[Biofuel] Emissions report card puts Canada last - Globe & Mail - 2007.02.09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070209.ENVIRO09/TPStory/ Emissions report card puts Canada last Country has 'no plan' to fulfill pledge from G8 summit, U of T researchers say MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT ENVIRONMENT REPORTER TORONTO -- Canada ranks dead last among members of the G8 industrialized countries when it comes to keeping a pledge made last year to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, according to a report prepared by researchers at the University of Toronto. Canada was the only Group of Eight country deemed to have posted a complete lack of compliance with the greenhouse-gas reduction goal set at last summer's G8 summit in St. Petersburg. Canada has "no plan" to cut its emissions in the short or long term, and could have rising output of the gases blamed for global warming under the Conservatives' Clean Air Act because the legislation doesn't cap releases, the report said. Ottawa has announced that Canada will reduce greenhouse emissions by 45 per cent -- to 65 per cent -- by 2050, but the report noted that as of Dec. 31, the date at which it conducted the country comparisons, "Canada had not taken significant steps to curb GHG emissions, nor did it have a plan in place to move forward on meeting its Kyoto-mandated targets nor the ambitious 2050 targets." Canada's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is a 6-per-cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012. Besides Canada, the G8 includes the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Russia. Since 1996, researchers at U of T's Munk Centre for International Studies have issued compliance reports on how well the rhetoric of G8 leaders matches what their governments do to honour commitments made at their annual summits. The report, to which researchers at Moscow's State University Higher School of Economics contributed the Russian analysis, compared how the countries fared on 20 major pledges made at the meeting, covering subjects such as economic development, security and health care, along with the environment. The G8 has fulfilled only 31 per cent of its commitments since the summit last July. It has not scored this poorly since mid-2002, according to the report. On climate change, the countries pledged last year "to meet our shared . . . objectives of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions." It was against this commitment that Canada seems to have delivered rhetoric, rather than results, by scoring last among the G8 for having no plans for cutting emissions. Canada's emissions are up at least 24 per cent from 1990 levels, one of the worst records in the industrialized world. "Canada received the lowest score because of the Harper government's change in policy and attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol," said Brian Kolenda, co-director of the compliance unit on the U of T's G8 research group. Canada's record was particularly weak against countries, such as Germany and the U.K., that have exceeded their greenhouse-gas emission reduction targets, he said. Russia and Italy also had weak records, although their performance exceeded Canada's. Russia has met some of its obligations under Kyoto, but hasn't taken new steps to mitigate its emissions. Italy isn't close to meeting its Kyoto reduction target. Although the United States has backed out of Kyoto, the report said it is working hard to reduce its emissions, including funding of $3.9-billion (U.S.) for technologies used to fight climate change. The researchers also ranked the countries in terms of a G8 goal to encourage the use of hybrid cars and clean diesel engines in vehicle fleets. Canada has "largely failed" in its commitment to improve the fuel efficiency of its automobiles, the report said. * Worst among equals Researchers at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies issue reports on how well the rhetoric of G8 leaders matches what their governments do to honour commitments. The group has ranked Canada last when it comes to keeping a pledge to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Scoring system: +1: Full compliance 0: Partial compliance -1:A lack of compliance France +1 'Establishing regulatory measures' for a 75% emission reduction Germany +1 'On pace to exceed requirements of the Kyoto Protocol' Japan +1 'Pro-active approach in tackling climate change' Britain +1 'Full compliance' with commitments U.S. +1 'Working hard to reduce its GHG emissions' Russia 'A work in progress' Italy 'Emission volumes continued to increase' Canada -1 'No plan' SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? The Emperor's N
Re: [Biofuel] photovoltaic energy payback period
Do you have the other half of the article? I would like to read the one about the Myths of Water rights also! -dave Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:56:51 -0800 (PST) From: Kirk McLoren To: biofuel Subject: [Biofuel] photovoltaic energy payback period http://www.rpc.com.au/products/services/Environmental_Engineer_Summer_06_paper_2.pdf excellent discussion of energy payback period for photovoltaics. Saw this url posted on 12volt power. On Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:56 PM, Kirk McLoren wrote: > >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:56:51 -0800 (PST) >From: Kirk McLoren >To: biofuel >Subject: [Biofuel] photovoltaic energy payback period > >http://www.rpc.com.au/products/services/Environmental_Engineer_Summer_06_paper_2.pdf > > excellent discussion of energy payback period for photovoltaics. Saw this > url posted on 12volt power. > > Kirk > > >- >It's here! Your new message! >Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. ___ 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] Emissions report card puts Canada last - Globe & Mail -2007.02.09
