Re: [Biofuel] The rise of the New Economy movement...
I was prepared to begin by pointing out a misconception about the middle ages (that feudalism revolved around personal loyalties, not rank or class, i.e. that the feudal serf was under authority of no lord but his own) but I found myself agreeing with much of what followed. "The practice of broad shareholder 'ownership' with voices proportional to individual holdings merely serves to amass great masses of capital while diluting and dispersing the power of a central voice, leavingeffective 'ownership' and management in the hands of the elite few, the one percenters at the top of the dung heap!" I fear this, too. And as regards the "new economy" movement of the original article, it does contain numerous strands, many of which will prove incompatible with others. In broad strokes, it is divided in terms of the question, "Are collectives real?" This has, in fact, been the central question in this debate all along, not only since the '60s but since the great Swiss discussions of the mid-19th century. Hence there are collectivists and discretists, authoritarians and (small-l) libertarians, statists and anarchists within the movement. And this dichotomy is precisely the ecological dichotomy between eco-authoritarianism and localism, whose imminent divorce I have been predicting for years. I am of the camp that considers a collective to be a sporadically useful mental construct and nothing more. Where collectives have been treated as real they have invariably required "puppeteers" to animate them, and the results have generally been unsatisfactory. The question requires a finer understanding of relationality, in which Mounier's Personalism may offer a starting-point. Regards Dawie Coetzee > > From: Bob Molloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Thursday, 24 May 2012, 4:55 >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The rise of the New Economy movement... > > > >http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-2> > > > >I posted this on to a friend under the title of "Return to the feudal >society. I thought his comment below was worth an airing: > > > >Bob: > > > >I think that if you take a big-picture look at the economic and capitalist >history of the Western World you will find that we have never left the >Medieval Era and are still operating under feudal systems of management. > > > >In order to to compete with success under the current practices in today's >business markets, any commercial endeavor requires access to massive amounts >of capital, not readily available to the general public, "the working >class," or " labor." > > > >These new movements, to incorporate the general public or labor into >ownership, or to "democratize" capital investment, are tokens at best and >will not liberate the serfs from the bottom line... profits, before all >else. The practice of broad shareholder "ownership" with voices >proportional to individual holdings merely serves to amass great masses of >capital while diluting and dispersing the power of a central voice, leaving >effective "ownership" and management in the hands of the elite few, the one >percenters at the top of the dung heap! > > > >The only difference this might make for the serfs and esnes of the >twenty-first century is that they are shackled to their work or the land by >by their own chains... the need for petty profits and dividends and the >futile hope for a bigger day tomorrow. > > > >There ain't nothin' wrong with the system. It ain't broke! It is working >perfectly, just as it is designed and intended to work! The only problem >is, it is not a system beneficial to the majority, or the 99 percent who own >it, and we gotta find a new model. > > > >The "large corporations," which so many view as "The Problem" are not owned >by the one-percenters who manage and operate them... they are owned by us... >who have no voice in their operations or conduct, and who share only in the >droppings, drippings from the kettles and orts from the table of those who >manage in our names, and profit in their own. > > > >Somehow, we "owners" of the Corporate Capitalist economy have developed and >raised, literally incorporated, Golems who has taken us over and now rule. >I think in the history of the Golem no one has ever tamed or subdued a >runaway Golem... they must be killed... expunged, erased from the pages of >history. > > > >References: > > > >The perils of owner/operatorship! > > > >Chain Gang > >The Ballad of John Henry > >Dayo > >Sixteen Tons > >The Sloop John B > > > >-- next part -- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120524/05e29d75/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 Bi
Re: [Biofuel] The rise of the New Economy movement...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-2> I posted this on to a friend under the title of "Return to the feudal society. I thought his comment below was worth an airing: Bob: I think that if you take a big-picture look at the economic and capitalist history of the Western World you will find that we have never left the Medieval Era and are still operating under feudal systems of management. In order to to compete with success under the current practices in today's business markets, any commercial endeavor requires access to massive amounts of capital, not readily available to the general public, "the working class," or " labor." These new movements, to incorporate the general public or labor into ownership, or to "democratize" capital investment, are tokens at best and will not liberate the serfs from the bottom line... profits, before all else. The practice of broad shareholder "ownership" with voices proportional to individual holdings merely serves to amass great masses of capital while diluting and dispersing the power of a central voice, leaving effective "ownership" and management in the hands of the elite few, the one percenters at the top of the dung heap! The only difference this might make for the serfs and esnes of the twenty-first century is that they are shackled to their work or the land by by their own chains... the need for petty profits and dividends and the futile hope for a bigger day tomorrow. There ain't nothin' wrong with the system. It ain't broke! It is working perfectly, just as it is designed and intended to work! The only problem is, it is not a system beneficial to the majority, or the 99 percent who own it, and we gotta find a new model. The "large corporations," which so many view as "The Problem" are not owned by the one-percenters who manage and operate them... they are owned by us... who have no voice in their operations or conduct, and who share only in the droppings, drippings from the kettles and orts from the table of those who manage in our names, and profit in their own. Somehow, we "owners" of the Corporate Capitalist economy have developed and raised, literally incorporated, Golems who has taken us over and now rule. I think in the history of the Golem no one has ever tamed or subdued a runaway Golem... they must be killed... expunged, erased from the pages of history. References: The perils of owner/operatorship! Chain Gang The Ballad of John Henry Dayo Sixteen Tons The Sloop John B -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120524/05e29d75/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/
Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse
Let's take Freecycle as an example. Let's say we have 1,000 participants in a local group. Each is a donor, a recipient, or both, for different transactions. The 'forum' (an e-mail list in my case) is a 'clearinghouse' for physical items connecting multiple donors and multiple recipients. A donor can donate multiple items and a recipient can receive multiple items. The objective is to keep physical items out of landfill by associating them with a recipient that wants them. What I want is a clearinghouse for people working on issues. As per the Freecycle example, there could be 1,000 issues and 1,000 thought-leaders to work on them. I am one of the people prepared to work on issues. The objective is to keep the issues out of the 'dead-zone', where they die for lack of an appropriate person to work on them. The 'recipient' in this case needs to be someone with some knowledge, experience or expertise that makes them appropriate, and not a spinmeister or astroturfer. Where is the 'forum' that helps match up the issues with the people? None of us has the time, desire or ability to deal with all the issues. How do we divvy them up effectively? Sharing of knowledge is re-use. I hope this is more clear than my previous attempt. Darryl On 23/05/2012 9:53 AM, Keith Addison wrote: > Hi Darryl > > "Reduce, Recycle, Reuse" is a basic concept, for me it's been second > nature for decades. But I'm not quite following you, and maybe I'm > not the only one. Could you cite a couple of examples perhaps? > >> Agreed, FreeCycle is a great concept for physical items. I have been >> using it for years. >> >> It's likely a stretch to try to present the issues and trusted thought >> leaders repository as a re-use alternative, but in my mind the link is >> clear. Re-use of information from trusted sources is how we build >> knowledge, but in this particular area, I have not found the key >> resources. I have a general level of faith in what I see from some >> individuals and organizations (e.g., LeadNow.ca, Avaaz.org, >> OpenMedia.ca), but I find I still have to look at each issue they >> present individually. That's a lot of work for an individual. But we >> have a lot of individuals. How do we divvy up the