Re: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler
Where do you live ? Met vriendelijke groet, Pieter Koole Netherlands ___ 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/
[Biofuel] GLOBAL WARMING IN TEXAS
It has NOT got down to zero since december '90 in west texas.Zero and below was an annual event here [usually several times] until then.15 degrees is our lowest temperature now days.January 1,1985 a blizzard came into texas;we were living in odessa where we observed an unofficial 22 below with our nasty wind out here putting it down way below zero.My dad remembered long spells of below zero when he and other locals would pull their tires off and race on lakes and rivers on their steel wheels [we have very few rivers or lakes].This was before my lifetime [58].We believe in global warming and colorado is looking real good to us in summers. ___ 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/
[Biofuel] List Quiet?
Is there something wrong with MY server, YOUR server, or American Politics? The list seems THIN since the New Year... -K ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Help about biodiesel??
Dear UL - What part of Ireland are you planning your study...the whole of Ireland or around Dublin? I had a chance to visit Dublin. We met the Mayor and City Manager of Dublin for our International MBA course. The City Manager discussed the traffic issues and the new tunnel that will extend underground to the high tech industrial park near Dublin. We stayed near the central park and later visited Apple Computer, and the Guiness plant. I studied the petroleum sector...Statoil, BP, Texaco, Totalfina Chevron, etc. You find much help on the Journey to Forever Website by doing search words in the JTF search engine. --- ULStudent:Mark.O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am researching a project on biodiesel in Ireland. What I am looking at is identifing what needs to be done (fiscal incentives,grants, research support, financial support etc..) to develop the market for biodiesel in Ireland, with particular reference to rapeseed, using the experience of other countries to make my case. If anyone could be of any help at all I would really appreciate it. ___ 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/ __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ___ 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/
[Biofuel] Let Them Eat Rocket Fuel
Let Them Eat Rocket Fuel Erik D. Olson January 27, 2005 The fact that there's a rocket fuel additive called perchlorate in your water is bad enough. What's worse is the fact that the Bush administration likely manipulated the National Academy of Sciences to designate a lax perchlorate standard. The National Resources Defense Council sued the White House, Defense Department and EPA to release documents relating to perchlorate contamination and the NAS. What they found was evidence of an elaborate campaign designed to downplay the hazards of a dangerous chemical. Erik D. Olsen is a senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council specializing in safe drinking water issues. He is the national coordinator of the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water, a coalition of more than 300 public interest groups dedicated to improved drinking water protection. More than 20 million Americans have rocket fuel in their drinking water. That's right. Rocket fuel. It's also likely in your milk. And in your lettuce, too, because farmers out West inadvertently use rocket-fuel-contaminated water to irrigate their crops. You might not think that's a good thing. Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency didn't, either. Especially since a toxic salt in rocket fuel, called perchlorate, can harm the thyroid and may disrupt fetal and newborn brain development. In 2002, EPA proposed a safe level in drinking water of only 1 part per billion. That's equivalent to half a teaspoon of perchlorate in an Olympic-size swimming pool. The Pentagon and its contractors-who have polluted food and drinking water across the country-argued that 200 parts per billion is safe. Earlier this month, a National Academy of Sciences panel issued a report finding that on a per body-weight basis, more perchlorate can be tolerated than the EPA had concluded-but still far less than what the Pentagon and its corporate pals had claimed. Why was NAS' conclusion higher than EPA's? Perhaps NAS was responding to enormous pressure from the White House, the Defense Department, and defense contractors. According to government documents recently obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council, they collaborated in a backroom campaign to try to strong-arm the academy and manipulate the report. Despite this campaign, the panel did conclude that low levels of perchlorate exposure may cause health problems, and that fetuses are at particular risk. For decades, the Defense Department and its contractors have carelessly used millions of pounds of perchlorate, contaminating water and food supplies. At the same time, the Pentagon has been blocking EPA efforts to address perchlorate pollution, and in the last few years it intensified its campaign in the face of new revelations about perchlorate's harmful effects. In January 2002, when EPA recommended that 1 ppb was the safe level in drinking water, the Pentagon and its contractors lobbied to stop the assessment process and-with the help of the White House-wrested the assessment from EPA and handed it to NAS in 2003. Then the White House, the Pentagon and its contractors went to work to influence the NAS process. NRDC sued the White House, Defense Department and EPA in March 2004 after they ignored more than a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests, refusing to disclose any records documenting their campaign to steamroll NAS or details of the perchlorate problem. In response to the suit, the White House and the two agencies recently provided about 30 boxes of documents to NRDC, but are still withholding thousands of other records-including virtually all the key papers documenting White House and Pentagon efforts to influence NAS. However, they were required by court order to issue a Vaughn Index describing each of the withheld documents. This index reveals an extraordinary level of White House and Pentagon effort to limit the scope of NAS' inquiry and select the panelists, as well as collaboration with DOD contractors to pressure the panel. Scientists at the EPA, in state agencies, and in academia have concluded that very low levels of perchlorate threaten fetusus' and infants' health. The NAS panel's recommendation for a safe level is based on industry studies that fed perchlorate to a small number of healthy adults for a short time. Those studies tell us little about how perchlorate can harm fetuses or infants, or harm adults over a longer period of time (particularly millions of Americans with thyroid problems or who are iodine deficient). Studies of animals, also funded by the industry, showed that perchlorate may cause abnormal brain development in young rodents, but accepting the arguments of the Pentagon and industry, the academy said more studies are needed to prove that these same effects would occur in infants and children. Still, in an implicit nod to the possible effects of perchlorate on babies, the NAS panel
Re: [Biofuel] List Quiet?