and the reason is Stephen Harper and the rest of the CRAP (Conservative Refrom Alliance Party) has (big oil) hands in their pockets. If the party represented any other region in the country as effectively as they have the Alberta (and mainly Calgary) interests, would be in the mess we are? I am not saying the Liberals would be any better, no, but so long as big oil runs the show we will continue to disappoint those international obligations. Embarrassed, but I support the Green Party. >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Subject: [Biofuel] Emissions report card puts Canada last - Globe & Mail >-2007.02.09 >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:59:03 -0500 > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070209.ENVIRO09/TPStory/ > >Emissions report card puts Canada last > >Country has 'no plan' to fulfill pledge from G8 summit, U of T researchers >say >MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT > >ENVIRONMENT REPORTER > >TORONTO -- Canada ranks dead last among members of the G8 >industrialized countries when it comes to keeping a pledge made last >year to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, >according to a report prepared by researchers at the University of >Toronto. > >Canada was the only Group of Eight country deemed to have posted a >complete lack of compliance with the greenhouse-gas reduction goal set >at last summer's G8 summit in St. Petersburg. > >Canada has "no plan" to cut its emissions in the short or long term, >and could have rising output of the gases blamed for global warming >under the Conservatives' Clean Air Act because the legislation doesn't >cap releases, the report said. > >Ottawa has announced that Canada will reduce greenhouse emissions by >45 per cent -- to 65 per cent -- by 2050, but the report noted that as >of Dec. 31, the date at which it conducted the country comparisons, >"Canada had not taken significant steps to curb GHG emissions, nor did >it have a plan in place to move forward on meeting its Kyoto-mandated >targets nor the ambitious 2050 targets." > >Canada's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is a 6-per-cent reduction >from 1990 levels by 2012. > >Besides Canada, the G8 includes the United States, Japan, Germany, >Britain, France, Italy and Russia. > >Since 1996, researchers at U of T's Munk Centre for International >Studies have issued compliance reports on how well the rhetoric of G8 >leaders matches what their governments do to honour commitments made >at their annual summits. > >The report, to which researchers at Moscow's State University Higher >School of Economics contributed the Russian analysis, compared how the >countries fared on 20 major pledges made at the meeting, covering >subjects such as economic development, security and health care, along >with the environment. > >The G8 has fulfilled only 31 per cent of its commitments since the >summit last July. It has not scored this poorly since mid-2002, >according to the report. > >On climate change, the countries pledged last year "to meet our shared >. . . objectives of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions." > >It was against this commitment that Canada seems to have delivered >rhetoric, rather than results, by scoring last among the G8 for having >no plans for cutting emissions. Canada's emissions are up at least 24 >per cent from 1990 levels, one of the worst records in the >industrialized world. > >"Canada received the lowest score because of the Harper government's >change in policy and attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol," said Brian >Kolenda, co-director of the compliance unit on the U of T's G8 >research group. > >Canada's record was particularly weak against countries, such as >Germany and the U.K., that have exceeded their greenhouse-gas emission >reduction targets, he said. > >Russia and Italy also had weak records, although their performance >exceeded Canada's. > >Russia has met some of its obligations under Kyoto, but hasn't taken >new steps to mitigate its emissions. Italy isn't close to meeting its >Kyoto reduction target. > >Although the United States has backed out of Kyoto, the report said it >is working hard to reduce its emissions, including funding of >$3.9-billion (U.S.) for technologies used to fight climate change. > >The researchers also ranked the countries in terms of a G8 goal to >encourage the use of hybrid cars and clean diesel engines in vehicle >fleets. Canada has "largely failed" in its commitment to improve the >fuel efficiency of its automobiles, the report said. > >* > >Worst amo
Re: [Biofuel] Greenest and meanest of the year (Zeke Yewdall)
