3=q2=q7=searchtype=0 you could have picked any number of better examples than this guy. Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Bob, The book titled Natural Cures they don't want you to know about, by Kevin Trudeau explains examples of what really goes on in our commercial world. Kevin was a CEO of a huge Pharmactical corporation and did a lot of corrupt work to please the share holders of his company. then he is corrupt to do it. and just what company was that? I don't mean to imply that that sort of thing is not done, just that I question whether Trudeau was a CEO of a huge Pharma. He was expected to do this corrupt work in order to keep his job. He also explains that the FDA quite often picks on small natural food companies and has there products banned for no health reason but because they may interfere with the bottom line of Drug companies profits. got a verifiable example? You are right, Bob, members on this list do understand how profits can influence information. Exxon Oil and other oil corporations have paid scientists for years to publish untruthful info about Global Warming, etc. now here we agree. From: bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To:
Re: [Biofuel] Closing the Garden - Ottawa version
Hi gardeners, Our yard at home is small, in the middle of the city, and shaded by a big tree. So we were looking for somewhere to grow vegetables. In the last three years we have had some space on public land that was contested over, puzzled over, dog-run over by our differing neighbourhood uses. We have put in years of meetings to secure this greenspace. We dug deeply through the sod and put in manure from the downtown farm (it used to be a zoo), turned over our little square, put in an apple tree and two grape vines... etc. Okay, the earth is pretty great. LOTS of worms and although in Toronto we surely have clay, not so bad, put the mulch in there for three years and it's starting to break up nicely. Okay, here's the deal. This is a public place, there are dogs, school kids and everyone else walking past the garden. I saw a guy walking away with a big grocery bag of my roma tomatoes. I say to him, Hi, I hope you're enjoying my garden? He says Oh, I thought it was school-kids put this in. Like that would make it okay, humm, and he keeps walking. Interesting. So my daughter put up a sign: Until we have dug a big enough garden to feed the whole neighbourhood, could you please leave the produce to the gardeners? (She has a thing that if anyone would be so hungry as to take food from someone else's garden, it must be okay.) Guys, I'm thinkin', this is the way it's going to be. I feel cranky now. Our new sign, for next spring, is: Here are 5 tomato seedlings. Plant and tend them and enjoy your gardening. I don't want to fence. I want straight-ahead. But I'm wondering what is coming. Thoughts? Jesse --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Appropriately, I spent a few hours on Thanksgiving day clearing most of the plant matter from the garden and putting it on the compost pile. Robert, your recent posts have been an inspiration. Thank you. Our garden did not fare as well this year as in past years. Mostly due to lack of attention on my part, although not enough rain followed by too much rain wasn't helping either. Still, we had more tomatoes than we knew what to do with, even after giving them away to neighbours and taking them to work for barbecues and so on. The yellow cherry tomatoes were a special success. So sweet. My son took away a good haul of carrots, which he is enjoying immensely. Enough beets to make into baby food for my grandson, several feeds of peas in the garden and enough yellow beans to even make it to the dinner table a couple of times (after some serious consumption in the yard first). Squash was a disappointment - lots of fruit, but none big enough to justify harvesting. The radish and lettuce either drowned or were scavenged by local fauna. The spinach did not take at all. The jalapenos were bountiful, and I had been told I couldn't grow those this far north. The raspberries did well in the spring, but no autumn crop to speak of. I think the squash needs more sun, which means I need to find some vegetables and fruits that can do with less sun for certain parts of the garden. I'm also going to have to trim back my beautiful maple tree (a rescued weed from years ago), to let more sun reach the garden. Still, it will continue to provide good shade over the park bench we have outside the fence so neighbours can sit and rest if they so desire. After reading Robert's posts, I wonder if I should have gone for a fruit tree instead, perhaps cherry. However, the responsbility for the failures is all mine. The garden simply did not get the time it needed, as I elected to focus on other things much of this year. (Perhaps more on those in days to come - I have already told you about the electric bicycle victory, and a related campaign has already been joined.) This year, I have been reading the Square Foot Garden by Mel Bartholomew (Rodale). So full of small truths, I think it will