Re: [Biofuel] Compost, Tree Buds and Rose Hips
I just eat around the outside - the red ones are ripe. Zeke Yewdall wrote: This morning I noticed that several of the rose plants we picked up from someone's discard pile (these were left at the side of the road with a sign that said: Free Plants) have bright red / orange fruit on them right now. I THINK these are rose hips, but I'm not certain because I've never seen them before. If they are, they should be full of vitamin C. Does anyone know how to prepare rose hips for human consumption? Yup, those are the rose hips. I just eat them straight (usually because I find them hiking through the woods). But they are sort of gritty and FULL of seeds. Not very easy to eat usually. I would crush them up, cook lightly, and strain through cheesecloth -- just like initial processing for any sort of seedy fruit. After that you could make jelly, tea, whatever from the liquid. Z ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] On Meth
That's pretty cool. I chipped mine and swapped to a KN filter. I bought bigger injectors but haven't installed yet - I have the wimpy clutch and it's already putting out plenty of power. Have you fiddled with VAG-COM yet? Well worth the price for tuning the motor. -Mike Joe Street wrote: So I've collected most of the bits to try adding methanol injection to my Golf TDi. I've bored a hole in the manifold and added an injection nozzle. First I've got to insttal a boost gauge to keep an eye on boost pressure, but the nozzle I got has two ports so one of them will serve for a boost gauge. I also picked up a GM fuel pump which I plan to drop into the windshield washer tank which will be my methanol/water reservoir. I still have a few parts to pick up. Some kind of small inline filter. A check valve needs to go in the delivery line to stop the boost air from bubbling back through the tank when the pump is not running, and I need an adjustable pressure switch to sense boost pressure at the point I wish for the methanol to come on. This switch will be series connected with a floor mounted push switch which will sit under the accelerator pedal and an arming switch on the dash to disable the whole system when desired, like when the washer tank runs low. Sweet that the car has a low level indication light for washer fluid. I am even considering having a second pressure switch set for a higher boost pressure which could short out some diodes in the circuit that normally would lower the voltage applied to the pump motor. Then when the higher boost level is reached the pump would speed up and deliver a suitably higher methanol flow to the intake manifold. I have a needle valve for the delivery line and I plan to adjust it and the pump voltage(s) by trial and error. Normally the methanol will not come on, and the car will be just as always, but when I need to pass or accelerate quickly it will be available if I push the pedal all the way. This way also methanol can not come on when I don't want it in between shifts for example or when RPM's are too low and there is insufficient boost to warrant more fuel. I'm not sure how the ECU is going to react to all this. For sure the intake air is going to be very cold after vaporizing a bunch of methanol and this is all downstream of the air flow sensor so the ECU doesn't know about it, but then on the other hand if the air densifies then the compressor should unload and just make up the slack so the airflow sensor should still sense more flow right? Right? I hope to get rolling with it in the next few days so I'll keep you posted on what I learn.(pun) Sure will be sweet to be using some of the waste stream from the BD process finally! :) Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel 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] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Lol I like your mind Jason; Well actually a transmitter doesn't have to be big or powerful to have range. I have had solid communications using CW (morse code) on a home made transmitter about the size of a ham sandwich that operated on the 30m band (10.1MHz) and output only one watt of power while engaged with another station in Australia and I got very complimentary signal reports. This is using a 5/8 wave wire antenna supported by trees and an elevated ground plane of four radial wires also supported by trees while I was camping in northern Ontario. A frequency hopping transciever can be built to operate in these shortwave bands as well and benefit from the awesome propagation that happens there. Coherent techniques have allowed people to communicate with signals actually lower than the noise floor but is an inherently slow mode but very robust. Yeah it sure would be nice to pre-empt the programing on say fox and replace it with your own message wouldn't it. LOL there was a guy back in the day who went by the alias Captain Midnight who did just that. Except his 'message' was nothing more than a computer video signal with nothing but his alias typed out in the middle of the frame. But as with all the trail blazers, he did so at a time when there was no protection against such an exploit. Ahh wasted opportunities. J Jason Katie wrote: yes but to have a spread spectrum transmitter with the same kind of range as a standard single carrier would take either a lot more repeaters- which means more vulnerable infrastructure- or a huge honkin transmitter which means it is a) a bigger target, and b) dependent on a heavy