You said it, Zeke. Urban form, vehicles, fuels, and public transport all act together. Any solution has to address all components. A lot of people are working on various parts, but the parts never seem to come together or, worse, the parts contradict one another. Like making 7 or 8 million cars a year to justify the "tight" embodied technology and then expecting people to leave them parked at home. At the risk of becoming tedious, I repeat, cities change all the time, and the way in which they change can and should be channelled in a better direction, and now. Biofuel people need to get into urban form issues, and vice versa. -Dawie From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:09:19 -0700 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_Part_14907_24782270.1170976159863" Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Greenest and meanest of the year Message: 5 On 2/8/07, robert and benita rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our neighborhood was designed to insulate families from one another. The dearth of public spaces, the lack of commercial development and recreational activities compel everyone to get into the car and drive somewhere else. Don't you understand how the economy works? If people in a community all walk to a public space and talk amongst each other and play and actually become a community, they aren't inside their miserable little houses watching TV and seeing ads for stuff that they can then drive to the mall and buy. Buying stuff and pharmaceuticals to try to make yourself not feel as depressed about your meaningless life can't be sustained if you have too much human socialization and start feeling better adjusted just from being around people you like hanging out with. Z ___ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html___ 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] Emissions report card puts Canada last - Globe & Mail -2007.02.09
I think the residents of Canada need to take ownership of the problem, not just point to the oil patch and pretend we're angels. The oil companies make the product, but we keep them rolling in profits by purchasing it. If we want a better environment, it's up to us to create it. If we want to buy PV panels instead, they'd be just as happy to sell us those, so long as the profit is still there (witness BP). However, so long as we keep buying heating oil instead of insulation and weather sealing, and buying gasoline and diesel instead of efficiency, ethanol, biodiesel, electric vehicles, bicycles, shoes, telecommuting, etc., then they will keep supplying what we're buying. If we need to toss out the current lot of elected officials as part of the process, good by me. But if all that does is substitute one set of rascals for another, not much value there. Realistically, I don't think the Canadian federal government has much of a role here except to take the heat and pay the bills. The areas of major impact (energy, environment, transportation, community design) are within provincial jurisdiction, not federal. That said, I don't see any real action by the feds even in the areas where they could make a positive contribution. I've been driving the environment message in Canada a long time now, and I don't see much uptake by consumers. In general, Canadians still see compact fluorescent lights as a radical change. (I'm serious - I'm up to my ankles in CFLs right now because of a local program that delivered one to most households in Ottawa - not my neighbourhood - and folks who know I'm into that weird energy efficiency stuff are giving me theirs, rather than actually try it. I'm redistributing via my presentations.) They won't spend a nickel of their own money on environmental benefits. Actually, it's worse than that. Even when I can point out where they can save money by doing something environmentally beneficial, they will frequently ignore it as being not worth the effort to change, or too weird. We're energy pigs (apologies to any pigs actually reading this), and too slovenly to even make the effort to improve. We're now officially worse than the U.S. on the greenhouse gas emissions file. However, I still don't see attitudes changing on the ground. The media is spending more time talking to the visionaries, but I don't see the message being received (and I'm trying to deliver it pretty regularly). I gave up trying to get Canadians to pay attention to environmental benefits some time ago - I got tired of watching the eyes glaze over. I got a bit more interest when I talked financial savings, but still no serious uptake or opening of wallets. In fact, it was so bad in 2005 and early 2006 that I removed most of the references to GHGs and climate change from my book in the last major overhaul prior to going to print, because *nobody* cared. Now, suddenly, six months later, we care?!! Read the recent polls carefully. The mindset has not changed that much, even if the polling questions have. Darryl Quoting Fred Oliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > and the reason is Stephen Harper and the rest of the CRAP (Conservative > Refrom Alliance Party) has (big oil) hands in their pockets. If the party > represented any other region in the country as effectively as they have the > Alberta (and mainly Calgary) interests, would be in the mess we are? I am > not saying the Liberals would be any better, no, but so long as big oil runs > the show we will continue to disappoint those international obligations. > Embarrassed, but I support the Green Party. > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> Subject: [Biofuel] Emissions report card puts Canada last - Globe & Mail >> -2007.02.09 >> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:59:03 -0500 >> >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070209.ENVIRO09/TPStory/ >> >> Emissions report card puts Canada last >> >> Country has 'no plan' to fulfill pledge from G8 summit, U of T researchers >> say >> MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT >> >> ENVIRONMENT REPORTER >> >> TORONTO -- Canada ranks dead last among members of the G8 >> industrialized countries when it comes to keeping a pledge made last >> year to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, >> according to a report prepared by researchers at the University of >> Toronto. >> >> Canada was the only Group of Eight country deemed to have posted a >> complete lack of compliance with the greenhouse-gas reduction goal set >> at last summer's G8 summit in St. Peters