transform how I garden from now on. The line about typical residential gardening just being industrial gardening on a small scale really hit home. I have not finished the book yet (priorities again), but already I feel comfortable recommending it. As did the being overwhelmed by harvest when it's ready, but having nothing fresh to eat before and after. While I'm making compost, I'm still hauling it in by the pick-up truck load each year to continue amending the soil. And at least two trips a year go to gardens other than my own. At least the truck is now running on 20% biodiesel from a local supplier. This summer, we managed a vacation in Nova Scotia, with a quick trip to Prince Edward Island. We visited Vesey Seed, and I have a whole array of new seeds to experiment with for next year. Any recommendations on materials to build the raised beds (4 feet square and a foot high)? Cost and appearance are both concerns. Too wet now to go out and finish the job, and rain is
Re: [Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe Mail - 2006.10.06
How did you feel about this one, Darrly? First reaction was something about journalism. Big Headline, then three columns of stuff about how we are all going to lose our shirts. Finally, somebody says Hey, she's just scaring people!!! Hello? How about reducing use? And how did she find her statistics, anyway. Humm. Fuzzy journalism, I think. Jesse--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JEFFREY SIMPSON Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: Canada will not, and cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction target. Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion yesterday, as they often are when truth smacks them in the face. Any politician who argues that Canada can meet its Kyoto targets consciously abuses the facts, or doesn't know them. Here they are: Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada pledged to reduce emissions by 2008-2012 to 6 per cent below those of 1990. Emissions in 1990 were 599 megatonnes of carbon dioxide and other climate-warming gases. Canada needed to cut 6 per cent from that total. Instead, by 2003, emissions had jumped to 740 megatonnes and, in 2004, to 758 megatonnes. This week, Natural Resources Canada predicted that emissions would be 828 megatonnes by 2010. Therefore, to fulfill Kyoto, Canada would need to reduce emissions in the next two to six years by 265 megatonnes: from 828 megatonnes to 6 per cent below the 1990 level of 599 megatonnes, or 563 megatonnes. That reduction is absolutely impossible -- unless Canada did something extremely stupid. Canada could buy emission credits from other countries, but the cost would be billions and billions of dollars. Nothing would have changed in Canada. A stupider public policy choice would be hard to imagine. Having said that, Canada's greenhouse-gas-emissions record remains a national, even international, scandal. If nothing is done, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicts that emissions will reach a staggering 1,300 megatonnes by 2050. The Liberals presided over the policy scandal, so have no business criticizing anyone but themselves. Their terrible record was documented last week by Canada's Environment Commissioner. The Conservatives have not done anything except scrap a few modest programs. Nothing suggests that Ms. Ambrose and the Harper government will get really serious about carbon emission reductions. Everything suggests that, when the Conservatives reveal their policies, these will only slow down the increase in emissions, not reduce them. Slowing down increases won't cut it. When Ms. Ambrose insists that Canada will remain part of Kyoto, what does that mean? It must mean changes beyond anything the government has contemplated. As a Kyoto signatory, Canada in the post-2012 period would have to make up for all the emissions it had failed to reduce in the pre-2012 period -- plus an extra 30 per cent! In other words, Canada would need to (a) make up for the roughly 35 per cent by which it missed the Kyoto target, and (b) add another 30 per cent reduction. The subsequent reduction of about 65 per cent by the early part of the 2020s is supposed to occur while energy use continues to rise and more and more oil is produced from the tar sands. Just yesterday, EnCana and ConocoPhillips of Houston announced plans to spend $10.7-billion (U.S.) to produce and upgrade 400,000 barrels a day of raw oil sands crude by 2015. A barrel of oil from bitumen produces about two to three times the carbon from conventionally pumped oil. By 2020, 80 per cent of Canada's oil will come from the tar sands. If nothing is done to radically change the capturing of carbon from producing all that oil, Canada's greenhouse gases will rise, and rise sharply. And what does Ms. Ambrose propose to do about that? How Canada, or more precisely Alberta with its constitutional control of natural resources, is developing oil sands is environmentally crazy: using relatively clean natural gas to produce heat that allows the oil to be extracted from the sand. We are using a clean fuel to produce a dirtier one. We are doing this when conventional gas supplies are declining. These must be replaced in part by coal bed methane or gasification of coal, both of which can be greenhouse-gas unfriendly. We also know, as the Natural Resources report underscored this week, that the future mix of oil in Canada will be heavier, thereby requiring more processing, which, in turn, will produce more emissions. So the debate over whether Canada will meet its Kyoto commitments is a false one, because it's over. Those targets will not -- cannot -- be met. Every sign points to this country's emissions continuing to rise for years, short of an upsurge in public concern and the application of sustained political will. ___ Biofuel mailing list