power supply. and as far as messing with the satellites was concerned i meant hijacking an link just as you mentioned (nothing like using their own gear against them...). - Original Message - *From:* Joe Street mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:21 AM *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed Are you joking? The military has no need of the web for thier com needs. They have all manner of wireless networks of their own. Most of it is spread spectrum stuff. The also have ELF for communicating with subs clandestinely (which is slow) or can use a blue green laser from a satelite to get a message in quickly when they are not concerned about revealing the sub's location. If the s*** hits the fan the entire EM spectrum will be filled with jamming signals but spread spectrum and coherent techniques are somewhat robust against these tactics. Satelites are surprisingly difficult albeit vulnerable targets although not impossible it takes a great deal of money and commitment to take one out. Uplinks are a different story tho... Joe Jason Katie wrote: so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me? which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of communication? just wondering... jason - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed ... Meanwhile... Rumsfeld is still running the War Department Sunday, 28 January 2007 http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for information operations - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf Bloggers beware. As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. From influencing public opinion through new media to designing computer network attack weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war. The declassified document is called Information Operations Roadmap. It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. The roadmap calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic
[Biofuel] Conference on wholistic farming
Hi, Anyone in the vicinity of Dallas TX? This looks to be an interesting conference on wholistic farming on March 9, 10, and 11. http://www.wholisticagriculture.com/ Peace, D. Mindock ___ 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] On Meth
Hi Mike; I don't have vag com. I have another type of scan tool. I wish I would have found the TDi club website before I bought it. I was thinking about larger injectors. Apparently that route is better than changing the chip because it allows the ECU to remain stock injection timing which is best for emissions. Widening the injection pulse will add more fuel but affects timing and hence emissions whereas larger bore nozzles just admit more fuel in the same time as the stock ones. HoweverAccording to my friend who pioneered methanol injection years ago with performance diesels in tractor pulling, he says if I add methanol I won't even think about doing the injectors or chip or anything else. Methanol should allow 25 to 30% more power and will not detonate even under extreme compression unlike propane injection so it is much safer for the engine and is much simpler and less costly to implemement. I'm taking photos and I'll document the journey so others can follow along if they choose. I have the wimpy clutch too but the car has 240,000 kms on and I'll be replacing the clutch one day soon so I'll put the VR6 clutch on - this is apparently a plug and play upgrade for the TDi. Joe Mike Weaver wrote: That's pretty cool. I chipped mine and swapped to a KN filter. I bought bigger injectors but haven't installed yet - I have the wimpy clutch and it's already putting out plenty of power. Have you fiddled with VAG-COM yet? Well worth the price for tuning the motor. -Mike Joe Street wrote: So I've collected most of the bits to try adding methanol injection to my Golf TDi. I've bored a hole in the manifold and added an injection nozzle. First I've got to insttal a boost gauge to keep an eye on boost pressure, but the nozzle I got has two ports so one of them will serve for a boost gauge. I also picked up a GM fuel pump which I plan to drop into the windshield washer tank which will be my methanol/water reservoir. I still have a few parts to pick up. Some kind of small inline filter. A check valve needs to go in the delivery line to stop the boost air from bubbling back through the tank when the pump is not running, and I need an adjustable pressure switch to sense boost pressure at the point I wish for the methanol to come on. This switch will be series connected with a floor mounted push switch which will sit under the accelerator pedal and an arming switch on the dash to disable the whole system when desired, like when the washer tank runs low. Sweet that the car has a low level indication light for washer fluid. I am even considering having a second pressure switch set for a higher boost pressure which could short out some diodes in the circuit that normally would lower the voltage applied to the pump motor. Then when the higher boost level is reached the pump would speed up and deliver a suitably higher methanol flow to the intake manifold. I have a needle valve for the delivery line and I plan to adjust it and the pump voltage(s) by trial and error. Normally the methanol will not come on, and the car will be just as always, but when I need to pass or accelerate quickly it will be available if I push the pedal all the way. This way also methanol can not come on when I don't want it in between shifts for example or when RPM's are too low and there is insufficient boost to warrant more fuel. I'm not sure how the ECU is going to react to all this. For sure the intake air is going to be very cold after vaporizing a bunch of methanol and this is all downstream of the air flow sensor so the ECU doesn't know about it, but then on the other hand if the air densifies then the compressor should unload and just make up the slack so the airflow sensor should still sense more flow right? Right? I hope to get rolling with it in the next few days so I'll keep you posted on what I learn.(pun) Sure will be sweet to be using some of the waste stream from the BD process finally! :) Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at