Is there something wrong with MY server, YOUR server, or American Politics? The first two are probably okay, dunno about the third... :-) The list seems THIN since the New Year... 908 messages in 27 days, that's 34 messages a day, more than it was when we were still at Yahoo, about 10 times more than any of the other groups, but a bit less than average since we moved to Martin's site, which has been about 40 a day, and up to 60 a day. Are you having withdrawal symptoms? Do we need to institute a crash program to get you more Biofuel messages before you break out in carbuncles? LOL! Regards Keith -K ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler
Do you produce biodiesel? or you build plants? I am writing from Italy. Do you know Trieste? Bye!!! Dr Ezio Di Bernardo Where do you live ? Met vriendelijke groet, Pieter Koole Netherlands ___ 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/ 6X velocizzare la tua navigazione a 56k? 6X Web Accelerator di Libero! Scaricalo su INTERNET GRATIS 6X http://www.libero.it ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler
Hello Pieter. I live in Sweden, but as I mentioned, I can consider moving overseas. Please address me further on to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] With best regards Jan Warnqvist + 46 554 201 89 +46 70 499 38 45 - Original Message - From: Pieter Koole [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler Where do you live ? Met vriendelijke groet, Pieter Koole Netherlands ___ 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/ ___ 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/
[Biofuel] paper chromatography
I have a student who is studying biodiesel as his chemistry project. We have located a method of thin Layer Chromatography for the quality analysis but he also wants to try paper chromatography. We ahve tried some solvents but they only work for the glycerides layer. Does anyone have a method that works for paper chromatography. regards Liz Palmer ___ 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/
[Biofuel] Biodiesel equipment
Hi, I am a new member of this group. I am a PhD student and in my institute we are going to start a project on biodiesel production, from waste frying oil and seed oil through transesterification method, for this reason we are looking for an equipment. Could anyone help me about it. Thank you very much for your concern. I remain. Best Regards, Selen Gurbuz - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] paper chromatography
Liz, I have a student who is studying biodiesel as his chemistry project. We have located a method of thin Layer Chromatography for the quality analysis but he also wants to try paper chromatography. We ahve tried some solvents but they only work for the glycerides layer. Does anyone have a method that works for paper chromatography. To analyze what? MG, DG and TG content? I don't think paper chrom' will work, because the stains will smear too much on paper. PC is more adapt for ion detection, sodium, phosphate ... at least what I did in high school. Cheers, Aleks ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Let Them Eat Rocket Fuel
Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/let_them_eat_rocket_fuel.php Let Them Eat Rocket Fuel Erik D. Olson January 27, 2005 The fact that there's a rocket fuel additive called perchlorate in your water is bad enough. What's worse is the fact that the Bush administration likely manipulated the National Academy of Sciences to designate a lax perchlorate standard. The National Resources Defense Council sued the White House, Defense Department and EPA to release documents relating to perchlorate contamination and the NAS. What they found was evidence of an elaborate campaign designed to downplay the hazards of a dangerous chemical.snip How would perchlorate be removed from drinking water? Simple or complex process? Inexpensive or expensive? 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/ - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel equipment
- Original Message - From: Selen Grbz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 7:20 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Biodiesel equipment Hi, I am a new member of this group. I am a PhD student and in my institute we are going to start a project on biodiesel production, from waste frying oil and seed oil through transesterification method, for this reason we are looking for an equipment. Could anyone help me about it. Thank you very much for your concern. I remain. Actually the best equipment is the one you make yourself. You customize it to your needs in view of automation, simplicity, volume ect. There are several processor examples on the JtF site that you can draw ideas from. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor.html That said, however, it has been mentioned here more than a few times to stay away from the pre-fabricated poly-cone type processors as they are not what they claim to be, are exopessive without justification and do not produce a product that is near the quality you can do your self. Besides, in the environment you are in building yor own reactor/wash tank system could be viewed as part of the learning curve, and would help you also better understand what is happening during the transesterification process and it's subsequent road to completion as top rated usable fuel. Study the material on the JtF site carefully and don't try to skip any steps and you will get there. Use the highest quality equipment you can IE: scales, measuring containers,chemicals (NaOH or KOH) and work in an atmosphere that promotes safety and sufficient warmth not to interfere with the reaction. Luc Best Regards, Selen Gurbuz - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
--- Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering the fact that the sun only radiates so much heat per minute, hour, day or year, your colder than normal means that someone else has a hotter than normal. NOT TRUE You statement shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The sun may radiate about the same amount of heat but the earth also radiates heat, the greenhouse gases trap some of that radiation - hence global warming. Global cooling could result from dust or moisture in the atmosphere dissipating some of the sun's radiation. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler
- Original Message - From: Vincent zadworny [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biomailinglist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler hi everyone, i am just starting out on this crazy journey into alternate feuls. Congratulations on getting started on a rewarding future. i have been practiceing my titration and making small 1 liter batches in a blender from fresh canola oil bought from the corner store. it all seems to be going great. after settling over night the liquids seperate into two layers no shadow or middle layer. i left one batch sitting for about 2 weeks and the diesel became transparent. Question #1 - do i still have to wash this transparent diesel??? Yes, there remains amounts of methanol and catalyst in the fuel that needs to be washed out. titrated some WVO and did a test batch of it too. the first time my math was off and i used to little lye, realized my mistake and made up a second. this time it seemed to work but doesn't pass the 150ml quality test on the JTF site. it didn't seperate in the alloted time but after settling over night it did. But did it seperate into two clearly distinctive layers ? Usually 30 minutes will do it. Question #2 - i and working in a cold wearhouse. could that be the problem?? For a small test batch I don't know, however for larger batches I have found it a factor not to be dismissed. Processing temperature at 55C and settling overnight should allow about 49C or there abouts still at the draining of the glycerine layer after settling. The batches I made in warm weather worked this wat and were a charm. Those I did after the weather turned cooler weren't so cooperative as the water I used to wash was the same but had cooled off as had the temps inside the reactor. The only factors that changed were the temperatures, everything else was identical, which is what led me to believe that the colder temps factored in a problem. Problem that I am in the process of removing from the equasion by insulating the pump house where the reactor is stored and bringing in a small ceramic heater to keep the ambient temps at livable summer temps (22C). This won't worl for late December through early March but it will for the late fall and early Spring allowing me to produce up to those times and have enough stored to carry me through until I can get at it again. I am also presently expanding my system to allow for double capacity a la JtF 90 liter type set up with a secondary settling tank. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor10.html Care to have a snoop ? http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor12.html Stick with it, you will get there, and through the ups and downs you will learn the necessary lessons to help you troubleshoot any problems that come up, and then be able to pass on the knowledge you have gained that could be of help to someone else. Luc any help would be welcomed Vincent Zadworny Vancouver, Canada - Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