Re: [Biofuel] Closing the Garden - Ottawa version
Jesse, I feel for you. I have not done guerilla gardening, intentionally anyway. Here's a story for you. When I first started breaking sod at our house, I put in some flower garden close to the street. My plan was to put some posies on the dining room table for my wife once in a while. Some days, I would head out to work past the flower beds, and see the buds, knowing that by evening I'd have a flower or two for the table. By the time I got home, no flowers, no buds. They had been picked. It took a while, but I finally discovered the neighbourhood urchins were picking the flowers, and taking them home. I hope their mothers got the benefit. This went on for a couple of years. Since then, I have never planted flowers outside the fence again. Instead, I have planted beets, carrots, barley, leaf lettuce, spinach and radish. Basically, root crops or grasses - nothing with visible fruit or flowers. Never had a problem with the local youth since. I even tempted fate and told a small group that the lacy-leafed plants in one patch were carrots. They set me straight in short order. No way was the old guy going to fool them with that one. They know that carrots are orange, and presumably come in plastic bags and tin cans. Issues with by-law enforcement has been another issue. The barley in particular made them pretty crazy. It took a while to convince them it wasn't just unmowed grass. It didn't do well there anyway, not enough sun I expect. Anyway, the message from my story is, if your objective is to harvest for your own use, don't plant things people recognize easily in shared spaces, like tomatoes, cucumbers or yellow beans. Unless your objective is to feed others without regard to who gets the fruit of your labour, go with things that only gardeners will recognize. In addition to the root crops, I expect climbing green beans like scarlet runners might escape casual detection. If it were me, I would probably plant some climbing flowers or sunflowers on the street side of the space as additional camoflage. You'll lose the blooms, but the casual observer will likely ignore the non-flowering plants behind, figuring those flowers aren't ready to pick yet. Even in my own yard, I don't grow tomatoes without hiding them from street view - they're just too recognizable to those that don't respect the labour of others. Some days, I think there's a little too much of the little red hen in me. However, I think I should have some say in how the bounty of my efforts are distributed to others, and not leave it to the self-appointed to liberate it for their own use. Darryl Jesse Frayne wrote: Hi gardeners, Our yard at home is small, in the middle of the city, and shaded by a big tree. So we were looking for somewhere to grow vegetables. In the last three years we have had some space on public land that was contested over, puzzled over, dog-run over by our differing neighbourhood uses. We have put in years of meetings to secure this greenspace. We dug deeply through the sod and put in manure from the downtown farm (it used to be a zoo), turned over our little square, put in an apple tree and two grape vines... etc. Okay, the earth is pretty great. LOTS of worms and although in Toronto we surely have clay, not so bad, put the mulch in there for three years and it's starting to break up nicely. Okay, here's the deal. This is a public place, there are dogs, school kids and everyone else walking past the garden. I saw a guy walking away with a big grocery bag of my roma tomatoes. I say to him, Hi, I hope you're enjoying my garden? He says Oh, I thought it was school-kids put this in. Like that would make it okay, humm, and he keeps walking. Interesting. So my daughter put up a sign: Until we have dug a big enough garden to feed the whole neighbourhood, could you please leave the produce to the gardeners? (She has a thing that if anyone would be so hungry as to take food from someone else's garden, it must be okay.) Guys, I'm thinkin', this is the way it's going to be. I feel cranky now. Our new sign, for next spring, is: Here are 5 tomato seedlings. Plant and tend them and enjoy your gardening. I don't want to fence. I want straight-ahead. But I'm wondering what is coming. Thoughts? Jesse ___ 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] The Weather Makers