effort, and then >> share the outcomes in an organized (rather than anecdotal) fashion? >> >> Darryl >> >> On 22/05/2012 10:10 PM, Ivan Menchero wrote: >>> Hi Darryl, >>> >>> This works very well and is pretty much world wide www.freecycle.org I >>> wish >>> more people knew about it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Darryl McMahon >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:20 AM >>> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >>> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse >>> >>> Or Occupy Facebook. >>> >>> Fill the vacuous void with your message, and those you feel deserve more >>> recognition. >>> >>> Right now, I am supporting the 'Pull for the Environment' walk, and >>> trying to get the word out on multiple channels. >>> >>> http://www.xof1.com/pullfortheenvironment2012.php >>> >>> Trying to move social media beyond 'clicktivism'. >>> >>> Next week, something else (possibly rain barrels). >>> >>> http://rainbarrel.ca/weca/ >>> >>> As the rain barrels (like the dozen or so I have now) are re-used pickle >>> or olive barrels, they make a nice re-use initiative. I made my own >>> before they were available commercially. Nice to see there is enough >>> demand now that somebody is trying to make a living at it. (I have no >>> commercial interest in this event, and am volunteering to help with the >>> distribution.) >>> >>> There are so many good causes that need resources, and so many people >>> looking for ways to make a real contribution. I have so many issues >>> facing me that I have to triage, and work on the ones where I think I >>> can make a solid, possibly unique, contribution. For the others, I can >>> only hope there are others working on those issues. What I really need >>> is a trusted network of people, indicating which issues they are leading >>> on, so I can focus my efforts elsewhere, and helping them out when they >>> need it, without having to research a topic myself to see if it is >>> legitimate or a waste of time, and if the proponent is trustworthy, or a >>> front for another agenda. Does anyone know of such a 'clearinghouse' or >>> repository for issues or thought-leaders? If so, I would really like to >>> re-use that! >>> >>> Darryl >>> >>> On 22/05/2012 4:30 PM, Keith Addison wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/22/the-rise-of-reuse/ MAY 22, 2012 An Alternative to Throw-Away Corporate Culture The Rise of Reuse by RALPH NADER Last week I read that the glitzy world of virtual reality created instant multi-millionaires and several billionaires when Facebook wen
Re: [Biofuel] The Plan to Kick Greece Out of the Eurozone
teresting and clear article. > >>>>>Mike Whitney is usually worth reading. > >>>>> > >>>>>>I don't agree with the heroic picture that is given to > >>>>>>tsipras political > >>>>>>party though(or any political party). > >>>>>Neither do I. It's a nice idea that it's something that can be > >>>>>reformed, but it's broken, beyond repair, a car-wreck, and not just > >> >>> in Greece. I can't think of a government that isn't dysfunctional, > >>>>>it's just a metter of degree. I think a great many people are seeing > >>>>>it that way now. > >>>>> > >>>>>This article might fill in some of the missing bits: > >>>>> > >>>>>"However, Syriza does not question the European Union and its > >>>>>institutions, nor the Greek state and its capitalist foundations. > >>>>>Syriza's goal is not the socialist transformation of society in the > >>>>>interests of the working class but to create better conditions for > >>>>>the upper middle class and those parts of the Greek bourgeoisie which > >>>>>are hit particularly hard by the effects of the austerity measures. > >>>>>... Tsipras' policy-a mixture of threats and entreaties to > >>>>>Brussels-is based on pipe dreams and illusions. Like every middle > >>>>>class politician, he completely underestimates the extent of the > >>>>> international capitalist crisis." [more] - Greece: The program of > >>>>>Syriza, 19 May 2012 > >>>>>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/syri-m19.shtml > >>>>> > >>>>>James Petras says: "The problem is that this 'capitalism of the past' > >>>>>is gone and a new more virulent and intransigent capitalism has > >>>>>emerged forging a new worldwide framework and a powerful entrenched > >>>>>state apparatus immune to all calls for 'reform' and reorientation." > >>>>> > >>>>>And: "Worse, the left, by combining some of the basic concepts of > >>>>>capitalism with sharp criticism, creates illusions about the > >>>>>possibility of reforming 'the market' to serve popular ends. This > >>>>>fails to identify the principle social forces that must be ousted > >>>>>from the commanding heights of the economy and the imperative to > >>>>>dismantle the class-dominated state." - The Politics of Language and > >>>>>the Language of Political Regression, James Petras, May 18, 2012 > >>>>>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31373.htm > >>>>> > >>>>>>A democracy that is not direct,is not a democracy,there is a > >>>>>> comfusion > >>>>>>in meanings. > >>>>>Yes there is. But the original version, in ancient Athens, wasn't > >>>>>that different. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think only "citizens", > >>>>>the top 20%, could vote, and the rest didn't matter. > >>>>> > >>>>>Democracy might only "work" small-scale, at the local level, where > >>>>>people know each other and have to confront each other face to face, > > >>>>and even then there's no guarantee of it. > >>>>> > >>>>>In the late '70s, after living in Hong Kong for a while, I used to > >>>>>annoy people by saying that the average peasant living on a commune > >>>>>in Maoist China had more say over the issues that affected him in his > >>>>>daily life than a Westerner did with his representative vote once > >>>>> every four years. > >>>>>>The picture of violently and lethaly forced''wise''plans that > >>>>>> affects > >>>>>>the lives of the governed > >>>>>>replaces the word that is needed to describe''democracy''by elected > >>>>>>representatives. > >>>>>I tried democrisy before (mix with hypocrisy), also demockracy. Maybe > >>>>>what we need is not de- but remocracy: give up, go back to the > >>>>>beginning and start again. > >>>>> > >> >>> A lot of bright people are hard at work right now on these problems > >>>>>of governments and economies that don't work, experimenting, finding > >>>>>alternatives. Here are some examples from the NewsPeak section at the > >>>>>Journey to Forever home page<http://journeytoforever.org/#np>: > >>>>> > >>>>>Bonsai economics - Mohammad Yunus and microcredit > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>><http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9027-inside-the-mind-of-a-microcredit-icon-truthout-interviews-director-of-film-on-mohammad-yunus> > >>>>> > >>>>>America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and > >>>>>Our Democracy > >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/d277w9k > >>>>> > >>>>>Local markets > >>>>> > >>>>><http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/latest/us-farmers-markets-2011> > >>>>> > >>>>>Land reform > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>><http://truth-out.org/news/item/8382-without-firing-an-arm-we-created-a-revolution-land-reform> > >>>>> > >>>>>Participatory democracy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>><http://www.thenation.com/article/167079/participatory-democracy-port-huron-statement-occupy-wall-street?page=full> > >> >>> > >>>>>More: > >>>>> > >>>>>A New Politics That Rejects Austerity and Wars of Whim > >>>>>Published on Friday, May 18, 2012 by The Nation > >>>>>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/18-1 > >>>>> > >>>>>Nurses Gather at NATO Summit to Demand Government Fund Health, Not > >>>>> Death > >>>>>Friday, 18 May 2012 15:59 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>><http://truth-out.org/news/item/9242-nurses-gather-at-nato-to-demand-government-funds-health-not-death> > >>>>> > >>>>>'An Economy for the 99%': People's G8 Demands 'Robin Hood Tax' > >>>>>Published on Friday, May 18, 2012 by Common Dreams > >>>>>http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/18-6 > >>>>> > >>>>>Women: 50% of the 99% > >>>>>Published on Friday, May 18, 2012 by Foreign Policy in Focus > >>>>>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/18-5 > >>>>> > >>>>>Where are the Missing Five Million Workers? > >>>>>Published on Friday, May 18, 2012 by The Nation > >>>>>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/18-4 > >> >>> > >>>>>Hope that helps. > >>>>> > >>>>>All best > >>>>> > >>>>>Keith > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>On 19/05/2012 03:15 14É , Keith Addison wrote: > >>>>>>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31358.htm > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Left to Fend for Itself > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Plan to Kick Greece Out of the Eurozone > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > By Mike Whitney > > > >>> > > > ___ > 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/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120523/4db8d335/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/
[Biofuel] Drone Attacks Can't Save the G8's Bacon