Re: [Biofuel] Greenest and meanest of the year (Zeke Yewdall)
Dawie Coetzee wrote: At the risk of becoming tedious, I repeat, cities change all the time, and the way in which they change can and should be channelled in a better direction, and now. Biofuel people need to get into urban form issues, and vice versa. This is a difficult thing to do. Locally, for instance, a landowner / developer / contractor pact has formed that actually undermines the ability of local peple to have a say in development issues. We had a moratorium on development in the nearby hills, but the developers began installing the infrastructure for new housing tracts and the municipality caved in because these people had already made a significant investment in "improving" land. The municipality has no other way of raising money than to increase its tax base, so the local government has a financial incentive to allow unbridled development. There are only two ways up the hill to where I live. There are no churches up here, no recreational facilities (other than an elementary school yard), no post office, no theater, and virtually no commerce, save for a single convenience store that is struggling to survive and a video store within walking distance of my house. Going to the municipal meetings is a waste of time, because the people with money (that is, the developers and contractors) have far more influence than residents do. Worse, in my area nearly everyone has come here from somewhere else. We who have moved here seem far less passionate about limiting development than long time residents, and worse, most people who have moved here from elsewhere still work elsewhere (so they need to drive to get to their jobs), and this divides their loyalties. It's complicated and frustrating. One thing that makes this debate REALLY hard, is that the developers can look at people like me and say: "Who are you to talk? You built a house up here too!" They're just trying to earn an honest living, and while I don't begrudge them for that, the PATTERN of development forces people into their cars. Traffic has increased tremendously, along with noise and pollution, and the ongoing cost to the city to provide police, fire, water and sewage services keeps driving up our property tax rates. I wonder how long this dynamic will continue. Older people are selling their properties for HUGE profits and moving eastward, into the lovely, dry interior valleys and in doing so, they're driving up the prices there, too. Sometimes it seems that the best solution would be to start a new community altogether and get it right from the start! 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Emissions report card puts Canada last - Globe & Mail -2007.02.09
And of course, we can't have a plan because that means the dirty business of extracting crude from tar sands would have to be reduced/stopped. Now we can't have that. What would happen to Calgary? They can't make it on the Stampede alone! DOH! John An embarrassed Canuck Quoting Fred Oliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > and the reason is Stephen Harper and the rest of the CRAP (Conservative > Refrom Alliance Party) has (big oil) hands in their pockets. If the party > represented any other region in the country as effectively as they have the > Alberta (and mainly Calgary) interests, would be in the mess we are? I am > not saying the Liberals would be any better, no, but so long as big oil runs > > the show we will continue to disappoint those international obligations. > Embarrassed, but I support the Green Party. ___ 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] photovoltaic energy payback period
no I dont sorry Kirk DHAJOGLO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do you have the other half of the article? I would like to read the one about the Myths of Water rights also! -dave Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:56:51 -0800 (PST) From: Kirk McLoren To: biofuel Subject: [Biofuel] photovoltaic energy payback period http://www.rpc.com.au/products/services/Environmental_Engineer_Summer_06_paper_2.pdf excellent discussion of energy payback period for photovoltaics. Saw this url posted on 12volt power. ___ 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/ - Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.___ 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] Real ID a Real Ramjob
Read these comments from U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) regarding how the Real ID Act became law without a conference and vote then added to the spending bill (HR1268) that passed. NO CONFERENCE...NO VOTE. If this isn't at least worth forwarding to every citizen in the USA, then what is? I implore you...pass it on. Mike PS Here is an additional link that will help folks get up to speed on Real ID: http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/ http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=237369 Real ID Provision Next, Mr. President, I am very troubled by how far-reaching and unrelated immigration rules got attached to this bill without a vote and without an opportunity to debate. The Real ID provision has ramifications for privacy, states' rights and immigration policy. I am disappointed that it has been rammed through as an attachment to desperately needed funding for our troops. Denied a Vote Many of us are scratching our heads about how this Real ID provision ended up in the conference report. I know I didn't vote on it. I know there wasn't even a discussion of it in conference, but somehow - here it is - included in this must-pass bill. I served on the conference committee. I want to share