The Weather Makers is a book by Tim Flannery. It's about climate change. If you want a concise, readable book about a dense and confusing subject, here you go. If you are tired of debating the subject with those that wilfully remain ignorant and oblivious, I recommend you buy this book, read it, then lend it to your debating partner. It covers the subject at a high level, but with enough illustrative anecdotes at the detail level to keep it at a human level. Recommended. Darryl McMahon ___ 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] Closing the Garden - Ottawa version
Darryl, I'm grateful for your response, today and for the last few years. But I must jump in: clearly, I hid my point. Not so much how to get people to stop stealing my garden food, but rather, are we about to have a world where people steal garden food? We are smug about our home gardens, but I think there might ultimately be a change. This was my sense, anyway, from this one guy, in affluent Toronto... Jesse --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesse, I feel for you. I have not done guerilla gardening, intentionally anyway. Here's a story for you. When I first started breaking sod at our house, I put in some flower garden close to the street. My plan was to put some posies on the dining room table for my wife once in a while. Some days, I would head out to work past the flower beds, and see the buds, knowing that by evening I'd have a flower or two for the table. By the time I got home, no flowers, no buds. They had been picked. It took a while, but I finally discovered the neighbourhood urchins were picking the flowers, and taking them home. I hope their mothers got the benefit. This went on for a couple of years. Since then, I have never planted flowers outside the fence again. Instead, I have planted beets, carrots, barley, leaf lettuce, spinach and radish. Basically, root crops or grasses - nothing with visible fruit or flowers. Never had a problem with the local youth since. I even tempted fate and told a small group that the lacy-leafed plants in one patch were carrots. They set me straight in short order. No way was the old guy going to fool them with that one. They know that carrots are orange, and presumably come in plastic bags and tin cans. Issues with by-law enforcement has been another issue. The barley in particular made them pretty crazy. It took a while to convince them it wasn't just unmowed grass. It didn't do well there anyway, not enough sun I expect. Anyway, the message from my story is, if your objective is to harvest for your own use, don't plant things people recognize easily in shared spaces, like tomatoes, cucumbers or yellow beans. Unless your objective is to feed others without regard to who gets the fruit of your labour, go with things that only gardeners will recognize. In addition to the root crops, I expect climbing green beans like scarlet runners might escape casual detection. If it were me, I would probably plant some climbing flowers or sunflowers on the street side of the space as additional camoflage. You'll lose the blooms, but the casual observer will likely ignore the non-flowering plants behind, figuring those flowers aren't ready to pick yet. Even in my own yard, I don't grow tomatoes without hiding them from street view - they're just too recognizable to those that don't respect the labour of others. Some days, I think there's a little too much of the little red hen in me. However, I think I should have some say in how the bounty of my efforts are distributed to others, and not leave it to the self-appointed to liberate it for their own use. Darryl Jesse Frayne wrote: Hi gardeners, Our yard at home is small, in the middle of the city, and shaded by a big tree. So we were looking for somewhere to grow vegetables. In the last three years we have had some space on public land that was contested over, puzzled over, dog-run over by our differing neighbourhood uses. We have put in years of meetings to secure this greenspace. We dug deeply through the sod and put in manure from the downtown farm (it used to be a zoo), turned over our little square, put in an apple tree and two grape vines... etc. Okay, the earth is pretty great. LOTS of worms and although in Toronto we surely have clay, not so bad, put the mulch in there for three years and it's starting to break up nicely. Okay, here's the deal. This is a public place, there are dogs, school kids and everyone else walking past the garden. I saw a guy walking away with a big grocery bag of my roma tomatoes. I say to him, Hi, I hope you're enjoying my garden? He says Oh, I thought it was school-kids put this in. Like that would make it okay, humm, and he keeps walking. Interesting. So my daughter put up a sign: Until we have dug a big enough garden to feed the whole neighbourhood, could you please leave the produce to the gardeners? (She has a thing that if anyone would be so hungry as to take food from someone else's garden, it must be okay.) Guys, I'm thinkin', this is the way it's going to be. I feel cranky now. Our new sign, for next spring, is: Here are 5 tomato seedlings. Plant and tend them and enjoy your gardening. I don't want to fence. I want straight-ahead. But I'm wondering what is coming. Thoughts? Jesse ___