http://truth-out.org/news/item/9236-drone-attacks-cant-save-the-g8s-bacon Drone Attacks Can't Save the G8's Bacon Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:21 By Nick Mottern, Truthout | Op-Ed The commentary below will be distributed Friday, May 18, and Saturday, May 19, in a flyer at the G8 in Maryland as part of the Know Drones Tour Many of the G8 countries - comprised of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and Russia - are former colonial powers that have thrived by capturing at gunpoint basic mineral, petroleum and agriculture resources around the world, paying relatively little and thus subsidizing their corporations and their national economies. Right now, the G8 interest in Afghanistan is undoubtedly related to investment potential in minerals, as well as overland routes for oil, gas and electric lines. A 2004 World Bank report, "Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan - Mining as a Source of Growth" gives a sense of G8 interest in Afghanistan's mineral wealth, which includes, "a world class copper deposit at Aynak," iron, gold, barite, chromites, talc and gemstones. "Mining is a high-risk and capital-intensive industry. The Afghanistan government does not currently have the funds to invest in minerals development and, even if it did, such investment could not be justified due to other priorities and the risks inherent in mining. It will be necessary to attract private investment, from both domestic and international sources. Foreign investors, in particular, may be interested in Afghanistan not only because of its excellent geological potential but also because the country has missed a generation of modern prospecting methods that look for deposit buried below the ground's surface. Clearly, Afghanistan offers early entrants into the sector highly favorable ground." Although there will be absolute official denial of this view, the goal of the war in Afghanistan is largely to subdue local people in order to create a hospitable environment for investment by G8 businesses. This is true in other US war zones - Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia - which are also important to G8 corporations because of material resources - primarily oil, gas and minerals - or their location near these resources and/or resource shipment routes. There are Yemeni factions, for example, who threaten the Saudi princes; Somalia, in addition to having apparent great potential for oil production, is located on a main oil shipping route. The urgency to subdue local people has increased for G8 politicians as their national debt loads increase to a significant degree because of the increase in the prices of resources, particularly oil. The prices of basic resources have increased as local people become more educated and determined to control their God-given natural wealth. G8 corporations suffer less than governments because they pass their increased resource costs through to governments and the public, in some cases making huge profits. Corporate leaders know, however, that they will come more under public scrutiny and face threats of government takeover if their prices become unbearable to the public. Hence, for their survival as well as their profit, corporations want relatively cheap resource prices as well. Although the G8 need to subdue factions and nations is increasing, their military ability to do this, particularly the United States' military ability, is diminishing. Members of the general public of the G8 countries are weary of the wars, and, in the case of the United States, its military is also exhausted and demoralized by relentless, multiple troop deployments. Drones enter the picture now, coupled with special forces units, as a new way of exerting control on the aforementioned local people on behalf of major corporations and G8 politicians. Drones reduce the dollar cost of war, and public support is not as essential as it would be if there were "boots on the ground." Drone warfare is evidence of desperation on the part of the G8, a desperation that has led to a declaration of lawlessness by the United States, whose top officials have said that international and domestic constitutional law will not apply to the use of drones. The United States, to the silence of the other G8 members, has adopted an explicit war-by-assassination strategy. The drone experiment is not working. Fighting among factions and against G8 forces has increased in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of drone attacks. Factional fighting has also increased in Yemen and Somalia, where drone strikes are creating rage against the United States. US drones are monitoring Syria and Iraq, with the possibility of drone attacks to support one faction or another. Drone attacks coupled with CIA operations, often in cooperation with local criminals, have arguably increased chaos and killing, increased and sustained high resource prices, and lengthened the time
[Biofuel] Gas Industry Aims to Block Zero-Carbon Building Goal
http://truth-out.org/news/item/9312-gas-industry-aims-to-block-2030-zero-carbon-building-goal Gas Industry Aims to Block Zero-Carbon Building Goal Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:26 By Maria Gallucci, Inside Climate News | Report Natural gas proponents say a plan to zero out fossil-fuel use from a half a million federal buildings could harm its reputation as a cleaner fuel. The natural gas industry and some allies are working behind the scenes in Washington to block a green building rule that was expected to be a national model for carbon-neutral construction. The rule, called Fossil Fuel-Generated Energy Consumption Reduction, would zero out fossil-fuel use-coal, fuel oil and natural gas-in all new and renovated federal buildings by 2030. The natural gas industry says the policy would harm its image as a more environmentally friendly fuel than coal. Proponents of green architecture say the mandate would hasten buildings' energy efficiency nationwide and be a big money-saver. The federal government spends more than $7 billion a year to operate its inventory of 502,000 buildings. Buildings guzzle 40 percent of U.S. energy. The Department of Energy (DOE) has been crafting the rule over the past year and a half. But now, the House of Representatives is considering halting the effort by choking off federal money needed to complete the rulemaking. The move would need Senate approval. The green building requirement falls under Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping clean energy law passed by the George W. Bush administration. Last month, the House Energy and Water Development subcommittee tacked on a provision to a federal spending bill that would prohibit the DOE from funding Section 433. The House Committee on Appropriations approved the plan on April 25. It now awaits a full vote from the House. The controversy comes as President Obama increasingly embraces natural gas as a "cleaner" power source for buildings and cars-and as his administration unveils the first federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the injection of millions of gallons of water and chemicals underground to extract natural gas. The Main Players The anti-Section 433 push is being led primarily by the American Gas Association (AGA), a trade group representing 200 natural gas utilities, and Representative Rodney Alexander, who proposed the House amendment. The conservative Republican from Louisiana is an outspoken advocate of natural gas. His homestate is a hotbed for fracking along the gas-rich Haynesville shale. Jake Rubin, an AGA spokesperson, told InsideClimate News that natural gas "should be part of the conversation as we work to reach our country's energy efficient goals." In addition to wanting natural gas power accepted as a green building element, AGA opposes having Section 433 be mandatory. Ed Mazria, founder and CEO of Architecture 2030, a nonprofit that advocates for a carbon-neutral building sector, said the federal government's embrace of Section 433 matters for the rest of the country. "When the federal government puts its weight behind a program, it takes on a new level of importance," he said. "The entire building sector is moving to meet these targets ... and so to have the federal government renege on its commitment is not a good idea." Section 433 mirrors Architecture 2030's own carbon-neutral building goal, which thousands of architects, designers and governments have adopted worldwide. During his 2008 campaign, President Obama promised to set a target of making all the nation's buildings carbon-neutral by 2030. White House: Yay or Nay? In short, the DOE's proposed rule, crafted under the Obama administration, requires new federal buildings to reduce their fossil fuel-generated energy use by 55 percent in 2010 compared to 2003 levels, and 100 percent in 2030. Credit: Securock Existing buildings that undergo renovations of $2.5 million or more would also have to meet the requirements. Federal agencies can apply for waivers to exclude buildings if meeting the mandate is technically or economically impossible. Today, confusion is rife about where things stand with the rule, experts told InsideClimate News. At the same time, the White House seems unable to decide how cozy it wants to be to the natural gas industry, according to a report in Politico. In October 2010, the DOE issued its first draft proposal. The agency collected public comments and sent a final plan to the White House for review in August 2011. The White House had 90 days to return the rules to the DOE for adoption, but the proposal is still there, nine months later. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., said it's unclear whether the White House is holding onto the plan because it found major problems, or whether it is simply putting off a
[Biofuel] Would It Make a Difference to Progressives if Norman Solomon Goes to Congress?