[Biofuel] DuPree Real ID Reader Comment in Portland Press Herald
MaineToday.com (owner of the online Portland Press Herald) approved my Reader Comment regarding State Sen. Libby Mitchell's article on Maine's Rejection of Real ID. I've included a link to the article, the article, and my Comment. Mike http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/viewpoints/mvoice/070125mvoice.html About the Author State Sen. Libby Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, is majority leader of the Maine Senate. 'Real ID' licenses a really bad idea By State Sen. Libby Mitchell Thursday, January 25, 2007 Recall the last time you went to a Bureau of Motor Vehicles office to renew your driver's license or get a new one. Think about how much time you spent waiting your turn, line, filling out forms and jumping through bureaucratic hoops. Now take that time and double it. Then repeat the last step. That's the situation we're all facing if the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005 without debate or hearings, is implemented in Maine. Real ID mandates that by 2008 Maine turn its driver's license into a national ID card that will be part of a 50-state shared database. The card that was once used to prove an individual was safe to drive will now be used as an internal passport that can be used to track an individual's movement and activities. Those without the federally regulated card will be unable to board a plane or enter a federal building, and those who have discrepancies or cannot verify their source documents individuals who have changed their last names, lost birth certificates due to floods, or were born in another country will be caught in bureaucratic limbo, unable to drive or travel. State licensing officials across the country have described this program as a nightmare and called the May 2008 deadline impossible to meet. The burdens of compliance are onerous: Every single person will have to show up to the BMV with documents proving they are who they say they are, and licensing officials will then have to verify those documents. Then, individuals will have to return on another day to pick up their license. All this means longer waits and higher fees. But that's not all. In addition to creating more red tape, Real ID is an unfunded mandate. According to Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, Organizations such as the National Governor's Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have estimated initial costs of the Real ID Act to be around $11 billion. Maine's share of those costs is around $185 million over the first five years. Dunlop added, This is more than six times the annual budget for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and none of these costs are addressed by the federal government. Left unfunded, this could mean substantial increases in customer fees. So, what do we get for all this money? Security experts agree that Real ID will do nothing to prevent terrorism, but will make ordinary Americans more vulnerable to invasions of privacy and identity theft. Real ID requires that each state open up the records on all its licensed drivers to all other states, creating a single, interlinked database that will contain all your personal information. This information will also be encoded on a machine-readable zone on the card, allowing businesses to pick up sensitive data about you every time they swipe or scan your ID. Both the database and the machine-readable zone will be irresistible temptations for criminals one-stop shops for bad actors who will be able to use them to steal your identity. Maine should be a leader in saying no to this unfunded, bureaucratic nightmare. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree and I have introduced a resolution stating that the state of Maine protests the treatment by Congress and the president of our state as an agent of the federal government. Therefore, our state refuses to implement the Real ID Act and will not spend any taxpayer dollars or other revenues on implementing Real ID. Real ID is bad for our country and it's bad for our state. I hope that my colleagues will join with us in fighting to keep Real ID out of Maine. Special to the Press Herald Reader comments Michael DuPree of Lawrence, KS Feb 1, 2007 10:20 PM Sen. Mitchell, how did you make this happen in Maine? We want to make it happen in Kansas too. As Maine goes, so goes the nation. Let's hope so. Let's hope enough of the other States do same, ulitmately persuading our Congress to repeal Real ID. In fact, it is in the best interests of all Maine readers and citizens to begin immediately encouraging any of your friends, family, acquaintances, relationships of any kind in the other States to work towards their own State doing as Maine has done. May 11, 2008, is near at hand. While Real ID addresses risks we all face and will face for the rest of our lives, it imposes upon the States and each of us individually even greater risks. Sen. Mitchell alludes to some of