with my colleagues exactly what happened in the conference meeting so they will understand why the sudden appearance of the Real ID provision is so surprising to many of us. When the conference committee met, the Chairman gave assurances to the minority that we would be able to vote on several provisions when the conference met again. But the conference never met again - leaving no opportunity for the minority party to vote - much less to strike these provisions. Let me share the specifics. In our second meeting, Senator Durbin asked Chairman Cochran for his assurance that we would get a chance to vote on these immigration changes - and other open items -- before the supplemental was sent to the floor. In fact, I want to read a portion of a transcript from that meeting. This discussion took place on Thursday, April 28th. Senator Durbin: "I would also like to say to my colleagues, if this bill contains -- as I believe it does -- the Real ID Act, I would like a vote on that so that we can be on the record on an issue that has never been brought before committee in the Senate. My question to you is this, Mr. Chairman: there have been times when conference committees of this magnitude have recessed and never been heard from again. The next thing we find is a conference committee report on the Floor on a take it or leave it basis. Can we have your assurance that we will return for votes on amendments such as those we have debated today and those that I have mentioned?" Here was Senator Cochran's response to Senator Durbin: Senator Cochran: "Senator, I would be glad to make the assurance that if there is work to be done, if there are open items to be considered, that we can consider those in conference. I am not prepared to make a commitment as to when that will be. I don't want to lead you to believe that I am going to surreptitiously or in secret reach an agreement on the other side without consulting with all the conferees on the Senate side. I think everyone in this conference has a right to participate in this discussion and I wouldn't want to cut off anybody's right to participate." Now I've worked with Senator Cochran for many years, and I know him to be a man of his word. Mr. President, to me that exchange meant that we would have an opportunity to vote on the Real ID provision, but that never happened. To me, that is wrong. The Real ID provision will have dramatic and far-reaching changes and yet it has never been brought before a Senate committee and was never voted on in the Conference. Mr. President, that is why I did not sign the final conference report, which is unusual for me. I did not sign it because I believe the process was flawed, and we were denied an opportunity to debate and discuss these immigration changes before they were brought to the floor as part of a must-pass bill. We are all very concerned about our security, but this received very little debate. Before Congress mandates these kinds of changes, we should have a more informed debate. In fact, it begs the question - why was this added to a must-pass bill without any debate? Probably because it couldn't withstand a rigorous and open public debate. But that's what we should have on this issue, and I'm disappointed that the Majority denied us that opportunity. I also want to note the irony that the Senate is about to allow a technical fix to immigration-related language that was included in the supplemental - which I agree needs to be fixed - but the Democrats in the conference committee were not provided any opportunity to fix the any other immigration provisions. I want to reiterate my frustration with how the Real ID Act was included, a
Re: [Biofuel] Blackspot Shoes
If you ever get it to publication I would certainly be interested Cheers Leo Dawie Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The website was initially appealing, but then I thought, isn't "global anti-brand" a contradiction in terms? I wonder if they'd send me a set of blueprints, so I can make my own shoes? I've been developing a "modular boot" for a few years now. The first prototype pair is falling apart after about 4000km and many repairs, and it's time for an improved version. I'd thought that if I ever put them in production they would be published rather than manufactured, that is, precise technical information made available to allow local craft-shoemakers to make them. By then I would have got about 10 000km of walking out of the project, and I'd be quite willing to provide the information for free. -Dawie - Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.___ 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/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ___ 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] Helping Israel Die
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/09/helping_israel_die.php TomPaine.com - Helping Israel Die Ray McGovern February 09, 2007 Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide. For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran. The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv. Mesmerized. Sadly, this is the best word to describe those of us awake to the inexorable march of folly to war with Iran and the growing danger to Israel's security, especially over the medium and long term. An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran will let slip the dogs of war. Those dogs never went to obedience school. They will not be denied their chance to bite, and Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons will be powerless to muzzle them. In my view, not since 1948 has the very existence of Israel hung so much in the balance. Can Bush/Cheney and the Israeli