Also (YCMTSU): http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/05/17 05.17.12 - 10:48 AM So A Comatose Guy and A Dead Guy Walk Into A Bar by Abby Zimet Why We Need To Replace Much of Congress Dept: Rep. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican up for re-election who has served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote a constituent a letter suggesting that peace in the Middle East depends on restarting negotiations between Yasir Arafat (who died in 2004) and Ariel Sharon (who has been in a coma since 2006) - or, as one observer noted, "between a vegetable and a dead man." A spokesman explained that responding to so many letters a year is "a complicated process." "With the global war against terrorism, it is now incumbent on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat to clamp down on Palestinian extremists that have perpetuated violence and to restart a peace process that has collapsed." --0-- http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-7 Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 by Common Dreams Would It Make a Difference to Progressives if Norman Solomon Goes to Congress? by Robert Naiman A key paradox for progressives of our national political life goes something like this: everybody complains about Congress, but nobody does anything about it. Of course, it is far from true that nobody is doing anything about Congress. Lots of people are doing something about it. But if you hold the complaints of progressives about Congress in one hand, and the level of progressive activity to change who is in Congress and what they do when they get there in the other, there is a big mismatch. The level of complaint should provoke a much higher level of activity to do something about it. Every four years it is revealed that at the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of progressive-minded people in the U.S. are pragmatic idealists. They are people who have one eye on the horizon, and the other eye on the next practical step that can help get us closer to the horizon - or stop us from being pushed further away, which amounts to the same thing. The overwhelming majority of progressive-minded people will vote in the fall Presidential election, and they will vote for Obama; not because they think that doing so is the beginning and end of political engagement, but because they think - correctly - that it is the political choice in the context that best serves the interests of pragmatic idealists. It is within this overwhelming majority of progressives who will vote for Obama that the bulk of the problem concerning progressives and Congress lies. Whatever else may be true, Congress would not be as bad as it is from a progressive point of view if more progressives who are going to vote for Obama were more engaged in who goes to Congress and what they do when they get there. At the end of the day, these progressives who are going to vote for Obama are willing and able to act as pragmatic idealists. But too many of them are not willing and able to act as pragmatic idealists earlier in the day, when they could have more decisive influence. Even now, the national infrastructure for effective caring is too weak. If the Progressive Caucus and the groups that support it effectively exercised all the functions of a political party, the fact that Norman Solomon is a candidate for Congress with a serious possibility of winning would be foremost in the consciousness of every pragmatic peace advocate in the United States. Every pragmatic peace advocate would know that Norman is running, every pragmatic peace advocate would know that there is a primary on June 5 and that voting by mail is already underway, every pragmatic peace advocate would know that Norman will survive the primary if he places second, every pragmatic peace advocate would understand why it matters if Norman survives the primary, and every pragmatic peace advocate would be doing their bit to help ensure that Norman survives the primary. But this is not where we are. We don't yet have the national infrastructure to effectively and reliably carry out these tasks. Again, there are a lot of people doing a lot of things. But when you sum it up, the existing infrastructure is not up to the task. Therefore, at the moment, we all have to pitch in as best we can amidst the chaos. So here's how I'm going to try to pitch in: to try to explain, from the point of view of someone who cares about decisions made in Washington on war and peace, why it matters a lot to me whether Norman Solomon is elected to Congress. I am looking forward to Norman going to Congress because if Norman goes to Congress he is going to be on TV a lot. When Norman is on TV, he will use the opportunity explain to the public current affairs from the point of view of people who want to end wars of choice. Of course it is not necessary for a progressive to be elected to Congress to be on TV. But it helps
[Biofuel] On the War Path: The Nearly $1 Trillion National Security Budget
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-3 Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 by TomDispatch.com On the War Path: The Nearly $1 Trillion National Security Budget by Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer Recent months have seen a flurry of headlines about cuts (often called "threats") to the U.S. defense budget. Last week, lawmakers in the House of Representatives even passed a bill that was meant to spare national security spending from future cuts by reducing school-lunch funding and other social programs. Here, then, is a simple question that, for some curious reason, no one bothers to ask, no less answer: How much are we spending on national security these days? With major wars winding down, has Washington already cut such spending so close to the bone that further reductions would be perilous to our safety? In fact, with projected cuts added in, the national security budget in fiscal 2013 will be nearly $1 trillion -- a staggering enough sum that it's worth taking a walk through the maze of the national security budget to see just where that money's lodged. If you've heard a number for how much the U.S. spends on the military, it's probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That's the Pentagon's base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5% cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the U.S. spends on national security. Let's dig a little deeper. The Pentagon's base budget doesn't include war funding, which in recent years has been well over $100 billion. With U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq and troop levels falling in Afghanistan, you might think that war funding would be plummeting as well. In fact, it will drop to a mere $88 billion in fiscal 2013. By way of comparison, the federal government will spend around $64 billion on education that same year. Add in war funding, and our national security total jumps to $618 billion. And we're still just getting started. The U.S. military maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons. You might assume that we've already accounted for nukes in the Pentagon's $530 billion base budget. But you'd be wrong. Funding for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy (DOE), so it's a number you rarely hear. In fiscal 2013, we'll be spending $11.5 billion on weapons and related programs at the DOE. And disposal of nuclear waste is expensive, so add another $6.4 billion for weapons cleanup. Now, we're at $636 billion and counting. How about homeland security? We've got to figure that in, too. There's the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will run taxpayers $35.5 billion for its national security activities in fiscal 2013. But there's funding for homeland security squirreled away in just about every other federal agency as well. Think, for example, about programs to secure the food supply, funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So add another $13.5 billion for homeland security at federal agencies other than DHS. That brings our total to $685 billion. Then there's the international affairs budget, another obscure corner of the federal budget that just happens to be jammed with national security funds. For fiscal 2013, $8 billion in additional war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is hidden away there. There's also $14 billion for what's called "international security assistance" -- that's part of the weapons and training Washington offers foreign militaries around the world. Plus there's $2 billion for "peacekeeping operations," money U.S. taxpayers send overseas to help fund military operations handled by international organizations and our allies. That brings our national security total up to $709 billion. We can't forget the cost of caring for our nation's veterans, including those wounded in our recent wars. That's an important as well as hefty share of national security funding. In 2013, veterans programs will cost the federal government $138 billion. That brings us to $847 billion -- and we're not done yet. Taxpayers also fund pensions and other retirement benefits for non-veteran military retirees, which will cost $55 billion next year. And then there are the retirement costs for civilians who worked at the Department of Defense and now draw pensions and benefits. The federal government doesn't publish a number on this, but based on the share of the federal workforce employed at the Pentagon, we can estimate that its civilian retirees will cost taxpayers around $21 billion in 2013. By now, we've made it to $923 billion -- and we're finally almost done. Just one more thing to add in, a miscellaneous defense account that's separate from the defense base budget. It's called "defense-related activities," and it's got $8 billion in it for 2013. That brings our grand total to an astonishing $931 billion. And this will turn out to be a conservative figure. We won't spend less than that, but among other things, it doesn't include the
