Re: [Biofuel] briquette machine
I was wondering about sagebrush. Ranchers in the west would pay you to cut it so the source is free + would smell nice too Nemo dat quod non habet From: Fritz Friesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] briquette machine Hi Kirk, briquettes and pellets from wood chips are ment to be from shavings and offcuts of regular production facilitys. I have since 2000 a briquttpress in my woodshop here in Quebec. At first the ministry of environment didnt allow me to heat my shop with briquettes! Oil was ok Pellets are a good source of heating,but for a woodshop not ideal because very sensytive about different shavings,you need allways the same shavings as per wood and sice of the shavings. Thats ok for big manufactures of woodenfloors,wich would have allways the same kind of shavings! All in all,a very good way of recycling wast. Not so for direct production of pellets and briquettes. The breaking down and drying of green wood takes to much energy and is therefor not the best solution! So the slogan: make your own biomass products is only good for woodshops of a certain size! Fritz www.boiseriestraditionnelles.ca -Original Message- From: Kirk McLoren Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 9:04 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] briquette machine http://www.biogreentech.com/ make your own biomass products Nemo dat quod non habet From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:51 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053 Volume 3 | Issue 1 | Feb 2012 Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein Perhaps one of the most well-known voices for the Left, Canadian Naomi Klein is an activist and author of several nonfiction works critical of consumerism and corporate activity, including the best sellers No Logo (2000) and Shock Doctrine (2007). -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120304/1453d2e2/attachment-0001.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] briquette machine
Hi Kirk, briquettes and pellets from wood chips are ment to be from shavings and offcuts of regular production facilitys. I have since 2000 a briquttpress in my woodshop here in Quebec. At first the ministry of environment didnt allow me to heat my shop with briquettes! Oil was ok Pellets are a good source of heating,but for a woodshop not ideal because very sensytive about different shavings,you need allways the same shavings as per wood and sice of the shavings. Thats ok for big manufactures of woodenfloors,wich would have allways the same kind of shavings! All in all,a very good way of recycling wast. Not so for direct production of pellets and briquettes. The breaking down and drying of green wood takes to much energy and is therefor not the best solution! So the slogan: make your own biomass products is only good for woodshops of a certain size! Fritz www.boiseriestraditionnelles.ca -Original Message- From: Kirk McLoren Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 9:04 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] briquette machine http://www.biogreentech.com/ make your own biomass products Nemo dat quod non habet From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:51 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053 Volume 3 | Issue 1 | Feb 2012 Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein Perhaps one of the most well-known voices for the Left, Canadian Naomi Klein is an activist and author of several nonfiction works critical of consumerism and corporate activity, including the best sellers No Logo (2000) and Shock Doctrine (2007). In your cover story for the Nation last year, you say that modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the political Left, including redistribution of wealth, higher and more progressive taxes, and greater government intervention and regulation. Please explain. The piece came out of my interest and my shock at the fact that belief in climate change in the United States has plummeted. If you really drill into the polling data, what you see is that the drop in belief in climate change is really concentrated on the right of the political spectrum. It's been an extraordinary and unusual shift in belief in a short time. In 2007, 71 percent of Americans believed in climate change and in 2009 only 51 percent believed-and now we're at 41 percent. So I started researching the denial movement and going to conferences and reading the books, and what's clear is that, on the right, climate change is seen as a threat to the Right's worldview, and to the neoliberal economic worldview. It's seen as a Marxist plot. They accuse climate scientists of being watermelons-green on the outside and red on the inside. It seems exaggerated, but your piece was about how the Right is in fact correct. I don't think climate change necessitates a social revolution. This idea is coming from the right-wing think tanks and not scientific organizations. They're ideological organizations. Their core reason for being is to defend what they call free-market ideology. They feel that any government intervention leads us to serfdom and brings about a socialist world, so that's what they have to fight off: a socialist world. Increase the power of the private sector and decrease the public sphere is their ideology. You can set up carbon markets, consumer markets, and just pretend, but if you want to get serious about climate change, really serious, in line with the science, and you want to meet targets like 80 percent emissions cuts by midcentury in the developed world, then you need to be intervening strongly in the economy, and you can't do it all with carbon markets and