How can you proclaim NOT TRUE and then come back two sentences later and say to be true exactly what you declared to be NOT TRUE? If you went back to the post, my statements only relay that just because someone says that they're freezing their tuckas off more than they ever have before at one geographic location doesn't mean that the world isn't warming. It also implies that the human tuckas is not much of an indicator of actual temperature. Nor is the barometer that rests on the shoulders of the person who relies on their tuckas as an absolute indicator. Just because I don't choose to lay out a step-by-step, Ned and the Primer explanation of the total picture - both causes and effects - everytime a denialist raises his head doesn't mean that there is any lack of understanding of the mechanisms, contributors and consequences. I take it you didn't go to the web addy that was provided in the post? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm It made note of how one of the consequences of global warming could all too likely be global cooling. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return,Warns Leading Climate Expert --- Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering the fact that the sun only radiates so much heat per minute, hour, day or year, your colder than normal means that someone else has a hotter than normal. NOT TRUE You statement shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The sun may radiate about the same amount of heat but the earth also radiates heat, the greenhouse gases trap some of that radiation - hence global warming. Global cooling could result from dust or moisture in the atmosphere dissipating some of the sun's radiation. ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
Ken is right. The statement 'colder than normal' means that someone else has a 'hotter than normal'. could only be true if the same amount of energy reaches the Earth's surface every day. Changes in the ozone layer changes the amount of energy reaching the Earths surface. The greenhouse effect addresses the Earth's ability to absorb or filter certain wave lengths of light. When you're in front of a large, open flame, you feel the heat radiated from the fire. Hold a pane of glass in front of your face and you will notice that it doesn't feel as hot. That's how I visualize the ozone layer at work. FYI: This isn't an original idea. Someone thought of this comparison long before me. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=greenhouse+effect+explained+fireplaceei=UTF-8fr=FP-tab-web-tfl=0x=wrt Mike Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Appal Energy wrote: Considering the fact that the sun only radiates so much heat per minute, hour, day or year, your colder than normal means that someone else has a hotter than normal. NOT TRUE You statement shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The sun may radiate about the same amount of heat but the earth also radiates heat, the greenhouse gases trap some of that radiation - hence global warming. Global cooling could result from dust or moisture in the atmosphere dissipating some of the sun's radiation. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
Todd, I think I stepped in something here. I don't agree 100% with Kens explanation. But, he does address how heat energy absorbed by the Earth can vary due to green house gasses. I'm stepping away from this one if it turns confrontational. It's not worth the time and ENERGY and I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Mike Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken, How can you proclaim NOT TRUE and then come back two sentences later and say to be true exactly what you declared to be NOT TRUE? If you went back to the post, my statements only relay that just because someone says that they're freezing their tuckas off more than they ever have before at one geographic location doesn't mean that the world isn't warming. It also implies that the human tuckas is not much of an indicator of actual temperature. Nor is the barometer that rests on the shoulders of the person who relies on their tuckas as an absolute indicator. Just because I don't choose to lay out a step-by-step, Ned and the Primer explanation of the total picture - both causes and effects - everytime a denialist raises his head doesn't mean that there is any lack of understanding of the mechanisms, contributors and consequences. I take it you didn't go to the web addy that was provided in the post? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm It made note of how one of the consequences of global warming could all too likely be global cooling. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Ken Riznyk To: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return,Warns Leading Climate Expert --- Appal Energy wrote: Considering the fact that the sun only radiates so much heat per minute, hour, day or year, your colder than normal means that someone else has a hotter than normal. NOT TRUE You statement shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The sun may radiate about the same amount of heat but the earth also radiates heat, the greenhouse gases trap some of that radiation - hence global warming. Global cooling could result from dust or moisture in the atmosphere dissipating some of the sun's radiation. ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
When two people say the same thing, one of them cannot be right and the other wrong. While that may be the reality of politics, that's not reality. Please see my reply to Ken's post. As well, Ken made more than one statement of absolutism. When you state that he is right, you lend to a perception that all of his statements are correct. Note was made of at least two points of error in two of his conclusions. While his qualifications are correct, as are yours, his declarations of wrongness are in error. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return,Warns Leading Climate Expert Ken is right. The statement 'colder than normal' means that someone else has a 'hotter than normal'. could only be true if the same amount of energy reaches the Earth's surface every day. Changes in the ozone layer changes the amount of energy reaching the Earths surface. The greenhouse effect addresses the Earth's ability to absorb or filter certain wave lengths of light. When you're in front of a large, open flame, you feel the heat radiated from the fire. Hold a pane of glass in front of your face and you will notice that it doesn't feel as hot. That's how I visualize the ozone layer at work. FYI: This isn't an original idea. Someone thought of this comparison long before me. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=greenhouse+effect+explained+fireplaceei=UTF-8fr=FP-tab-web-tfl=0x=wrt Mike Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Appal Energy wrote: Considering the fact that the sun only radiates so much heat per minute, hour, day or year, your colder than normal means that someone else has a hotter than normal. NOT TRUE You statement shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The sun may radiate about the same amount of heat but the earth also radiates heat, the greenhouse gases trap some of that radiation - hence global warming. Global cooling could result from dust or moisture in the atmosphere dissipating some of the sun's radiation. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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/
re: [Biofuel] GLOBAL WARMING IN TEXAS
This was before my lifetime [58].We believe in global warming and colorado is looking real good to us in summers. Man, more texans in colorado... curse the good weather there. Just jokes. If you're going, live on the west side (much prettier and more water). -dave ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
No problem Todd. I gotcha, loud and clear. Even if Ken was 100% correct, I would have worded it a little differently and certainly would not have made presumptions as to what you don't know. That's just an invitation to a contest in which I prefer not to enter. Since you seem ready to accept such an invitation, I just want to say that I'm sorry about the misunderstanding and let's move on. These kinds of exchanges can consume an awful lot of time and I think we all have bigger fish to fry. Mike Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael, When two people say the same thing, one of them cannot be right and the other wrong. While that may be the reality of politics, that's not reality. Please see my reply to Ken's post. As well, Ken made more than one statement of absolutism. When you state that he is right, you lend to a perception that all of his statements are correct. Note was made of at least two points of error in two of his conclusions. While his qualifications are correct, as are yours, his declarations of wrongness are in error. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return,Warns Leading Climate Expert Ken is right. The statement 'colder than normal' means that someone else has a 'hotter than normal'. could only be true if the same amount of energy reaches the Earth's surface every day. Changes in the ozone layer changes the amount of energy reaching the Earths surface. The greenhouse effect addresses the Earth's ability to absorb or filter certain wave lengths of light. When you're in front of a large, open flame, you feel the heat radiated from the fire. Hold a pane of glass in front of your face and you will notice that it doesn't feel as hot. That's how I visualize the ozone layer at work. FYI: This isn't an original idea. Someone thought of this comparison long before me. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=greenhouse+effect+explained+fireplaceei=UTF-8fr=FP-tab-web-tfl=0x=wrt Mike Ken Riznyk wrote: --- Appal Energy wrote: Considering the fact that the sun only radiates so much heat per minute, hour, day or year, your colder than normal means that someone else has a hotter than normal. NOT TRUE You statement shows that you do not understand the greenhouse effect. The sun may radiate about the same amount of heat but the earth also radiates heat, the greenhouse gases trap some of that radiation - hence global warming. Global cooling could result from dust or moisture in the atmosphere dissipating some of the sun's radiation. __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] List Quiet?