Re: [Biofuel] Compost, Tree Buds and Rose Hips
Mike Weaver wrote: I just eat around the outside - the red ones are ripe. My sweetheart grew up eating rose hip jam. She says it's really delicious, but she thinks we don't have enough to make more than a spoonful or so! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Some archive searching
So, I was looking through the archives to determine some information about OPEC and pricing oil in the dollar. I find a lot of references like this, realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11946.htm or this, In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm However, I'm finding it hard to find other sources to help me understand some things. Firstly, does oil priced in dollars mean oil is sold only in dollars? It seems that any country that has oil can accept whatever currency they wish, OPED or otherwise. I'm inclined to this thought because of articles like this, One key culprit may be OPEC states who have traditionally denominated their transactions in U.S. dollars - but are now moving to the Euro in what the BIS says is a subtle but noticeable shift http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/6/28.shtml Secondly, if the Iranian oil Bourse is created, does that mean countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela will have to trade only with the Euro? Finally, can anyone point me to a primary source (not a vague reference in a news article) of this agreement that initiated oil trade/prices into us dollars? Regards, -dave ___ 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] Some archive searching
On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:33 AM, DHAJOGLO wrote: Finally, can anyone point me to a primary source (not a vague reference in a news article) of this agreement that initiated oil trade/ prices into us dollars? This has been interesting to me lately as well. I'm afraid I can't inform you much, but a lot of it started with the Bretton Woods agreement (700,000 Google hits). Not specifically about oil, but rather international trade in general, and it basically forced everything into dollars de facto. The best thing for the world (tho not US, of course), IMHO, would be a precipitous fall of the dollar, so I'm all in favor of any Euro- based exchanges. -K ___ 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] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
i guess im still hung up on the microwave end. my RF instructor spent a somewhat disturbing amount of time on encryption and spread spectrum transmission/jamming. it involves a really wide bandpass, an inert signal sweep, a carrier sweep, and a lot of wattage to create a white noise bubble. he tried to pass it off as an essential part of the 801.11x networking standards, but he really dove into jamming and disruption. maybe he suspected something noone else did? as far as coherent signals go, the only thing that we dont have the tech to jam yet is laser, and thats only because we dont have the mainstream capability of reliably producing THz broadcasting frequencies electronically. anyway, Ontario to Australia? col :) - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed Lol I like your mind Jason; Well actually a transmitter doesn't have to be big or powerful to have range. I have had solid communications using CW (morse code) on a home made transmitter about the size of a ham sandwich that operated on the 30m band (10.1MHz) and output only one watt of power while engaged with another station in Australia and I got very complimentary signal reports. This is using a 5/8 wave wire antenna supported by trees and an elevated ground plane of four radial wires also supported by trees while I was camping in northern Ontario. A frequency hopping transciever can be built to operate in these shortwave bands as well and benefit from the awesome propagation that happens there. Coherent techniques have allowed people to communicate with signals actually lower than the noise floor but is an inherently slow mode but very robust. Yeah it sure would be nice to pre-empt the programing on say fox and replace it with your own message wouldn't it. LOL there was a guy back in the day who went by the alias Captain Midnight who did just that. Except his 'message' was nothing more than a computer video signal with nothing but his alias typed out in the middle of the frame. But as with all the trail blazers, he did so at a time when there was no protection against such an exploit. Ahh wasted opportunities. J Jason Katie wrote: yes but to have a spread spectrum transmitter with the same kind of range as a standard single carrier would take either a lot more repeaters- which means more vulnerable infrastructure- or a huge honkin transmitter which means it is a) a bigger target, and b) dependent on a heavy power supply. and as far as messing with the satellites was concerned i meant hijacking an link just as you mentioned (nothing like using their own gear against them...). - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed Are you joking? The military has no need of the web for thier com needs. They have all manner of wireless networks of their own. Most of it is spread spectrum stuff. The also have ELF for