[Biofuel] The politics of the anti-NATO protests
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/chic-m22.shtml The politics of the anti-NATO protests By Jerry White 22 May 2012 The anti-NATO protests in Chicago on Sunday and Monday, which authorities sought to suppress with police intimidation and violence, were organized under the banner of "Say No to the War and Poverty Agenda" of the US-dominated military alliance and the G8 governments. The most striking and politically revealing feature, however, was the absence of any serious criticism of the Obama administration, one of the most warmongering in US history, by the organizers. If the president was referred to at all from the platforms of the various rallies, it was to suggest that protests and appeals could persuade his administration to avoid or end wars and redirect resources to meet social needs. This lie has been the peddled for years by liberals and Democratic Party hangers-on, including the Nation magazine and pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO), which played a leading role in the Chicago protests. Active in the Coalition Against NATO/G8 War & Poverty Agenda were the ISO, the Communist Party, the ANSWER Coalition, Code Pink and other groups that operate in the orbit of the Democratic Party. Many of them were involved in organizing demonstrations during the Republican Bush administration, through which they sought to divert anti-war sentiment behind the election first of John Kerry and congressional Democrats, and then of Obama. Since Obama's election, these groups have refused to organize any significant protests against the Democratic president, who has not only continued, but escalated the wars of aggression of the Bush years, and is now preparing to carry out even bloodier crimes against the people of Syria and Iran. Featured prominently in the anti-NATO protest was Jesse Jackson Sr., who is avidly campaigning for Obama's reelection. During Sunday's rally, Jackson led protesters in the demagogic chant, "We need a peace machine, not a war machine," neglecting to mention that his candidate oversees the operations of the US war machine as well as the slashing of vital social programs, jobs and wages. In comments after the protest, Jackson defended the police attacks ordered by Chicago's Democratic mayor and former Obama chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In comments to WGN television in Chicago Monday morning, Jackson praised the conduct of the Chicago Police Department, while criticizing alleged "acts of violence" by demonstrators. He said nothing about the young protesters who are being framed up on terrorism charges by Chicago authorities, working in conjunction with the White House. The support of this political charlatan was sought and hailed by the protest leaders. Cited in an article entitled "Rev. Jackson's endorsement of NATO protest strengthens bond between anti-poverty, anti-war groups," the ISO's Eric Ruder, a leading organizer of the protest, gushed over Jackson, saying his participation was a "historic reenactment" of the alliance of anti-war protesters and the 1960s-era civil rights movement. This is filthy, reactionary nonsense. The promotion of Jackson, a multi-millionaire who has made a career as a political fireman for the ruling class, was sufficient in itself to demonstrate that the principle political aim of the organizers was to cover up Obama's crimes and promote his reelection. Such is the "opposition" of the various middle-class pseudo-left groups to imperialist war. Virtually all of them are currently backing the pro-imperialist forces funded and armed by the US and the Gulf sheiks in the colonial-style war for regime-change in Syria, just as they did last year in Libya. In addition to Jackson, protest organizers invited Illinois Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez to the stage. Like Jackson, Gutierrez has used identity politics and his close ties to the trade union bureaucracy to channel opposition back behind the Democratic Party. The remnants of the Occupy Wall Street protests also participated in the Chicago protests, involving themselves in impotent exercises such as "die-ins" at the headquarters of defense contractor Boeing. The positive impulses of mass opposition to social inequality and hostility to capitalism that initially animated the Occupy movement have been thoroughly swamped by the efforts of the ISO and other groups to ban any discussion of socialist politics and corral the protests behind Obama and the Democratic Party and their agents in the trade union bureaucracy. The Coalition Against NATO/G8 War & Poverty Agenda hailed the endorsement of various unions, including the Service Employees International Union, which has officially endorsed Obama, and National Nurses United, the United Electrical Workers and the Chicago Teachers Union, all of which are backing Obama's reelection. The experience of the last three-and-a-half years has demonstrated
[Biofuel] New Study Confirms (Again): Keystone XL Would RAISE Gas Prices
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/05/22-6 May 22, 2012 CONTACT: Congressman Dennis Kucinich http://kucinich.house.gov/ New Study Confirms (Again): Keystone XL Would RAISE Gas Prices WASHINGTON - May 22 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement after a study by the National Resources Defense Council showed once again that the Keystone XL pipeline would raise gas prices for American consumers. Kucinich has frequently argued this point on the House floor, in an editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and in public statements. "There was never any doubt that the Keystone XL pipeline would increase the price at the pump for consumers. In fact, TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline, told Canadian regulators that the pipeline would allow TransCanada to raise the United States energy bill by $4 billion per year by limiting the supply of Canadian crude to Midwest refineries and rerouting it to Gulf Coast refineries. "A foreign-owned oil company is playing us for fools. In order to convince Americans to accept a pipeline that will result in higher gas prices, we have been bombarded with a public relations campaign to convince us that the pipeline is a good idea. "It may be a good idea to foreign investors, but the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea for American consumers, a bad idea for America's fledgling economy, a bad idea for our health and a bad idea for our environment," said Kucinich. "Say no to the Keystone tax." Researchers at the Cornell University Global Labor Institute also published a report confirming that the Keystone XL Pipeline would increase U.S. gas prices by 10 to 20 cents per gallon across the U.S. The greatest price increase - twice as much according to one estimate - will occur in 15 states, including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. ___ 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] Red River of Protest Runs Through Montreal as Students Continue Fight
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/22-7 Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 by Common Dreams Red River of Protest Runs Through Montreal as Students Continue Fight Massive demonstration in defiance of new anti-protest law - Common Dreams staff [See twitter feed and live stream below] A red river of Canadians, mostly students, flowed through the streets of Montreal this afternoon marking the 100th day of protest against austerity cuts to education and a draconian attempt by the Quebec government to squelch growing dissent. Early estimates put the number of people in the hundreds of thousands and images show kilometers of red-clad people filling Montreal's wide boulevards. An emergency law passed on Friday by the Quebec government - Bill 78 - intended to restrict growing student protests in the eastern Canadian province has done little to dissuade massive numbers who came out today to protest Bill 78, austerity cuts to education and increases in tuition. Bill 78, which required protesters to submit their itinerary to authorities in advance, was widely derided by student activists. Though some student groups decided to comply, many others refused. "The special law won't kill the student movement," Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, spokesman for the student group CLASSE, said at a news conference on Monday. "The fundamental rights under threat today need to be defended." The group defied the order by not submitting an official itinerary for today's protest. In a symbolic act of resistance, the student group encouraged anyone against the law to post their photo on a new website, the name of which translates