on 1/27/05 11:33 PM, Keith Addison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you having withdrawal symptoms? Do we need to institute a crash program to get you more Biofuel messages before you break out in carbuncles? LOL! I think so! Anyway, I used to get a steady flow of messages throughout the day -- now there's a big glut in the morning (MY morning, of course) and a boring dry spell in the aft. Ah well, I'll get used to it :-)-K ___ 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/
[Biofuel] PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 25/01/05 PR Posing as Science in Crop Biotechnology Prof. Joe Cummins and mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dr. Mae-Wan Ho expose the corruption of traditional standards in science reporting of GM crops The emergence of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops has profoundly impacted scientific reporting not only in the popular media but also in peer- reviewed scientific journals. Public relations (pr) statements, once confined to the promotion of commercial products, now frequent the pages of scientific journals. Science was built on the foundations of full and truthful reporting of observations and findings; not anymore. If anything, scientific reports that expose the propaganda of corporations, government and academic promoters of GM crops are either rejected for publication outright, or gratuitously attacked when they appear in print; and the scientist(s) involved mercilessly prosecuted and victimized, as in the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his co-workers in the UK, who lost their jobs in 1998 or soon after; and Prof. Ignacio Chapela, researcher from the University of Berkeley, California, currently fighting to regain his tenure (http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0, 7843,1392979,00.html). In contrast, GM proponents are given free license to make pr statements posing as science. No Bt resistance? In the January issue of Nature Biotechnology, Sarah Bates and coworkers observe that transgenic plants expressing insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were first commercialized in 1996 amid concern from some scientists, regulators and environmentalists that the widespread use of Bt crops would inevitably lead to resistance and the loss of a 'public good,' specifically, the susceptibility of insect pests to Bt proteins. But, they continue with apparent self- satisfaction, Eight years later, Bt corn and cotton have been grown on a cumulative area 80 million ha worldwide. Despite dire predictions to the contrary, resistance to a Bt crop has yet to be documented, suggesting that resistance management strategies have been effective thus far. The resistance management strategies include planting non-GM acreage as refuge to slow down the evolution of resistant insect pests and the use of high toxin dosage along with pyramiding more than one toxin genes in a crop. In reality, however, the main reason that insect resistance has not been detected in the United States - not mentioned in the article - is that the US Environment Protection Agency has allowed the GM crop and refuge to be sprayed with chemical insecticides (see No Bt resistance? ISIS Report, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nobtresistance.php). Spraying with chemical insecticides protects the crops from pest damage in the refuge, and also kills off any insects resistant to the GM crops. The authors also failed to mention other factors that might affect the evolution of resistance - the use of synthetic toxin genes that differ in amino acid sequence from the natural toxin in commercial GM crops, and the variation in toxin production among different GM crops - although these factors are probably not as significant as spraying chemical insecticides in the refuge. Nevertheless, they could lead to underestimating the evolution of resistance by failing to detect resistant insects. Tests for insect resistance are frequently carried out using the toxin proteins isolated from bacteria and not the actual toxin produced in the GM crop. In Canada, chemical insecticides have not been allowed in the refuge of Bt crops until the upcoming growing season, but there does not appear to have been any effort to screen for resistance in that country. That paper is just the latest in a string of misleading reports that have been deliberately selective and incomplete in order to serve pr purposes. PR by misrepresentation, permissive substitution and surrogate testing Advocates have persistently maintained that GM crops are a simple extension of plant breeding and selection carried on for thousands of years. That fiction ignores the basic fact that GM crops are produced in the laboratory by illegitimate recombination ö a process whereby pieces of foreign DNA break the host genome to insert themselves at unpredictable places - while traditional plant breeding and selection depending largely on homologous (legitimate) recombination during reproduction. What is seldom stated is that GM crops are produced using synthetic approximations of natural bacterial genes, whether it is in conferring resistance to herbicides or to insect pests. The synthetic approximations of natural genes are used because the bacterial genes function poorly in plants, which use different codes for the same amino acids. Hence, synthetic genes could be 60% homologous with the bacterial genes in DNA sequence and
[Biofuel] ISP Bid to Stop US Rubber-Stamping Transgene Contamination
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 27/01/05 ISP Bid to Stop US Rubber-Stamping Transgene Contamination ISP submitted strong objections to US's proposed change in policy that would allow companies to contaminate the food supply with unauthorized test crops. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sis.org.ukMae-Wan Ho, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sis.org.ukSam Burcher and mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sis.org.ukRhea Gala http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/ISPbidFull.phpSources for this article are posted on ISIS members website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a proposal on 24 November 2004 that would allow experimental GM crops grown on test sites to legally enter the food chain. The proposal was open for comment until 24 January 2005. It came in response to a 2002 Bush administration initiative in the wake of widespread contamination in 2000 of US food supplies and exports with unauthorized Starlink GM corn, which continued to be detected in the US grain supply and in food shipments to Bolivia, Japan and South Korea as recently as autumn 2003. FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford described the proposed policy as a high priority for the Administration and the industry, to enhance public confidence, avoid product recalls, and provide an international model for similar policies around the world. Licence to spread contamination Bill Freese, research analyst with Friends of the Earth (US) said, FDA's new proposal has nothing to do with food safety, it's designed to provide biotech companies with legal cover for contaminating the food supply with experimental biotech traits. Such contamination has happened in the past and has cost biotech companies more than $1billion. Aside from Starlink, another experimental GM corn containing a pharmaceutical sprouted in a field of soya one year after the trial crop had been harvested. ProdiGene, the company responsible, paid out millions of dollars in damages and a $250 000 fine, although the product never reached the food chain. The US biotechnology and grain industries are already calling on the US government to vigorously promote global adoption of this policy. It is already virtually impossible to test for the presence of experimental GM food crops in foods imported from or processed in the US, because over two- thirds of US field trials of experimental GM crops involve one or more genes classified as confidential, which therefore cannot be identified and detected. Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe added: This will leave consumers worldwide exposed to new risks from genetically modified foods. Experiments that are known to the public include crops with radically altered nutritional content for use as animal feed, or anti-fungal compounds that resemble food allergens. Others include crops engineered to be resistant to chemical herbicides, produce their own insecticides or have sterile pollen or seeds. The FDA is also considering a similar proposal to allow residues from experimental pharmaceutical crops to enter the food chain. (See Ban Plant-based Transgenic Pharmaceuticals http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Banpharmcrops.php). Juan Lopez from Friends of the Earth International said: The Bush Administration, with the active support of the biotechnology industry, is about to force their untested genetically modified experiments into the world's food supply. This proposal should be ringing alarm bells in every consumer, every food company and every food agency of the planet. In line with the same policy proposal, Prof. Joe Cummins at the University of Western Ontario points out, USDA [US Department of Agriculture], which regulates organic certification, has proclaimed that organic food crops polluted with modified genes from wind-borne pollen released from neighbouring farms will still be certified as organic food. (See http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMSBGS.phpGM sugar beet gone sour, this series). ISP calls for FDA proposal to be withdrawn The Independent Science Panel (ISP) (http://www.indsp.org/ISPMembers.php), submitted a strongly worded letter to urge Commissioner Crawford to withdraw the proposals, and expressed particular concern over the FDA's apparent intention that the proposals contained in its guidance to industry will provide an international model to address the presence of low-level bioengineered plant material in non- bioengineered crop fields. As the ISP pointed out, the proposed policy sets out loose food safety evaluation guidelines under which a company may voluntarily consult with the FDA to have new proteins from experimental GM crops intended for food use deemed acceptable as a food contaminant. The early food safety evaluation suggested in the guidelines consists largely of paperwork. The proposed scientific evaluation is highly inadequate, as it fails to specify the tests to be conducted,
[Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 26/01/05 GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala A http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.phpfully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS membersâ website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here GM cotton not environmentally friendly or safe Cotton is responsible for more than 10% of world pesticide use including some of the most hazardous, and 25% of all insecticide use. As weeds and insects become resistant, more and more pesticides are needed in a vicious circle that's a recipe for socio-economic, health and environmental disaster. About half of the GM cotton grown in the United States is herbicide resistant, and a comprehensive analysis by Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the US National Academy of Science, confirmed that it required more herbicide than conventional varieties. Most GM cotton crops worldwide are engineered with Bt for resistance to insect pests and promoted by firms like Monsanto as environmentally friendly, because they need less pesticide. Monsanto's GM cotton 'Bollgard' carries the cry1Ac gene from soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt) to produce a toxin that kills some cotton pests including the boll weevil. However, Bollgard does not resist sucking pests, such as aphids, that might also damage the crop and will therefore require subsidiary spraying. GM cotton not friendly to farmers GM cottonseed prices include a 'technology fee' that can go up every year, and is calculated on supposed savings from reduced pesticide use with the Bt variety in a particular location. All farmers growing Monsanto's Bt cotton sign a contract, called a Technology Use Agreement that is strictly applied. It stipulates that, Farmers cannot save seed for replanting Farmers are prohibited from supplying seed to anyone else Farmers must pay 120 times the technology fee, plus the legal fees of Monsanto, if they violate the contract. The Indonesian experience: A cautionary tale Indonesia was the first country in Southeast Asia to permit commercial GM farming against the warnings of scientists and activists on the environmental and socio-economic impacts. Fortunately, permission was granted only on a year-by-year basis, and the government reviewed the impact of the failed Bt crop. The review was scathing. This Gene Revolution, it said, seemed to be a modern tool for cementing farmers' dependence on seeds and transnational agrochemical corporations appearing in developing countries in different guises. The evidence from Indonesia is that GM crops are nothing more than a profit-motivated deployment of scientific power dedicated to sucking the blood of farmers. Monsanto promised Bt cotton would return 3-4 tonnes of cotton per hectare while requiring less pesticide and fertilizer than Kanesia, the local cotton variety. The seed was given to farmers with pesticide, herbicide, (including Roundup) and fertilizer as part of a credit scheme costing sixteen times more than non- Bt cotton. In fact, the average yield was 1.1 tonnes per hectare and 74% of the area planted to Bt-cotton produced less than one tonne per hectare. About 522 hectares experienced total crop failure. Despite that, the government extended approval for Bt cotton for another year; and the results were no better. In 2001 farmers signed contracts, but in 2002 the seed price rose and the cotton price slumped. Farmers had no choice but to shoulder the debt and sell at the company's rate; as a result, 76% of farmers who joined the credit scheme couldn't repay their debt and many burned their cotton in protest against the government and the company (see Broken promises, SiS 22 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). In 2003, Monsanto halted operations saying that the Indonesian Government's decision to authorize Bt cotton production on a year-by-year basis had been a big obstacle to business investment. PT Monagro Kimia, a Monsanto subsidiary, was under investigation by the US Department of Justice and the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission on suspicion that a payment of US$ 50 000 was made to Indonesian officials in 2002. In January 2005, Monsanto was found guilty of authorising the bribe and fined $1.5m (see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCCHHTAL.phpGM cotton: corruption, hype, half-truths and lies, this series). Bt cotton in India: Lessons not learned Bt cotton entered commercial production in India in 2002 without comprehensive assessment for detrimental effects, and despite fierce protests by farmers and public interest organizations. Only six of India's 29 states in the south and the west of the country have had permission to plant Monsanto's Bt cotton. Four strains of Bt seed were available with at least one Indian variant of the licensed Monsanto varieties. A 2002
[Biofuel] Changing the Climate-Change Climate
Bill McKibben Wednesday 10:40 AM Imagine if the heart association suddenly said cholesterol above 100 will kill you. Bill McKibben, who's in Middlebury, Vt., for a major climate change strategy session, says that is exactly what just happened in the climate change world. With the crisis point so much closer and the Bush administration so in denial, it's time for a radical new approach to dealing with climate change. Will it come from Vermont? Stay tuned. http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2005/01/25/mckibben/ Bill McKibben sends dispatches from a conference on winning the climate-change fight | Grist Magazine | Dispatches | 25 Jan 2005 Changing the Climate-Change Climate Bill McKibben sends dispatches from a conference on winning the climate-change fight Bill McKibben is the author of The End of Nature and a member of Grist's board of directors. His latest book is Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. Day One | Day Two | Day Three Tuesday, 25 Jan 2005 MIDDLEBURY, Vt. A crisp, cold, blue-sky New England day, fresh snow on the ground, and everything right with the world. Except that last night, as I was preparing to attend a three-day conference on climate change here in Middlebury, Vt., yet another disturbing report on global warming drifted across the net. This one comes from the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by Stephen Byers, a Tony Blair confidant from the U.K., and Olympia Snowe, the Republican senator from Maine. In one sense, it's nothing new: yet another document from moderate world leaders calling for urgent action and imploring the U.S. to join with the rest of the developed world to get something done. File it with similar reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the Nobel laureates, all the rest. This one's designed, apparently, to function as Blair's talking points for the coming year, during which he will serve as head of both the G8 and the E.U., and has promised to make climate change a top priority. In another sense, though, the report is actually quite startling. It posits a new number as the climate crisis point: 400 parts per million atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. That concentration, the report says, has a better-than-even chance of eventually producing temperature increases of 2 degrees centigrade -- enough to trigger widespread drought, crop failure, and rising sea levels. That 400 ppm number is very low; previously, most crisis scenarios focused on 550 ppm, which would represent a doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution carbon concentrations. It's as if the American Medical Association suddenly announced that you needed your cholesterol down below 100 or your heart was going to go. This is especially bad news given that the earth's CO2 levels are already north of 375 ppm and increasing by two parts annually. Clearly we are heading straight past the 400 level. Recognizing that, the report's authors call on us to limit the amount of time the planet spends above the 400 mark, and to get back below it well before century's end. Which essentially means: change everything, right away. None of which will be easy (an understatement underscored by another report that came in overnight, this one showing that China's economy grew 9.5 percent last year, its fastest increase in eight years). But it does provide a stirring background for the What Works? conference that kicked off today at Middlebury College, a semi-closed session designed to figure out why the United States has lagged behind the rest of the planet when it comes to global warming, and how we might catch up. It's a conversation that clearly needs to happen. Since climate change emerged as an issue in the late 1980s, the U.S. environmental movement has floundered in its efforts to make progress. No legislation of any consequence has come close to passing the House or Senate; none of the three presidents in that period have really put their muscle behind any action; and the current administration has about as much interest in the issue as that of, say, Warren Harding. In short, pretty much a total rout, especially in contrast to Western Europe and Japan, where the progress, while modest and halting, has been real. Conference co-organizers Jon Isham, a Middlebury economist, and Sissel Waage, a former Natural Step analyst, have assembled an interesting cast of characters, concentrating less on the big environmental groups and their funders than on trenchant critics and people with local success stories to tell. Tomorrow morning, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus will host one of the first face-to-face discussions of their ubiquitously emailed paper The Death of Environmentalism. Billy Parish, head of the Climate Campaign will present plans for a large-scale program of civil disobedience. Blue Vinyl producers Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold will show rushes from their in-progress film Melting
[Biofuel] Free trade leaves world food in grip of global giants
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Free trade leaves world food in grip of global giants John Vidal in Porto Alegre Thursday January 27, 2005 The Guardian Global food companies are aggravating poverty in developing countries by dominating markets, buying up seed firms and forcing down prices for staple goods including tea, coffee, milk, bananas and wheat, according to a report to be launched today. As 50,000 people marched through Porto Alegre, in southern Brazil, to mark the opening of the annual World Social Forum on developing country issues, the report from ActionAid was set to highlight how power in the world food industry has become concentrated in a few hands. The report will say that 30 companies now account for a third of the world's processed food; five companies control 75% of the international grain trade; and six companies manage 75% of the global pesticide market. It finds that two companies dominate sales of half the world's bananas, three trade 85% of the world's tea, and one, Wal-mart, now controls 40% of Mexico's retail food sector. It also found that Monsanto controls 91% of the global GM seed market. Household names including Nestl, Monsanto, Unilever, Tesco, Wal-mart, Bayer and Cargill are all said to have expanded hugely in size, power and influence in the past decade directly because of the trade liberalisation policies being advanced by the US, Britain and other G8 countries whose leaders are meeting this week in Davos. A wave of mergers and business alliances has concentrated market power in very few hands, the report says. It accuses the companies of shutting local companies out of the market, driving down prices, setting international and domestic trade rules to suit themselves, imposing tough standards that poor farmers cannot meet, and charging consumers more. The report says the 85% of all the recent fines imposed on global cartels were paid by agrifood companies, with three of them forced to pay out $500m (£266m) to settle price-fixing lawsuits. It is a dangerous situation when so few companies control so many lives, said John Samuel of ActionAid yesterday. The ActionAid report argues that many food behemoths are wealthier than the countries in which they do their business. Nestl, it says, recorded profits greater than Ghana's GDP in 2002, Unilever profits were a third larger than the national income of Mozambique and Wal-mart profits are bigger than the economies of both countries combined. The companies are also said to be taking advantage of the collapse in farm prices. Prices for coffee, cocoa, rice, palm oil and sugar have fallen by more than 50% in the past 20 years. The report feeds into growing calls at Porto Alegre for the regulation of multinational food companies. A coalition of the largest international environmental, trade and human rights groups, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Amnesty, Via Campesina and Focus on the Global South, yesterday said they would be working together to press for corporate accountability. Retailers such as Tesco, Ahold, Carrefour and Metro are buying increasing volumes of fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products in developing countries, but their exacting food safety and environmental standards are driving small farmers out of business, says ActionAid. A spokeswoman for the Food and Drink Federation, which represents British food businesses, yesterday recognised that the industry's success is closely linked to those at the beginning of the food supply chain. But she added: Britain, the world's fourth largest food importing country, invests heavily and provides an enormous market for developing world farmers. ___ 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/
[Biofuel] Global poverty targeted as 100,000 gather in Brazil
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Global poverty targeted as 100,000 gather in Brazil Activists join presidents as annual World Social Forum gets under way in Porto Alegre John Vidal in Porto Alegre Wednesday January 26, 2005 The Guardian Elvis, Betu and Renatu live in a rubbish dump. Every day the teenagers take out their wire pushcarts, collect the waste of the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre and bring it back to the illegal slum of Chocolatado to sort and then sell on. It's a grim place, made of reclaimed tarpaulins, waste timber, old plastic and metal. None of the shacks have running water or toilets, and most of them are deep in litter. This, then, is the ideal backdrop for the launch today of the World Social Forum, which meets annually to discuss issues affecting developing countries. Begun five years ago specifically to counter the annual meeting of world business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland, it has unexpectedly become a global political and social phenomenon. More than 100,000 activists will be in Porto Alegre this year. They will be joined by two presidents, several Nobel peace and literature prizewinners, the world's leading international non-government groups, healthworkers, MPs, educators, unions, students, the landless, indigenous peoples, intellectuals, environmentalists and dissident economists. It's not perfect, but it is the most tangible global rejection of the neo-liberal globalisation policies of the US and G8 countries, said Ricardo Jimenez, a Uruguyan doctor. But it needs to be seen in context. More than 1 billion people in developing countries live in slums; 800 million go hungry every day; 27 million adults are slaves; 245 million children have to work. The poor are everywhere still getting poorer, the cities are disintegrating and bankrupt. It is a response to a global scandal. In other years there has been a video linkup between Davos and Porto Alegre, but this year the two worlds will stand further apart than ever, with no formal contact beyond accusations and petitions sent from Brazil. Developing countries now owe $1.6 trillion [£860bn]. In 2004 they transferred $300bn to rich countries, said Eric Toussaint, chair of the Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt. Yet we can say that the people of the third world are creditors. They have already paid their