leaders not see it? Pity that no one seems to have read our first president's warning on the noxious effects of entangling alliances. The supreme irony is that in their fervor to help, as well as use, Israel, Bush and Cheney seem blissfully unaware that they are leading it down a garden path and off a cliff. Provoke and Pre-empt Whether it is putting the kibosh on direct talks with Iran or between Israel and Syria, the influence and motives of the vice president are more transparent than those of Bush. Sure, Cheney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer recently that the administration's Iraq policy would be "an enormous success story," but do not believe those who dismiss Cheney as "delusional." He and his neoconservative friends are crazy like a fox. They have been pushing for confrontation with Iran for many years, and saw the invasion of Iraq in that context. Alluding to recent U.S. military moves, Robert Dreyfuss rightly describes the neocons as "crossing their fingers in the hope that Iran will respond provocatively, making what is now a low-grade cold war inexorably heat up." http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/01/bushs_trash_talk_about_iran.php But what about the president? How to explain his fixation with fixing Iran's wagon? Cheney's influence over Bush has been shown to be considerable ever since the one-man search committee for the 2000 vice presidential candidate picked Cheney. The vice president can play Bush like a violin. But what strings is he using here? Where is the resonance? Experience has shown the president to be an impressionable sort with a roulette penchant for putting great premium on initial impressions and latching onto people believed to be kindred souls-be it Russian President Vladimir Putin (trust at first sight), hail-fellow-well-met CIA director George Tenet or oozing-testosterone-from-every-pore former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and "wrapped around his little finger." As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know-and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now persona non grata at the White House. Compassion Deficit Disorder George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks: >If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to >Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where >Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming >with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He >was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought >Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away >profoundly moved. Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of honest broker betw
[Biofuel] A New Fast Track For Unfair Trade
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/08/a_new_fast_track_for_unfai r_trade.php TomPaine.com - A New Fast Track For Unfair Trade Christine Ahn February 08, 2007 Christine Ahn is a policy analyst with the Korea Policy Institute and Oakland Institute and a member of the Korean Americans for Fair Trade coalition. Trade representatives from the United States and South Korea are racing against the clock to sign the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement under the "fast track" deadline. With $72 billion dollars traded annually between the two countries, the KorUS FTA would become the second largest trade deal after the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While such a trade deal would normally sail through the halls of the U.S. Congress and the Korean National Assembly, times have changed since the first free-trade regimes rolled into Washington, D.C., and Seoul. Critics of unfettered trade have had over a decade of evidence revealing how NAFTA has devastated the lives of working people across the continent. In the 2006 midterm elections, 37 members of Congress were elected on a fair-trade platform, ousting pro-free trade incumbents. Newly elected Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia even took the opportunity on primetime national television to challenge the Washington consensus on trade. In response to President Bush's State of the Union address, Webb said that America's workers should ''expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.'' Congress granted President Bush fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, to speed the negotiation of trade agreements; in return, legislators are given 90 days to review the proposed deal before they vote up or down. As this authority will expire on July 1, U.S. and Korean trade representativess will meet in Washington for three days beginning February 11 in a frenzied attempt to smooth over colossal differences in order to come up with an agreement by April 2. Wall Street corporations and South Korean chaebols (trading conglomerates) are salivating at this trade deal that would lower their tariffs and increase their profits. Given the effects of NAFTA on America's manufacturing workers and Mexico's farmers, free traders can no longer simply tout the miracles of neoliberal economics. According to the Economic Policy Institute, since NAFTA took effect, over 1 million workers in the U.S. lost their high-paying manufacturing jobs, and were forced to take lower-paying service jobs where they now earn 23 percent less. U.S. workers without a college education-73 percent of the population-saw their wages drop by 13 percent since NAFTA took effect. But NAFTA's impact is even more apparent in Mexico where real wages dropped by 80 percent and unemployment rose from nine to 15 percent. Approximately 1.5 million Mexican farmers were forced to give up farming because they were unable to meet the price of corn produced by massively-subsidized U.S. agribusinesses. Undersold and without many other job options in a depressed economy, Mexican farmers sought low-wage work in the maquiladoras or risked the dangerous journey to cross the heavily militarized U.S.