as "Someone arrest me," reports the Global Montreal. CLASSE reported the site was briefly overloaded Monday and had already received more than 2,000 submissions. The passage of the law seems to have reinvigorated the student movement, as one marcher tweeted: "Tuition fee increases have barely been mentioned today. It is special law that has the attention on students." * * * Montreal Gazette: Live Updated Coverage: Protests on Day 100 of the Quebec student conflict Canadian Press: Red river of student protest runs through Montreal on Day 100 Small events are being held in support of the Quebec one in other Canadian cities, as well as Paris and New York. Tens of thousands of people are gathering and preparing to march in Montreal, carrying signs, chanting slogans, and wearing the iconic red square of the province's student movement. In the crowd are supporters from outside Quebec. While less than one-third of Quebec's post-secondary students are actually on strike, they have attracted some support from people angry at the provincial government over its emergency law that sets rules on protests. The law requires organizers to give police eight hours' notice of when and where a protest will happen - and it imposes fines for offenders. There's some debate in the crowd over whether to stick to the pre-approved route supplied to police, or whether to wander off in defiance of the controversial law. After taking a beating over four days from people accusing it of trampling democratic rights, the Quebec government began a counter-offensive in support of its law Tuesday. At a news conference, Public Security Minister Robert Dutil read from a list of cities with equally tough, or tougher, rules for organizing protests. * * * Montreal Gazette: Timeline of Quebec Student Protest A timeline of the Quebec student strike against tuition hikes, which marks its 100th day Tuesday with a day- time rally starting at 2 p.m. at Quartier des Spectacles. May 2003: University administrators call for Quebec Premier Jean Charest's Liberal government to lift the freeze on tuition fees. "God won't pay. Someone will have to take the bill," said Jean-Marie Toulouse, principal of École des Hautes études commerciales Montréal. Charest says his government will maintain the freeze for duration of his first mandate. At $1,862, Quebec's average yearly undergraduate tuition is less than half the Canadian average of $4,025. February 2004: The Quebec National Assembly launches hearings into the quality, accessibility and funding of universities. Students vow to man the barricades against increases in tuition and other fees. Universities cite studies showing Quebec institutions are underfunded by $375 million a year. November 2004: University and CEGEP students from across province take to streets to protest a government plan to convert $103 million from bursaries to loans. April 2005: After months of protests and winter-long strikes by more than 100,000 students, Education Minister Jean-Marc Fournier reinstates the $103 million in bursary money. November 2007: About 2,000 of 58,000 university and CEGEP students on strike against a $100 per year hike in tuition fees take to the streets of Montreal. The event is part of a three-day strike marked by hundreds of arre
[Biofuel] Nato Talks Security and Peace, Chicago has Neither
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31383.htm Nato Talks Security and Peace, Chicago has Neither The paradox of such a city hosting this summit lays bare the brutal way in which inequality is globally maintained and locally replicated By Gary Younge May 21, 2012 "The Guardian" May 20, 2012 -- On Friday morning in Brighton Park, a neighbourhood in southwest Chicago, around half a dozen Latina volunteers in luminous bibs patrolled the streets around Davis Elementary school. The school sits in the crossfire of three gangs; the Kings, the 2/6s and the SDs (Satan's Disciples). The trees and walls nearby are peppered with "tags" denoting territory and mourning fallen gang members. There is a shooting in the area every couple of weeks, explains Mariela Estrada of the Brighton Park Neighbourhood Council, which facilitates the volunteers. That same evening, just a couple of blocks away, a 14-year-old, Alejandro Jaime, was shot dead while out riding his bike with his 11-year-old friend. According to witnesses, a car knocked them both off their bikes. They picked themselves up and ran. A man got out of the car and shot Alejandro in the back. "Although it's the city's job to provide public safety, we had to respond since our children are in danger and continue to face threats of gang violence," said Nancy Barraza, a Parent Patrol volunteer. The next morning world leaders started arriving in Chicago for the Nato summit where, just 20 minutes from Brighton Park, they would discuss how to maintain international security. The dissonance between the global pretensions of the summit this weekend and the local realities of Chicago could not be more striking. Nato claims its purpose is to secure peace through security; in much of Chicago neither exists. When the city mayor Rahm Emanuel brought the summit to Chicago he boasted: "From a city perspective this will be an opportunity to showcase what is great about the greatest city in the greatest country." The alternative "99% tour" of the city, organised by the Grassroots Collaborative that came to Brighton Park, revealed how utterly those who claim to export peace and prosperity abroad have failed to provide it at home. The murder rate in Chicago in the first three months of this year increased by more than 50% compared with the same period last year, giving it almost twice the murder rate of New York. And the manner in which the city is policed gives many as great a reason to fear those charged with protecting them as the criminals. By the end of July last year police were shooting people at the rate of six a month and killing one person a fortnight. This violence, be it at the hands of the state or gangs, is both compounded and underpinned by racial and economic disadvantage. The poorer the neighbourhood the more violent, the wealthier the safer. This is no coincidence. Much like the Nato summit - and the G8 summit that preceded it - the system is set up not to spread wealth but to preserve and protect it, not to relieve chaos but to contain and punish it. Nato is not an impartial arbiter in this state of affairs but the military wing of a political and economic project that makes it possible. Neoliberal globalisation, and the inequities that come with it, cannot exist without force or the threat of it. "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist," Thomas Friedman, an ardent advocate of free market globalisation, argued. "McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." The paradox inherent in a city like Chicago hosting a summit like this not only lays bare the brutal nature in which these inequalities are maintained at a global level, but it lends us an opportunity to understand how those inequalities are replicated locally. Chicago illustrates how the developing world is everywhere, not least in the heart of the developed. The mortality rate for black infants in the city is on a par with the West Bank; black life expectancy in Illinois is just below Egypt and just above Uzbekistan. More than a quarter of Chicagoans have no health insurance, one in five black male Chicagoans are unemployed and one in three live in poverty. Latinos do not fare much better. Chicago may be extreme in this regard, but it is by no means unique. While the ethnic composition of poverty may change depending on the country, its dynamics will doubtless be familiar to pretty much all of the G8 participants and most of the Nato delegates too. The gated communities - like the one in which Trayvon Martin was killed - have been erected on a global scale to protect those fleeing the mayhem wrought by our economic and military policies. This was exemplified last March when a boat with 72 African refugees fled the
Re: [Biofuel] The Plan to Kick Greece Out of the Eurozone