debts many times over. The highlights of the forum will be the flying visit of the populist Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and President Hugo Chvez of Venezuela. Both will address 30,000 people in Porto Alegre's main stadium, but the reception given to the two most charismatic South American leaders could be very different. Mr Da Silva is still popular but there is growing impatience at the slow speed of the radical reforms expected. According to many at the forum, Mr Chvez is increasingly the person to whom the continent looks for significant change. Significantly, Mr Da Silva will fly on to Davos for talks with world leaders after his Porto Alegre appearance, while Mr Chavez is expected to spend time in an encampment of the Brazilian landless. But people are still upbeat. Analysts are talking of a new South America. There is a sense that this is the only con tinent now challenging the US, said Martin Fernandes, a Brazilian doctor. There are now leftist presidents in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, as well as in Uruguay and Ecuador ... We have a sense that change is possible. The forum has been criticised in the past for not including marginalised peoples. But this year it has invited some of the poorest in the world, including dalits (untouchables) from Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, former slave communities from Brazil, and more than 100 tribes of Brazilian Indians. It may also be the last forum for several years in Porto Alegre. There has been a very strong proposal that, instead of one single event, the forum next year will take place simultaneously in six cities on six continents, with smaller events in many towns, said an international committee member, Mukul Sharma. It would signal that the WSF is expanding and becoming a global force. It is also highly probable that in 2007 it will go to Africa for the first time. ___ 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/
RE: [Biofuel] New bio dieseler
Where do you live ? Santee, California which is just 8 miles east of San Diego. Met vriendelijke groet, Pieter Koole Netherlands ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert
snip Think global warming's bad? Wait till you see global cooling. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm Todd Swearingen snip Good piece by Thom Hartmann, as usual. This below is part of a previous discussion here in 2003, between me and MM, which you might find interesting: Interestingly, as a followup, the one response I got there was that the possibility of global cooling is not getting enough attention. The author nearly descended into vituperation (obviously my little post must have been super-provocative), though that was not directed precisely against me either. That was the view in the late 60s, and indeed much earlier, up to as much as a century ago I think. Since the early 1980s at least more and better data, better ways of crunching it, further studies, have increasingly indicated the opposite, now overwhelmingly so. I don't think global cooling has been entirely disproved, but it's heavily outweighed. In 1982 a book appeared called The Survival of Civilization, written by a strange person named John D. Hamaker, which predicted global cooling. He paints a picture of rising CO2 levels triggering a sudden and catastrophic ice age. He sees it as a regular phenomenon, tracing it back through the last 17 ice ages, or something like that. The mechanism is that the topsoil runs out of minerals, leading to a decrease in the amount of biomass and a consequent release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which at first triggers warming and then an ice age. The ice grinds up a huge amount of surface rock into dust, as glaciers do but on a much vaster scale, finally retreating to leave a remineralised soil behind via the rock dust. It's quite a persuasive picture, and he does have his evidence for it. He reckons this time we've simply hastened the onset of the process with our fossil-fuel CO2 releases. He also proposes arresting the process by remineralising the land worldwide with rock dust. He even designed a handy machine to grind up rocks on the spot. I read the book at the time (a convert friend sent it to me). It's a cranky book but there's quite a lot of sense in it, particularly about soil mineralisation, but I didn't accept the main conclusion that a rapid transition to a new ice-age was imminent: The broad truth is that without radical and immediate reform (particularly in this nation [the US]), civilization will be wrecked by 1990 and extinct by 1995. Well, maybe he just got the timing wrong. Or was he right and we just didn't notice? :-) He was ignored by the science community (which probably means he's either a misguided nut or a great prophet). And now it's become a bit of a cult book on the Internet, bad timing notwithstanding. You can find it online (pdf) here, FWIW: http://www.remineralize.org/don/tsoc.pdf or here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010146tsoc.pdf So we'll fry or we'll freeze, or something. But certainly something. And it definitely makes sense to cut the fossil fuels, but fast. I wondered whether it wasn't Hamaker who inspired that silly movie, I forget it's name: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/35379/1/ And also Andrew Marshall's perhaps equally silly Pentagon report (or maybe the movie did that): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32387/ Weathering the Crisis - World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32446/ Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change See: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Marshall Andrew Marshall - SourceWatch ... along with acolytes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and many others, including the odious Thomas P.M. Barnett: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20050110/004788.html [Biofuel] Oil politics trumps everything. Best wishes Keith ___ 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/
[Biofuel] Let Them Eat Rocket Fuel
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/let_them_eat_rocket_fuel.php Let Them Eat Rocket Fuel Erik D. Olson January 27, 2005 The fact that there's a rocket fuel additive called perchlorate in your water is bad enough. What's worse is the fact that the Bush administration likely manipulated the National Academy of Sciences to designate a lax perchlorate standard. The National Resources Defense Council sued the White House, Defense Department and EPA to release documents relating to perchlorate contamination and the NAS. What they found was evidence of an elaborate campaign designed to downplay the hazards of a dangerous chemical. Erik D. Olsen is a senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council specializing in safe drinking water issues. He is the national coordinator of the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water, a coalition of more than 300 public interest groups dedicated to improved drinking water protection. More than 20 million Americans have rocket fuel in their drinking water. That's right. Rocket fuel. It's also likely in your milk. And in your lettuce, too, because farmers out West inadvertently use rocket-fuel-contaminated water to irrigate their crops. You might not think that's a good thing. Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency didn't, either. Especially since a toxic salt in rocket fuel, called perchlorate, can harm the thyroid and may disrupt fetal and newborn brain development. In 2002, EPA proposed a safe level in drinking water of only 1 part per billion. That's equivalent to half a teaspoon of perchlorate in an Olympic-size swimming pool. The Pentagon and its contractors-who have polluted food and drinking water across the country-argued that 200 parts per billion is safe. Earlier this month, a National Academy of Sciences panel issued a report finding that on a per body-weight basis, more perchlorate can be tolerated than the EPA had concluded-but still far less than what the Pentagon and its corporate pals had claimed. Why was NAS' conclusion higher than EPA's? Perhaps NAS was responding to enormous pressure from the White House, the Defense Department, and defense contractors. According to government documents recently obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council, they collaborated in a backroom campaign to try to strong-arm the academy and manipulate the report. Despite this campaign, the panel did conclude that low levels of perchlorate exposure may cause health problems, and that fetuses are at particular risk. For decades, the Defense Department and its contractors have carelessly used millions of pounds of perchlorate, contaminating water and food supplies. At the same time, the Pentagon has been blocking EPA efforts to address perchlorate pollution, and in the last few years it