offsetting. You have to really seriously regulate corporations and invest in the public sector. And we need to build public transport systems and light rail and affordable housing along transit lines to lower emissions. The market is not going to step up to this challenge. We must do more: rebuild levees and bridges and the public sphere, because we saw in Katrina what happens when weak infrastructure clashes with heavy weather-it's catastrophe. These climate deniers aren't crazy-their worldview is under threat. If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook. What is the political philosophy that underscores those who accept climate change versus those who deny it? The Yale cultural cognition project has looked at cultural worldview and climate change, and what's clear is that ideology is the main factor in whether we believe in climate change. If you have an egalitarian and communitarian worldview, and you tend toward a belief system of pooling resources and helpin
[Biofuel] briquette machine
http://www.biogreentech.com/ make your own biomass products Nemo dat quod non habet From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:51 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053 Volume 3 | Issue 1 | Feb 2012 Throwing Out the Free Market Playbook: An Interview with Naomi Klein Perhaps one of the most well-known voices for the Left, Canadian Naomi Klein is an activist and author of several nonfiction works critical of consumerism and corporate activity, including the best sellers No Logo (2000) and Shock Doctrine (2007). In your cover story for the Nation last year, you say that modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the political Left, including redistribution of wealth, higher and more progressive taxes, and greater government intervention and regulation. Please explain. The piece came out of my interest and my shock at the fact that belief in climate change in the United States has plummeted. If you really drill into the polling data, what you see is that the drop in belief in climate change is really concentrated on the right of the political spectrum. It's been an extraordinary and unusual shift in belief in a short time. In 2007, 71 percent of Americans believed in climate change and in 2009 only 51 percent believed-and now we're at 41 percent. So I started researching the denial movement and going to conferences and reading the books, and what's clear is that, on the right, climate change is seen as a threat to the Right's worldview, and to the neoliberal economic worldview. It's seen as a Marxist plot. They accuse climate scientists of being watermelons-green on the outside and red on the inside. It seems exaggerated, but your piece was about how the Right is in fact correct. I don't think climate change necessitates a social revolution. This idea is coming from the right-wing think tanks and not scientific organizations. They're ideological organizations. Their core reason for being is to defend what they call free-market ideology. They feel that any government intervention leads us to serfdom and brings about a socialist world, so that's what they have to fight off: a socialist world. Increase the power of the private sector and decrease the public sphere is their ideology. You can set up carbon markets, consumer markets, and just pretend, but if you want to get serious about climate change, really serious, in line with the science, and you want to meet targets like 80 percent emissions cuts by midcentury in the developed world, then you need to be intervening strongly in the economy, and you can't do it all with carbon markets and offsetting. You have to really seriously regulate corporations and invest in the public sector. And we need to build public transport systems and light rail and affordable housing along transit lines to lower emissions. The market is not going to step up to this challenge. We must do more: rebuild levees and bridges and the public sphere, because we saw in Katrina what happens when weak infrastructure clashes with heavy weather-it's catastrophe. These climate deniers aren't crazy-their worldview is under threat. If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook. What is the political philosophy that underscores those who accept climate change versus those who deny it? The Yale cultural cognition project has looked at cultural worldview and climate change, and what's clear is that ideology is the main factor in whether we believe in climate change. If you have an egalitarian and communitarian worldview, and you tend toward a belief system of pooling resources and helping the less advantaged, then you believe in climate change. And the stronger your belief system tends toward a hierarchical or individual worldview, the greater the chances are that you deny climate change and the stronger your denial will be. The reason is clear: it's because people protect their worldviews. We all do this. We develop intellectual antibodies. Climate change confirms what people on the left already believe. But the Left must take this confirmation responsibly. It means that if you are on the left of the spectrum, you need to guard against exaggeration and your own tendency to unquestioningly accept the data because it confirms your worldview. Members of the Left have been resistant to acknowledging that this worldview is behind their support of climate action, while the Right confronts it head on. Why this hesitancy among liberals? There are a few factors at work. Climate change is not a big issue for the Left. The big left issues in the United States are inequality, the banks, corporate malfeasance, unemployment, foreclosures. I don't think climate change