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-2 Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 by Alternet The Rise of the New Economy Movement Activists, theorists, organizations and ordinary citizens are rebuilding the American political-economic system from the ground up by Gar Alperovitz Just beneath the surface of traditional media attention, something vital has been gathering force and is about to explode into public consciousness. The "New Economy Movement" is a far-ranging coming together of organizations, projects, activists, theorists and ordinary citizens committed to rebuilding the American political-economic system from the ground up. The broad goal is democratized ownership of the economy for the "99 percent" in an ecologically sustainable and participatory community-building fashion. The name of the game is practical work in the here and now-and a hands-on process that is also informed by big picture theory and in-depth knowledge. Thousands of real world projects -- from solar-powered businesses to worker-owned cooperatives and state-owned banks -- are underway across the country. Many are self-consciously understood as attempts to develop working prototypes in state and local "laboratories of democracy" that may be applied at regional and national scale when the right political moment occurs. The movement includes young and old, "Occupy" people, student activists, and what one older participant describes as thousands of "people in their 60s from the '60s" rolling up their sleeves to apply some of the lessons of an earlier movement. Explosion of Energy A powerful trend of hands-on activity includes a range of economic models that change both ownership and ecological outcomes. Co-ops, for instance, are very much on target-especially those which emphasize participation and green concerns. The Evergreen Cooperatives in a desperately poor, predominantly black neighborhood of Cleveland, Ohio are a leading example. They include a worker-owned solar installation and weatherization co-op; a state-of-the-art, industrial-scale commercial laundry in a LEED-Gold certified building that uses-and therefore has to heat-only around a third of the water of other laundries; and a soon-to-open large scale hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing three million head of lettuce and 300,000 pounds of herbs a year. Hospitals and universities in the area have agreed to use the co-ops' services, and several cities-including Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Washington, DC and Amarillo, Texas are now exploring similar efforts. Other models fit into what author Marjorie Kelly calls the "generative economy"--efforts that inherently nurture the community and respect the natural environment. Organic Valley is a cooperative dairy producer in based in Wisconsin with more than $700 million in revenue and nearly 1,700 farmer-owners. Upstream 21 Corporation is a "socially responsible" holding company that purchases and expands sustainable small businesses. Greyston Bakery is a Yonkers, New York "B-Corporation" (a new type of corporation designed to benefit the public) that was initially founded to provide jobs for neighborhood residents. Today, Greystone generates around $6.5 million in annual sales. Recently, the United Steelworkers union broke modern labor movement tradition and entered into a historic agreement with the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center to help build worker-owned cooperatives in the United States along the lines of a new "union-co-op" model. The movement is also serious about building on earlier models. More than 130 million Americans, in fact, already belong to one or another form of cooperative-and especially the most widely known form: the credit union. Similarly, there are some 2,000 municipally owned utilities, a number of which are ecological leaders. (Twenty-five percent of American electricity is provided by co-ops and public utilities.) Upwards of 10 million Americans now also work at some 11,000 employee-owned firms (ESOP companies). More than 200 communities also operate or are establishing community land trusts that take land and housing out of the market and preserve it for the community. And hundreds of "social enterprises" use profits for social or community serving goals. Beyond these efforts, roughly 4,500 Community Development Corporations and 1.5 million non-profit organizations currently operate in every state in the nation. The movement is also represented by the "Move Your Money" and "bank transfer day" campaigns, widespread efforts to shift millions of dollars from corporate giants like Bank of America to one or another form of democratic or community-benefiting institution. Related to this are other "new banking" strategies. Since 2010, 17 states, for instance, have considered legislation to set up public banks along the lines of the long-standing Bank of North Dakota. Several cities-including Los An
Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse
Hi Darryl "Reduce, Recycle, Reuse" is a basic concept, for me it's been second nature for decades. But I'm not quite following you, and maybe I'm not the only one. Could you cite a couple of examples perhaps? >Agreed, FreeCycle is a great concept for physical items. I have been >using it for years. > >It's likely a stretch to try to present the issues and trusted thought >leaders repository as a re-use alternative, but in my mind the link is >clear. Re-use of information from trusted sources is how we build >knowledge, but in this particular area, I have not found the key >resources. I have a general level of faith in what I see from some >individuals and organizations (e.g., LeadNow.ca, Avaaz.org, >OpenMedia.ca), but I find I still have to look at each issue they >present individually. That's a lot of work for an individual. But we >have a lot of individuals. How do we divvy up the effort, and then >share the outcomes in an organized (rather than anecdotal) fashion? > >Darryl > >On 22/05/2012 10:10 PM, Ivan Menchero wrote: >> Hi Darryl, >> >> This works very well and is pretty much world wide www.freecycle.org I wish >> more people knew about it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ivan >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Darryl McMahon >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:20 AM >> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse >> >> Or Occupy Facebook. >> >> Fill the vacuous void with your message, and those you feel deserve more >> recognition. >> >> Right now, I am supporting the 'Pull for the Environment' walk, and >> trying to get the word out on multiple channels. >> >> http://www.xof1.com/pullfortheenvironment2012.php >> >> Trying to move social media beyond 'clicktivism'. >> >> Next week, something else (possibly rain barrels). >> >> http://rainbarrel.ca/weca/ >> >> As the rain barrels (like the dozen or so I have now) are re-used pickle >> or olive barrels, they make a nice re-use initiative. I made my own >> before they were available commercially. Nice to see there is enough >> demand now that somebody is trying to make a living at it. (I have no >> commercial interest in this event, and am volunteering to help with the >> distribution.) >> >> There are so many good causes that need resources, and so many people >> looking for ways to make a real contribution. I have so many issues >> facing me that I have to triage, and work on the ones where I think I >> can make a solid, possibly unique, contribution. For the others, I can >> only hope there are others working on those issues. What I really need >> is a trusted network of people, indicating which issues they are leading >> on, so I can focus my efforts elsewhere, and helping them out when they >> need it, without having to research a topic myself to see if it is >> legitimate or a waste of time, and if the proponent is trustworthy, or a >> front for another agenda. Does anyone know of such a 'clearinghouse' or >> repository for issues or thought-leaders? If so, I would really like to >> re-use that! >> >> Darryl >> >> On 22/05/2012 4:30 PM, Keith Addison wrote: >>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/22/the-rise-of-reuse/ >>> >>> MAY 22, 2012 >>> >>> An Alternative to Throw-Away Corporate Culture >>> >>> The Rise of Reuse >>> >>> by RALPH NADER >>> >>> Last week I read that the glitzy world of virtual reality created >>> instant multi-millionaires and several billionaires when Facebook >>> went public selling shares. >>> >>> Last week I also noted the important real world problem of some 250 >>> million tons of solid waste a year in our country alone. >>> >>> Guess which "world" gets the most investment, status, fame, klieg >>> lights, and attention of the skilled classes and the power structure? >>> >>> Guess which world is more important for our wellbeing and that of the >>> planet? >>> >>> You've heard of CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's 900 users >>> exchanging gossip and other personal pleasantries or worries through >>> a medium that inflates narcissism. > >> >>> You've probably not heard of Ben Rose of the New York City Materials > >> Exchange Development Program (NYC MEDP) or the equivalent >>> organizations in your communities providing services to thousands of >>> charitable non-profit groups which promote the donating and reusing >>> of materials to avoid incineration, landfilling and recycling. >>> >>> To grasp the enormity of modern society's waste products, Ann Leonard >>> created a sparkling website, visited by millions of people >>> (www.storyofstuff.org). She also published a recent popular book >>> titled "The Story of Stuff" that details every aspect of your >>> environment and physical being. Air, water, food, soil and even your >>> genes absorb the byproducts of processing mountains of stuff. The >>> results are not pretty. >>> >>> While recycling efforts in cities like San Francisco, Vancouver and
Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse
Agreed, FreeCycle is a great concept for physical items. I have been using it for years. It's likely a stretch to try to present the issues and trusted thought leaders repository as a re-use alternative, but in my mind the link is clear. Re-use of information from trusted sources is how we build knowledge, but in this particular area, I have not found the key resources. I have a general level of faith in what I see from some individuals and organizations (e.g., LeadNow.ca, Avaaz.org, OpenMedia.ca), but I find I still have to look at each issue they present individually. That's a lot of work for an individual. But we have a lot of individuals. How do we divvy up the effort, and then share the outcomes in an organized (rather than anecdotal) fashion? Darryl On 22/05/2012 10:10 PM, Ivan Menchero wrote: > Hi Darryl, > > This works very well and is pretty much world wide www.freecycle.org I wish > more people knew about it. > > Regards, > > Ivan > > -Original Message- > From: Darryl McMahon > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:20 AM > To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse > > Or Occupy Facebook. > > Fill the vacuous void with your message, and those you feel deserve more > recognition. > > Right now, I am supporting the 'Pull for the Environment' walk, and > trying to get the word out on multiple channels. > > http://www.xof1.com/pullfortheenvironment2012.php > > Trying to move social media beyond 'clicktivism'. > > Next week, something else (possibly rain barrels). > > http://rainbarrel.ca/weca/ > > As the rain barrels (like the dozen or so I have now) are re-used pickle > or olive barrels, they make a nice re-use initiative. I made my own > before they were available commercially. Nice to see there is enough > demand now that somebody is trying to make a living at it. (I have no > commercial interest in this event, and am volunteering to help with the > distribution.) > > There are so many good causes that need resources, and so many people > looking for ways to make a real contribution. I have so many issues > facing me that I have to triage, and work on the ones where I think I > can make a solid, possibly unique, contribution. For the others, I can > only hope there are others working on those issues. What I really need > is a trusted network of people, indicating which issues they are leading > on, so I can focus my efforts elsewhere, and helping them out when they > need it, without having to research a topic myself to see if it is > legitimate or a waste of time, and if the proponent is trustworthy, or a > front for another agenda. Does anyone know of such a 'clearinghouse' or > repository for issues or thought-leaders? If so, I would really like to > re-use that! > > Darryl > > On 22/05/2012 4:30 PM, Keith Addison wrote: >> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/22/the-rise-of-reuse/ >> >> MAY 22, 2012 >> >> An Alternative to Throw-Away Corporate Culture >> >> The Rise of Reuse >> >> by RALPH NADER >> >> Last week I read that the glitzy world of virtual reality created >> instant multi-millionaires and several billionaires when Facebook >> went public selling shares. >> >> Last week I also noted the important real world problem of some 250 >> million tons of solid waste a year in our country alone. >> >> Guess which "world" gets the most investment, status, fame, klieg >> lights, and attention of the skilled classes and the power structure? >> >> Guess which world is more important for our wellbeing and that of the >> planet? >> >> You've heard of CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's 900 users >> exchanging gossip and other personal pleasantries or worries through >> a medium that inflates narcissism. >> >> You've probably not heard of Ben Rose of the New York City Materials >> Exchange Development Program (NYC MEDP) or the equivalent >> organizations in your communities providing services to thousands of >> charitable non-profit groups which promote the donating and reusing >> of materials to avoid incineration, landfilling and recycling. >> >> To grasp the enormity of modern society's waste products, Ann Leonard >> created a sparkling website, visited by millions of people >> (www.storyofstuff.org). She also published a recent popular book >> titled "The Story of Stuff" that details every aspect of your >> environment and physical being. Air, water, food, soil and even your >> genes absorb the byproducts of processing mountains of stuff. The >> results are not pretty. >> >> While recycling efforts in cities like San Francisco, Vancouver and >> Los Angeles rise above 50 percent, New York City has been slipping >> behind its own 2002 level and is still struggling to reach 20 >> percent. New York City has been a leader in improving air quality and >> reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it still has dreaded >> incinerators producing toxic air and toxic residues. >> >> In the early 90s, pragmatic environmental scientist, Pr
Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse
Hi Darryl, This works very well and is pretty much world wide www.freecycle.org I wish more people knew about it. Regards, Ivan -Original Message- From: Darryl McMahon Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:20 AM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Rise of Reuse Or Occupy Facebook. Fill the vacuous void with your message, and those you feel deserve more recognition. Right now, I am supporting the 'Pull for the Environment' walk, and trying to get the word out on multiple channels. http://www.xof1.com/pullfortheenvironment2012.php Trying to move social media beyond 'clicktivism'. Next week, something else (possibly rain barrels). http://rainbarrel.ca/weca/ As the rain barrels (like the dozen or so I have now) are re-used pickle or olive barrels, they make a nice re-use initiative. I made my own before they were available commercially. Nice to see there is enough demand now that somebody is trying to make a living at it. (I have no commercial interest in this event, and am volunteering to help with the distribution.) There are so many good causes that need resources, and so many people looking for ways to make a real contribution. I have so many issues facing me that I have to triage, and work on the ones where I think I can make a solid, possibly unique, contribution. For the others, I can only hope there are others working on those issues. What I really need is a trusted network of people, indicating which issues they are leading on, so I can focus my efforts elsewhere, and helping them out when they need it, without having to research a topic myself to see if it is legitimate or a waste of time, and if the proponent is trustworthy, or a front for another agenda. Does anyone know of such a 'clearinghouse' or repository for issues or thought-leaders? If so, I would really like to re-use that! Darryl On 22/05/2012 4:30 PM, Keith Addison wrote: > http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/22/the-rise-of-reuse/ > > MAY 22, 2012 > > An Alternative to Throw-Away Corporate Culture > > The Rise of Reuse > > by RALPH NADER > > Last week I read that the glitzy world of virtual reality created > instant multi-millionaires and several billionaires when Facebook > went public selling shares. > > Last week I also noted the important real world problem of some 250 > million tons of solid waste a year in our country alone. > > Guess which "world" gets the most investment, status, fame, klieg > lights, and attention of the skilled classes and the power structure? > > Guess which world is more important for our wellbeing and that of the > planet? > > You've heard of CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's 900 users > exchanging gossip and other personal pleasantries or worries through > a medium that inflates narcissism. > > You've probably not heard of Ben Rose of the New York City Materials > Exchange Development Program (NYC MEDP) or the equivalent > organizations in your communities providing services to thousands of > charitable non-profit groups which promote the donating and reusing > of materials to avoid incineration, landfilling and recycling. > > To grasp the enormity of modern society's waste products, Ann Leonard > created a sparkling website, visited by millions of people > (www.storyofstuff.org). She also published a recent popular book > titled "The Story of Stuff" that details every aspect of your > environment and physical being. Air, water, food, soil and even your > genes absorb the byproducts of processing mountains of stuff. The > results are not pretty. > > While recycling efforts in cities like San Francisco, Vancouver and > Los Angeles rise above 50 percent, New York City has been slipping > behind its own 2002 level and is still struggling to reach 20 > percent. New York City has been a leader in improving air quality and > reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it still has dreaded > incinerators producing toxic air and toxic residues. > > In the early 90s, pragmatic environmental scientist, Professor Barry > Commoner demonstrated in two operational pilot projects that the city > could reach a residential recycling level of nearly 100 percent. > Unfortunately, New York City missed a chance to become a world leader > in recycling when its leaders, beginning with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, > declined to establish a city-wide recycling program based on > Professor Commoner's model. > > The New York City recycling challenge still hasn't recovered from > that devastatingly wrongheaded decision. Politicians and corporations > cannot stop an even superior environmental cycle, presently driven by > charitable associations, in Mr. Rose's words, "nimbly accepting, > exchanging and distributing thousands of tons of reusable material > each year", as they have done for generations, "all the while > contributing to the social, economic and environmental fabric of New > York City." Over the decades, the recipients have been communities in > need, such as homele