-Mexico border. Mexico, where maize originated, is now facing riots by its people over high tortilla prices because the growing demand for ethanol have inflated corn prices on the global market. These are the effects of NAFTA that free traders must address when they espouse the limitless benefits of an integrated continental economy. Seeing the devastation that a U.S. FTA has wreaked on Mexican peasants, Korean farmers are not about to wait for U.S. rice-the most subsidized crop in the world-to flood the Korean market. According to Dr. Ki-woong Lee, Chairman of the Agriculture Economic Department at Sunchon National University, the KorUS FTA would be a death knell for up to 140,000 Korean farmers. Free traders argue that reducing tariffs would level the playing field and increase the efficiency of producers. But Korean and American farms are not just leagues apart, they're constellations apart. From 1995 to 2005, the U.S. rice industry received over $10.5 billion dollars in government subsidies, and the lion's share-25 percent-went to the top one percent of rice growers. In the U.S., the average rice farm is 397 acres, compared with South Korea's average rice farm of 3.5 acres. Approximately 8,000 of America's two million farms grow rice, compared with South Korea, where over 787,000 farms-or 57 percent-cultivate rice. South Korean farmers make up just eight percent of the population, but they are highly visible, well-organized and able to sway popular opinion. The three largest department stores in South Korea-Lotte, Hyundai and Shinsegae-have decided against purchasing imported rice and serving it to consumers for fear of public backl
Re: [Biofuel] Helping Israel Die
Israel has a LOT of nukes. The official numbers are crap. I place Israel as the number 3 nuclear power - ahead of Britain or France. And of all the people on earth likely to use them - they have this psychobabbel about 1000 goyem not worth one of their hangnails. If anyone has the us - them psychosis working overtime it is Israel. Then we have our resident psychotic giving them the green light. Very very bad my friends. Perhaps some iodine tabs in the medicine cabinet are a good idea. If anyone will turn the desert to glass it is the narcisstic twits we have as a ruling class. Kirk Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/09/helping_israel_die.php TomPaine.com - Helping Israel Die Ray McGovern February 09, 2007 Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide. For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran. The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv. Mesmerized. Sadly, this is the best word to describe those of us awake to the inexorable march of folly to war with Iran and the growing danger to Israel's security, especially over the medium and long term. An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran will let slip the dogs of war. Those dogs never went to obedience school. They will not be denied their chance to bite, and Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons will be powerless to muzzle them. In my view, not since 1948 has the very existence of Israel hung so much in the balance. Can Bush/Cheney and the Israeli leaders not see it? Pity that no one seems to have read our first president's warning on the noxious effects of entangling alliances. The supreme irony is that in their fervor to help, as well as use, Israel, Bush and Cheney seem blissfully unaware that they are leading it down a garden path and off a cliff. Provoke and Pre-empt Whether it is putting the kibosh on direct talks with Iran or between Israel and Syria, the influence and motives of the vice president are more transparent than those of Bush. Sure, Cheney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer recently that the administration's Iraq policy would be "an enormous success story," but do not believe those who dismiss Cheney as "delusional." He and his neoconservative friends are crazy like a fox. They have been pushing for confrontation with Iran for many years, and saw the invasion of Iraq in that context. Alluding to recent U.S. military moves, Robert Dreyfuss rightly describes the neocons as "crossing their fingers in the hope that Iran will respond provocatively, making what is now a low-grade cold war inexorably heat up." http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/01/bushs_trash_talk_about_iran.php But what about the president? How to explain his fixation with fixing Iran's wagon? Cheney's influence over Bush has been shown to be considerable ever since the one-man search committee for the 2000 vice presidential candidate picked Cheney. The vice president can play Bush like a violin. But what strings is he using here? Where is the resonance? Experience has shown the president to be an impressionable sort with a roulette penchant for putting great premium on initial impressions and latching onto people believed to be kindred souls-be it Russian President Vladimir Putin (trust at first sight), hail-fellow-well-met CIA director George Tenet or oozing-testosterone-from-every-pore former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and "wrapped around his little finger." As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know-and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now persona non grata at the White House. Compassion Deficit Disorder George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Mat
