I'm particularly happy theirs people on this list with an interest in science and engineering that help us amoungst their other interests.
> Appal Energy wrote: > And all the better if they can produce their fuel using home grown fuel > rather than mined fossil fuels!!! > > TAS > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peggy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 7:09 PM > Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Fwd: Kyoto clears last hurdle / Scientists > againstBush/ U.S. can end oil use > > > Bull-oney! Farmers and community coops are essential to providing > > secure energy supplies and meeting environmental goals at affordable > > costs. > > > > Peggy > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Energy > > Scientists and Engineers For Change > > http://www.scientistsandengineersforchange.org/energy.php > > > > Science and engineering are essential for providing secure energy supplies > > and > > meeting environmental goals at an affordable cost. The risks of growing oil > > import dependence and the risks of future environmental problems such as > > climate change are not reflected in the price of energy. > > > > As a result, consumers, businesses, and even government agencies are > > under-investing in research and under-investing in energy-efficient > > products > > and innovative energy resources. Federal leadership is essential to provide > > both support for research and to create the needed incentives to invest in > > technologies that produce low-cost energy services and low levels of > > pollution. > > > > Fortunately, most of the innovations needed to drive US productivity and > > competitiveness over the coming decades can also result in highly > > productive use > > of energy, with minimal waste. Information technology and advanced sensor > > and > > control systems, strong and lightweight-materials, nano-technology, > > bio-technology > > and other innovations promise to achieve revolutionary gains in > > manufacturing > > and deliver better services more efficiently. > > > > Taking advantage of these opportunities requires a well-designed program of > > research and incentives. But it also demands recognition of the urgency and > > magnitude of the problem. The Bush administration has minimized or ignored > > the risks of climate change and other problems and relied on subsidizing > > existing oil businesses to address our energy problems. President Bush > > avoided > > even using the word "environment" in his 2004 State of the Union address. > > Kerry has been a strong supporter of energy and environmental research > > throughout his public career and spoke at the first Earth Day > > conference in March 1970. > > > > The Kerry Plan > > > > Kerry has a detailed program > > http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0806.pdf > > to combine re-invigorated basic research with incentives that encourage > > US businesses to produce efficient new products and energy sources. > > He would support: > > > > . Creation of a $20 billion program of incentives that will support > > development and production of highly efficient automobiles and > > trucks and a "clean fuels partnership" designed to have 20% of > > the US highway transportation fuels supplied by domestic > > resources by 2020 (now 2%). > > . Research on renewable energy and tax credits aimed at achieving the > > goal of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources, > > such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, by 2020. > > . Research on nuclear power and a pledge to base nuclear waste disposal > > policies on rigorous peer-reviewed science and analysis that leads to > > public understanding and confidence. > > . Strengthening the nonproliferation treaty by making it possible for > > nations to use nuclear power while maintaining effective > > international control and inspection of the entire fuel cycle. > > . Developing advanced "smart grid" control technologies to ensure the > > reliability of the electric grid and to enhance its resistance > > to terrorism. > > . $10 billion over the next decade to develop efficient, low-emission > > power from coal using gasification and other technologies. > > > > The Bush Record > > > > The Bush energy plan relies heavily on subsidizing > > conventional methods of producing fossil fuels and > > waiving environmental rules in Alaska and other > > regions to produce comparatively small amounts of energy. > > Even its own Energy Information Agency estimated that > > the plan would have a "negligible" impact on energy production > > and prices. Under this administration US oil imports have grown from > > 58.2 percent of the oil consumed in the United States in 2000 to > > 61.7 percent today. - and most forecasts suggest > > increasing import dependency if existing programs are continued. > > > > The Bush program highlighted on his campaign website claims > > credit for a number of energy efficiency tax credits and > > other proposals added to the energy bill, as well as a > > program to increase the reliability of the grid. These > > programs are, however, small parts of an exorbitantly > > expensive energy bill handing out such large subsidies to > > existing energy producers that the Bush administration has > > failed to get its own energy bill passed by the Republican > > controlled Congress. Attempts to separate programs such as > > grid reliability from the overall bill have failed because > > entrenched energy interests refuse to compromise and the > > Administration has not used its influence to > > allow critical programs to begin. > > > > The central technology objective of the administration is > > hydrogen - a technology that has many potential liabilities and > > can at best can only have a major impact a generation from now. > > Hydrogen clearly merits support as a long- range research project > > (and is supported by Kerry), but only as a part of a balanced > > program of basic and applied research and appropriate incentives > > for adopting innovations. > > > > The Administration's budget proposes to cut > > overall energy research by 2.3% over the next five years and > > plans to reduce energy efficiency research by 11.2 percent > > (adjusted for inflation) between 2004 and 2005. > > The EPA research budget is cut 12% during the same period. > > A 10.5% cut in NOAA funding is also planned for the next 5 years. > > > > The Bush administration has consistently ignored the advice of > > the science community on Climate Change, including a report the > > administration commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences > > and a report from DoD warning that climate change could lead to > > serious world problems in coming decades. The administration > > forced EPA to drop references to the study in its > > 2003 State of the Environment Report. Most critically, it > > has blocked ratification of the international agreement > > attempting to constrain worldwide production of greenhouse gasses. > > There may be legitimate reasons to object to the Kyoto proposals, but > > the administration has made no counterproposal of any kind. Its > > entire climate plan appears to rest on voluntary actions by > > industry; although by last count only 14 companies had signed up. > > > > > > > EMS UPDATE - Sept 30, 2004 > > > > > > > > > KYOTO CLEARS LAST HURDLE > > > > > > News stories & press releases: http://www.ems.org > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > > > > SCIENTISTS BEGIN TOUR TO OPPOSE BUSH > > > > > > Scientists and Engineers for Change, a group that includes 10 Nobel > > > laureates, has begun a tour to battleground states to highlight the > > > misuse of science by the Bush administration. > > > > > > "I am not a Democrat and I have never played a significant role in > > > politics," said Dr. Douglas Osheroff, a Nobel-winning professor of physics > > > at Stanford who is a part of the group. "We must begin to address climate > > > change now. To do so, we must have an administration that listens to the > > > scientific community, not one that manipulates and minimizes scientific > > > input." > > > > > > Tour stops are scheduled for Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, > > > New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia and Wisconsin. > > > > > > Press release, news: http://www.ems.org > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > > > > STUDY: U.S. CAN END OIL USE > > > > > > A Pentagon-cofunded blueprint for making the United States oil-free, > > > released September 20 by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), finds that by > > > 2015 the United States can save more oil than it gets from the Persian > > > Gulf -- and can eliminate its oil use altogether by 2050. The plan > > > achieves > > > a net cost savings for the United States and does not require taxation or > > > regulation. > > > > > > The plan, "Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and > > > Security," would eliminate half of U.S. oil use through improved > > > efficiency, > > > and the other half through the use of biofuels and natural gas. > > > > > > "Because saving and substituting oil costs less than buying it, our study > > > finds a net savings of $70 billion a year," said RMI CEO Amory Lovins. > > > > > > More: http://www.ems.org _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