Re: [Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe Mail - 2006.10.06
Jesse Frayne wrote: How did you feel about this one, Darryl? First reaction was something about journalism. Big Headline, then three columns of stuff about how we are all going to lose our shirts. Finally, somebody says Hey, she's just scaring people!!! Hello? How about reducing use? And how did she find her statistics, anyway. Humm. Fuzzy journalism, I think. Actually, I thought Simpson was taking aim at the feigned hysteria and fuzzy journalism that has already characterized the debate since Ambose opened her mouth, because it certainly seems nobody is listening to what she is actually saying. I think the fact that the Minister is saying this presents the proverbial two-edged sword. There is the danger that it becomes the self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, it could be taken as a challenge and call to action by those that feel more can be done. Pity we haven't seen more of the can-do attitude, and less of the strident hand-wringing for the cameras. It annoys me to see the federal Liberals wailing about Kyoto, when they had years in office and did nothing constructive on the file. It seems a trifle hypocritical to me to see the leadership candidates posture for the media on the subject, while their upcoming leadership conference does not offer delegates the option to make their trip carbon neutral, let alone the conference. I see much smaller events for less affluent organizations buying enough green power credits to make their conferences carbon neutral. Of course Canada could meet the targets. We just won't choose to do so. Because most of us just don't give a darn. Bigger houses, bigger cars and trucks, more consumer goods and status symbols still win out over maintaining a habitable planet for most Canadians, judging by actions. I think the mood is shifting, ever so slowly, but I don't see the momentum building that others claim to see. It's a challenge even in my household, where the time I spend on these issues is resented. In reality, it isn't the government that will meet or miss the target; it's the population of the country. It is our actions and decisions that make the difference. If we want zero-emissions vehicles, it is up to us to buy them. Where they are prohibited, it is up to us to change the rules (e.g., our recent victory to legalize electric bikes in Ontario). If we're worried about the contributions of the oil sands, we can reduce our demand for heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. If we're worried about electrical generation from coal, we can reduce our electrical consumption from the grid. If we're worried about depletion of fresh water, we can take measures to reduce our use of it. We're the consumers. We're the demand for those commodities. Canada is committed to Kyoto; I can't imagine that we will withdraw from it. So, instead we'll try to cut a deal to buy credits on the cheap, or get exemptions or delays. The right answer is to start a major campaign to reduce our emissions enough to make those gains at home. What's the hurry to get the oil out of the oil sands in ten years instead of fifty? It's not going anywhere. The demand isn't going to evaporate in 2016. We can become more efficient. Here's an interesting story. I have just started analyzing electrical demand in Ontario since deregulation in May 2002. Despite the Ontario Power Authority's decree that generation capacity must increase by 2% a year forever, the actual demand for electricity in Ontario has *decreased* 0.5% from the year May 2002-April 2003 to the year May 2005-April 2006. That is despite a growing population, a housing boom, increased employment and a growing economy during that period. We can improve efficiency and conserve, and reduce our raw energy consumption without sacrificing our economy or quality of life. We have six years to prove Ambrose and this government wrong? Will we? Only if we think it's important, and judging by our actions over the past decade, we don't think it is important. Darryl Jesse--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JEFFREY SIMPSON Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: Canada will not, and cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction target. Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion yesterday, as they often are when truth smacks them in the face. Any politician who argues that Canada can meet its Kyoto targets consciously abuses the facts, or doesn't know them. Here they are: Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada pledged to reduce emissions by 2008-2012 to 6 per cent below those of 1990. Emissions in 1990 were 599 megatonnes of carbon dioxide and other climate-warming gases. Canada needed to cut 6 per cent from that total. Instead, by 2003, emissions had jumped to 740 megatonnes and, in 2004, to 758 megatonnes. This week, Natural Resources Canada predicted that emissions would be 828 megatonnes by 2010. Therefore, to fulfill Kyoto, Canada would need to reduce emissions in the next two to six years by 265