communicating with subs clandestinely (which is slow) or can use a blue green laser from a satelite to get a message in quickly when they are not concerned about revealing the sub's location. If the s*** hits the fan the entire EM spectrum will be filled with jamming signals but spread spectrum and coherent techniques are somewhat robust against these tactics. Satelites are surprisingly difficult albeit vulnerable targets although not impossible it takes a great deal of money and commitment to take one out. Uplinks are a different story tho... Joe Jason Katie wrote: so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me? which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of communication? just wondering... jason - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed ... Meanwhile... Rumsfeld is still running the War Department Sunday, 28 January 2007 http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for information operations - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. Report:
[Biofuel] living walls, roof, etc
Sorry, this link is better http://www.eltlivingwalls.com/livingwall-projects.html - Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.___ 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] living walls, roof, etc
http://www.eltlivingwalls.com/buynow1.html - Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.___ 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] Some archive searching
i am not entirely worried about how far the dollar falls here- in fact im waiting for it. i can easily go back to the boonies and get by on Ye Auld Garten and a blackpowder rifle. plus the fact that i have been collecting all the scrap copper and aluminum i can get my grimy little paws on. between the materials value and the fact that i will have a halfway decent supply of clean food, i figure i can get by just fine. - Original Message - From: Ken Provost To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some archive searching On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:33 AM, DHAJOGLO wrote: Finally, can anyone point me to a primary source (not a vague reference in a news article) of this agreement that initiated oil trade/prices into us dollars? This has been interesting to me lately as well. I'm afraid I can't inform you much, but a lot of it started with the Bretton Woods agreement (700,000 Google hits). Not specifically about oil, but rather international trade in general, and it basically forced everything into dollars de facto. The best thing for the world (tho not US, of course), IMHO, would be a precipitous fall of the dollar, so I'm all in favor of any Euro- based exchanges. -K -- ___ 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: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 2:28 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 2:28 PM ___ 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] Some archive searching
I'm not concerned about the falling dollar. I'm interested in the actual agreement(s) that govern how oil is purchased from any given nation. If oil is priced in Dollars but can be purchased in any currency then there is no difference if its priced in euros. However, if nations must pay in US dollars then the dollar will be more powerful because it must be used. I'm having a hard time finding the exact phrasing or policies in place. Rather, I find only vague references made about agreements with no information backing the facts. I'm not calling into question the validity so much as I'm trying to figure out what the reality is (a futile task, I know). So, Jason Katie, let me rephrase it for you... if, when the economy collapses and we are forced to barter with elemental metals and agreements are struck that you can trade for goods only with copper, the aluminum would HAVE to be exchanged for copper. However, if the goods are only priced in copper then an exchange rate can be applied (say, 2 aluminum to 1 copper). Thus, once your copper is depleted you don't have to worry about buying copper just to trade as any metal currency will work. This makes a huge difference in the oil market because nations either must have dollars to buy oil or not. However, in your case I would posit that you would be the one from whom we would have to purchase copper and thereby you would have the copper hegemony... you bastard ;) -dave On Friday, February 02, 2007 10:07 PM, Jason Katie wrote: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:07:27 -0600 From: Jason Katie To: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some archive searching i am not entirely worried about how far the dollar falls here- in fact im waiting for it. i can easily go back to the boonies and get by on Ye Auld Garten and a blackpowder rifle. plus the fact that i have been collecting all the scrap copper and aluminum i can get my grimy little paws on. between the materials value and the fact that i will have a halfway decent supply of clean food, i figure i can get by just fine. - Original Message - From:Ken Provost To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:09PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some archivesearching On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:33 AM, DHAJOGLO wrote: Finally, can anyone point me to a primary source (not a vague reference in a news article) of this agreement that initiated oil trade/prices into usdollars? This has been interesting to me lately as well. I'm afraid I can't inform you