[Biofuel] GMOs - Notable Quotes
Notable Quotes From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. Playing God in the Garden New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998. Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety - FDA, Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (GMO Policy), Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 104 (1992), p. 229 What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain - Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise. People will have Roundup Ready soya whether they like it or not - Ann Foster, spokesperson for Monsanto in Britian, as quoted in The Nation magazine from article The Politics of Food [49] by Maria Margaronis December 27, 1999 issue. 'It's important for countries around the world to adopt a uniform standard' of acceptable levels of contamination - Biotechnology Industry Association's Lisa Dry [50] The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender - Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001. The total acreage devoted to GM crops around the world is expanding. That may be what eventually brings the debate to an end. It's a hell of a thing to say that the way we win is don't give the consumer a choice, but that might be it - Dale Adolphe, biotech booster and President of the Canadian Seed Growers Association and previous president of the Canola Council of Canada (Western Producer, 4/4/02). I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle - Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, The Spirit of Enterprise, 1934. Genetically engineered food constitutes a massive experiment on the planet, with potentially devastating effects on human health and the global environment - Adam Kapp, Columnist for the Penn State Digital Collegian, Nov. 7, 2002. Stark denials in the face of documented evidence to the contrary have been corporate policy at Monsanto and GE for decades - Eric Francis author of Conspiracy of Silence [51] For years, these guys said PCBs were safe, too. But there's obviously a corporate culture of deceiving the public - Mike Casey of the Environmental Working Group The thing I'm most proud of is the industry's impeccable environmental and safety record - Robert Fraley, Monsanto's technology chief [52] That is what drives a lot of people crazy. The scope of the fraud, if you will--I know that's a harsh word--the scope of the fraud that's being sold to the American public about this technology is almost unprecedented - Interview with Dr. Charles Benbrook on GMOs I'm not a religious person, but I think there's something just inherently wrong with this-that they can take different species and combine 'em the way they wanna combine 'em - Phil Geertson, who runs a small seed business in Idaho [53]. I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate - Dr Erwin Chargaff, biochemist and the father of molecular biology in his autobiography Genetic Power's the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid who's found his dad's gun and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] U.S. Government Dumping $100 Million Into Filthy Fuels Project
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5487 Worldwatch Perspective: U.S. Government Dumping $100 Million Into Filthy Fuels Project James Russell November 9, 2007 6:00am Heavy machinery extracts coal from an open-pit mine. Will this be the source of future transportation fuels? Photo by James Russell The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently released the final environmental impact statement (EIS) on its proposal to contribute $100 million toward a new plant that will convert coal to liquid fuels. According to the statement, emissions estimates cited in earlier drafts of the EIS were only a small fraction of the expected releases of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the facility. Based on the revised estimates, the plant will directly emit more than 114 million tons of the greenhouse gas over its lifetime. The massive injection of public funds into this major new emissions source stands in stark contrast to growing demands for meaningful U.S. action to mitigate climate change. The project, proposed by the Gilberton, Pennsylvania-based company WMPI Pty., LLC, was selected for funding under the DOEs Clean Coal Power Initiative. It is being described as the first clean coal power facility in the United States using coal waste gasification as the basis for power, thermal energy, and liquid fuels production. But critics have questioned the merit of applying the clean label to a facility that will emit as much CO2 as 450,000 passenger cars, plus 200 tons per year of so-called criteria pollutants, as well as air toxins, such as mercury, sulfuric acid, and arsenic. Semantics aside, an examination of the technical merits of the project reveals little to support the proposed allocation of public funds. The DOE justifies funding the project as a way to demonstrate that coal waste gasification, synthesis of liquid fuels, and power production can be integrated at commercial scale. Yet at the same time, the agency acknowledges that the gasification and liquid fuel synthesis technologies are already commercially available with extensive development histories (2040 years). Nor is the combined-cycle turbine system that will be used to generate electricity particularly novel. Tacking these robust technologies together will certainly require finesse, but is this maneuver worth the $147 million of public funds being allocated (the DOEs $100 million, plus $47 million in incentives from the state of Pennsylvania)? Proposals to limit the damages of climate change, including several now being considered by Congress, require the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050. Based on recent estimates of U.S. emissions, that would mean eliminating more than 5 billion tons of annual CO2 emissions. The scale of this endeavor demands that public funds for research, development, and deployment of energy technologies flow to energy efficiency and to low-carbon energy sources, including wind and solar power and other renewables. Other Worldwatch Articles You Might Enjoy * Turning Coal to Fuel is Costly to Environment * Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Energy and Agriculture * American Energy - The Renewable Path to Energy Security Subsidizing the deployment of coal-to-liquids erects an enormous obstacle to achieving emissions reductions. While the United States chases fictitious clean coal fuels, Japan and Europe are targeting vehicle fuel economy of nearly 50 miles per gallon. Directing the subsidy for the Gilberton project toward advancing fuel efficiency rather than coal-to-liquids would have increased the 2007 federal budget for vehicle technologies by more than 50 percent. Carbon sequestration has been suggested as a possible remedy for the massive CO2 emissions from coal-to-liquid fuel facilities. In comments provided to the DOE, the American Petroleum Institute urged the agency and WMPI Pty. to further explore this possibility, citing large-scale projects such as Sleipner in the North Sea, In Salah in Algeria, and Snøhvit in the Barents Sea as evidence that it is practicable. The DOE responded that, Geologic carbon sequestration was not part of the project as proposed to DOE. There is no basis for DOE to direct the industrial participant to pursue its potential implementation during the demonstration period. Under the Clean Coal Power Initiative, the DOE has no authority to suggest project modifications, only to fund or not fund. In the case of this facility, only a denial of federal funds could be considered consistent with good climate policy. The fact is, even if carbon sequestration were used at this type of coal-to-liquids facility, it would still result in more overall CO2 emissions than conventional petroleum fuels. In other words, even in the best scenario, this coal-to-liquids project would still be a loser in terms of climate change. Considering the alignment of public opinion, state action, and major U.S. corporations in favor
Re: [Biofuel] sustainable biodiesel from Casto : Big is not beautiful, small is more sustainable
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071116/6d5bf5a9/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