Re: [Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe Mail - 2006.10.06
-Darryl, my hero, I'm still reading your note-- I gotta add that while I was living in Switzerland in 1978 I had some eye-openers: Turn off the light when you leave the room, shut off the water in the shower while you are lath'ring up your shampoo, give your leftover salad to the chickens outside... This was normal for them in the way that it is not yet normal for us in Canada. Jess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesse Frayne wrote: How did you feel about this one, Darryl? First reaction was something about journalism. Big Headline, then three columns of stuff about how we are all going to lose our shirts. Finally, somebody says Hey, she's just scaring people!!! Hello? How about reducing use? And how did she find her statistics, anyway. Humm. Fuzzy journalism, I think. Actually, I thought Simpson was taking aim at the feigned hysteria and fuzzy journalism that has already characterized the debate since Ambose opened her mouth, because it certainly seems nobody is listening to what she is actually saying. I think the fact that the Minister is saying this presents the proverbial two-edged sword. There is the danger that it becomes the self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, it could be taken as a challenge and call to action by those that feel more can be done. Pity we haven't seen more of the can-do attitude, and less of the strident hand-wringing for the cameras. It annoys me to see the federal Liberals wailing about Kyoto, when they had years in office and did nothing constructive on the file. It seems a trifle hypocritical to me to see the leadership candidates posture for the media on the subject, while their upcoming leadership conference does not offer delegates the option to make their trip carbon neutral, let alone the conference. I see much smaller events for less affluent organizations buying enough green power credits to make their conferences carbon neutral. Of course Canada could meet the targets. We just won't choose to do so. Because most of us just don't give a darn. Bigger houses, bigger cars and trucks, more consumer goods and status symbols still win out over maintaining a habitable planet for most Canadians, judging by actions. I think the mood is shifting, ever so slowly, but I don't see the momentum building that others claim to see. It's a challenge even in my household, where the time I spend on these issues is resented. In reality, it isn't the government that will meet or miss the target; it's the population of the country. It is our actions and decisions that make the difference. If we want zero-emissions vehicles, it is up to us to buy them. Where they are prohibited, it is up to us to change the rules (e.g., our recent victory to legalize electric bikes in Ontario). If we're worried about the contributions of the oil sands, we can reduce our demand for heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. If we're worried about electrical generation from coal, we can reduce our electrical consumption from the grid. If we're worried about depletion of fresh water, we can take measures to reduce our use of it. We're the consumers. We're the demand for those commodities. Canada is committed to Kyoto; I can't imagine that we will withdraw from it. So, instead we'll try to cut a deal to buy credits on the cheap, or get exemptions or delays. The right answer is to start a major campaign to reduce our emissions enough to make those gains at home. What's the hurry to get the oil out of the oil sands in ten years instead of fifty? It's not going anywhere. The demand isn't going to evaporate in 2016. We can become more efficient. Here's an interesting story. I have just started analyzing electrical demand in Ontario since deregulation in May 2002. Despite the Ontario Power Authority's decree that generation capacity must increase by 2% a year forever, the actual demand for electricity in Ontario has *decreased* 0.5% from the year May 2002-April 2003 to the year May 2005-April 2006. That is despite a growing population, a housing boom, increased employment and a growing economy during that period. We can improve efficiency and conserve, and reduce our raw energy consumption without sacrificing our economy or quality of life. We have six years to prove Ambrose and this government wrong? Will we? Only if we think it's important, and judging by our actions over the past decade, we don't think it is important. Darryl Jesse--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JEFFREY SIMPSON Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: Canada will not, and cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction target. Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion yesterday, as they often are when truth smacks them in the face. Any politician who argues that Canada can meet its Kyoto targets consciously abuses the facts, or doesn't know