much, but a lot of it started with the Bretton Woods agreement (700,000 Google hits). Not specifically about oil, but rather international trade in general, and it basically forced everything into dollars de facto. The best thing for the world (tho not US, of course), IMHO, would be a precipitous fall of the dollar, so I'm all in favor of anyEuro- based exchanges. -K ___ Biofuel mailinglist Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuelat Journey toForever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search thecombined 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 FreeEdition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date:2/1/2007 2:28 PM On Friday, February 02, 2007 10:07 PM, Jason Katie wrote: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:07:27 -0600 From: Jason Katie To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some archive searching i am not entirely worried about how far the dollar falls here- in fact im waiting for it. i can easily go back to the boonies and get by on Ye Auld Garten and a blackpowder rifle. plus the fact that i have been collecting all the scrap copper and aluminum i can get my grimy little paws on. between the materials value and the fact that i will have a halfway decent supply of clean food, i figure i can get by just fine. - Original Message - From: Ken Provost To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some archive searching On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:33 AM, DHAJOGLO wrote: Finally, can anyone point me to a primary source (not a vague reference in a news article) of this agreement that initiated oil trade/prices into us dollars? This has been interesting to me lately as well. I'm afraid I can't inform you much, but a lot of it started with the Bretton Woods agreement (700,000 Google hits). Not specifically about oil, but rather international trade in general, and it basically forced everything into dollars de facto. The best thing for the world (tho not US, of
[Biofuel] Global Priorities
From Anup SDhah's globalissues.org: ... Consider the following, reflecting world priorities: Global Priority $U.S. Billions Cosmetics in the United States 8 Ice cream in Europe 11 Perfumes in Europe and the United States12 Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17 Business entertainment in Japan 35 Cigarettes in Europe50 Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105 Narcotics drugs in the world400 Military spending in the world 780 And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries: Global Priority $U.S. Billions Basic education for all 6 Water and sanitation for all9 Reproductive health for all women 12 Basic health and nutrition 13 (Source: The state of human development, United National Development Report 1998, Chapter 1, p.37) Data from the World Bank for 2003 suggests that these numbers have only very slightly changed in those 5 years; people in the world's high income countries account for 81.5% of total private consumption expenditures - people in the world's low income countries account for just 3.6%. (The World Bank data does not include the type of breakdown that the 1998 Human Development Report indicates, and while those numbers will of course be different now, they still reveal the stark inequalities in consumption.) http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp ___ 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] Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2004398,00.html?gusrc=rssfeed=18 | Science | Guardian Unlimited Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study Ian Sample, science correspondent Friday February 2, 2007 The Guardian Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees. The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work and ask for essays that thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs. Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the overwhelming scientific evidence on global warming. It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims, said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice, he said. The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report. Right now, the whole debate is polarised, he said. One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy. One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault, said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas AM university. The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions. Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise. Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash. On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
[Biofuel] Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/31/1543222 Democracy Now! | Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources In his new book, veteran Middle East Journalist Dilip Hiro offers a detailed account of how and why the planet's limited supply of oil has come to revolutionize human behavior, politics and warfare across the globe. He joins us for a wide-ranging interview. [includes rush transcript] As scientists in Paris finalize their report on the adverse effects of human-caused emissions on climate change, a new book offers a detailed account of how and why the planet's limited supply of oil has come to revolutionize human behavior, politics and warfare across the globe. Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources is a detailed account of the history of oil. It reveals that when states replaced coal with oil, they scrambled to meet an unprecedented global energy demand. The book details how states have attempted to meet a growing thirst for oil through economic expansion and all-out war. It also explores developments in alternative and renewable sources of energy. With us now is the author of the book, Dilip Hiro. He is a veteran journalist on the Middle East. His trilogy of books on Iraq and Iran are considered some of the most definitive histories of the wars in the Persian Gulf. * Dilip Hiro. Veteran journalist on the Middle East. His trilogy of books on Iraq and Iran are considered some of the most definitive histories of the wars in the Persian Gulf. His latest book is called Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources. RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... AMY GOODMAN: We're joined now by the book's author, Dilip Hiro, veteran journalist in the Middle East. His trilogy of books on Iraq and Iran are considered some of the most definitive histories of the wars in the Persian Gulf. Welcome to Democracy Now! How did oil become so central, Dilip Hiro? DILIP HIRO: I think oil became important when the internal combustion engine was fueled by petroleum. See, in 1905 that happened. Before that, you could fuel internal combustion engine with electricity or with steam. You know, but then oil proved to be the most important. And then, 1905, Henry Ford, his mass production of cars, that really made the whole thing go up. And in terms of warfare, it was during World War I that in the tank, internal combustion engine was fueled by petroleum products. And that made the whole technology, certainly of war, change in the way like the first finding of gun powder in 1041. Because, see, as a general you could now -- see, before that, they had to depend on horses, cavalry, and the horses had to be fed, they had to rest and so on. But once you had a tank, you could go 30, 40 miles in a day. And that changed the whole way the war was fought. So oil is very important. AMY GOODMAN: You begin your book with the Nobel brothers. DILIP HIRO: Excuse me? AMY GOODMAN: The Nobel brothers, who -- DILIP HIRO: Oh, yes, yes. AMY GOODMAN: -- who introduced the first oil-fueled steamship. DILIP HIRO: Absolutely, Amy. You know, of course, there is a great book by Daniel Yergin called The Prize. You know, and when he goes on, it's in 1859 in Titusville, Pennsylvania, oil was first drilled properly. I'm sorry, he is wrong. It first happened near Baku in 1846, and it was a Russian engineer, he did that. And everything we know about oil happened there first. It was first in the Caspian they changed from coal to oil. It was the first time in that part of the world they set up oil pipeline made of wood. For the first time, they had a tanker, oil tanker. So all of that actually originally comes from Azerbaijan and Baku. And, of course, you mentioned Nobel brothers. And, of course, you know, Rothschilds, they made their money there, as well. So I think the oil has been so important. But what I have done in my book, I point out there was local Azeris who became very rich. One of them was totally illiterate, but he had a most wonderful library, and he built something like 135 buildings. So, I think the oil has been this very powerful mineral. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the history of countries nationalizing oil? DILIP HIRO: Absolutely. You see, initially, of course, America was very much ahead in terms of extraction. You know, they were competing with Azerbaijan. But by the turn of the century, America took off because it's much bigger, and more energy was put into it. And at that time, countries in the Persian Gulf area, you know, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., etc., they did not have the technology, and so they were courting
Re: [Biofuel] Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Well. For me to accept something like that, I'd have to be able to use the amount of money given to me to do more good in the fight against global warming, than writing the bad article would cause. Certainly more than $10k. Perhaps the entire $38 billion of profit that Exxon made last year... let's start negotiating there, why don't we. On 2/2/07, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2004398,00.html?gusrc=rssfeed=18 | Science | Guardian Unlimited Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study Ian Sample, science correspondent Friday February 2, 2007 The Guardian Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees. The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work and ask for essays that thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs. Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the overwhelming scientific evidence on global warming. It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims, said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice, he said. The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report. Right now, the whole debate is polarised, he said. One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy. One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault, said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas AM university. The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions. Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise. Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash. On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a