intensified its campaign in the face of new revelations about perchlorate's harmful effects. In January 2002, when EPA recommended that 1 ppb was the safe level in drinking water, the Pentagon and its contractors lobbied to stop the assessment process and-with the help of the White House-wrested the assessment from EPA and handed it to NAS in 2003. Then the White House, the Pentagon and its contractors went to work to influence the NAS process. NRDC sued the White House, Defense Department and EPA in March 2004 after they ignored more than a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests, refusing to disclose any records documenting their campaign to steamroll NAS or details of the perchlorate problem. In response to the suit, the White House and the two agencies recently provided about 30 boxes of documents to NRDC, but are still withholding thousands of other records-including virtually all the key papers documenting White House and Pentagon efforts to influence NAS. However, they were required by court order to issue a Vaughn Index describing each of the withheld documents. This index reveals an extraordinary level of White House and Pentagon effort to limit the scope of NAS' inquiry and select the panelists, as well as collaboration with DOD contractors to pressure the panel. Scientists at the EPA, in state agencies, and in academia have concluded that very low levels of perchlorate threaten fetusus' and infants' health. The NAS panel's recommendation for a safe level is based on industry studies that fed perchlorate to a small number of healthy adults for a short time. Those studies tell us little about how perchlorate can harm fetuses or infants, or harm adults over a longer period of time (particularly millions of Americans with thyroid problems or who are iodine deficient). Studies of animals, also funded by the industry, showed that perchlorate may cause abnormal brain development in young rodents, but accepting the arguments of the Pentagon and industry, the academy said more studies are needed to prove that these same effects would occur in infants and children. Still, in an
RE: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World
Greetings Concerned Cotton People, There is a simple answer to eliminating pests of all kinds from cotton and any other plant. It is called Vermiculture. Granted it is more trouble than just spraying on a chemical but it doesn't hurt any living thing and it helps the heck out of plants - they grow up to twice their normal rate and size. As to pests, they don't like the chemistry of the castings and therefore they stay away. None are actually killed but that is not the goal - as long as the pests leave your crops alone you are just fine. I realize many will sniff in a critical manner, but no one yet has designed a better system than this one which nature devised millions of years ago. By the way, in the end it is overall a cheaper than pesticide system because of yield increases, no environmental impact therefore no safeguards necessary, no soil erosion, and many more benefits. For the desperate and the believers among you, see the 2 attachments. Good luck, Ed Starr (for Mondays Thursdays-Main Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 949-496-0050 | FAX 949-388-7828 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Dana Point, CA, USA (for Tue., Wed. Fri-Home Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 619-749-9647 | FAX 619-749-9648 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 26/01/05 GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala A http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.phpfully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here GM cotton not environmentally friendly or safe Cotton is responsible for more than 10% of world pesticide use including some of the most hazardous, and 25% of all insecticide use. As weeds and insects become resistant, more and more pesticides are needed in a vicious circle that's a recipe for socio-economic, health and environmental disaster. About half of the GM cotton grown in the United States is herbicide resistant, and a comprehensive analysis by Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the US National Academy of Science, confirmed that it required more herbicide than conventional varieties. Most GM cotton crops worldwide are engineered with Bt for resistance to insect pests and promoted by firms like Monsanto as environmentally friendly, because they need less pesticide. Monsanto's GM cotton 'Bollgard' carries the cry1Ac gene from soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt) to produce a toxin that kills some cotton pests including the boll weevil. However, Bollgard does not resist sucking pests, such as aphids, that might also damage the crop and will therefore require subsidiary spraying. GM cotton not friendly to farmers GM cottonseed prices include a 'technology fee' that can go up every year, and is calculated on supposed savings from reduced pesticide use with the Bt variety in a particular location. All farmers growing Monsanto's Bt cotton sign a contract, called a Technology Use Agreement that is strictly applied. It stipulates that, Farmers cannot save seed for replanting Farmers are prohibited from supplying seed to anyone else Farmers must pay 120 times the technology fee, plus the legal fees of Monsanto, if they violate the contract. The Indonesian experience: A cautionary tale Indonesia was the first country in Southeast Asia to permit commercial GM farming against the warnings of scientists and activists on the environmental and socio-economic impacts. Fortunately, permission was granted only on a year-by-year basis, and the government reviewed the impact of the failed Bt crop. The review was scathing. This Gene Revolution, it said, seemed to be a modern tool for cementing farmers' dependence on seeds and transnational agrochemical corporations appearing in developing countries in different guises. The evidence from Indonesia is that GM crops are nothing more than a profit-motivated deployment of scientific power dedicated to sucking the blood of farmers. Monsanto promised Bt cotton would return 3-4 tonnes of cotton per hectare while requiring less pesticide and fertilizer than Kanesia, the local cotton variety. The seed was given to farmers with pesticide, herbicide, (including Roundup) and fertilizer as part of a credit scheme costing sixteen times more than non- Bt cotton. In fact, the average yield was 1.1 tonnes per hectare and 74% of the area planted to Bt-cotton produced less than one tonne per hectare. About 522 hectares experienced total crop failure. Despite that, the
RE: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World
Greetings Concerned Cotton People, There is a simple answer to eliminating pests of all kinds from cotton and any other plant. It is called Vermiculture. Nope: Vermiculture is the production of worms. Vermicomposting is the production of castings, to which you refer. Not just being picky, they're different - yes, vermiculture does produce castings too, but they're essentially a by-product, and yes, vermicomposting does also produce excess worms, but again they're a by-product. To achieve what you're claiming it has to be vermicomposting. It's no news, by the way, nor that organic methods are highly productive and need no pesticides, it's quite well-covered in the archives, and very well-covered at Journey to Forever - we've been doing this for 25 years: http://journeytoforever.org/compost_worm.html Vermicomposting http://journeytoforever.org/compost_wormlink.html Vermicomposting resources See also: City farms Organic gardening Building a square foot garden Plant spacing guides No ground? Use containers When to sow what Seeds Garden pond Gardening resources Composting Making compost Composting resources Composting indoors Vermicomposting Humanure Composting for small farms Small farms Small farm resources Community-supported farms Farming with trees Farming with animals Pasture Pigs for small farms Poultry for small farms Aquaculture for small farms Composting for small farms Controlling weeds and pests Small farms library Granted it is more trouble than just spraying on a chemical Not in the long-run. but it doesn't hurt any living thing and it helps the heck out of plants - they grow up to twice their normal rate and size. Um... well., maybe. Have a look at the photograph of Chinese spinach seedlings on the vermicomposting page: http://journeytoforever.org/compost_worm.html Vermicomposting As to pests, they don't like the chemistry of the castings and therefore they stay away. None are actually killed but that is not the goal - as long as the pests leave your crops alone you are just fine. I realize many will sniff in a critical manner, but no one yet has designed a better system than this one which nature devised millions of years ago. George Sheffield Oliver helped. See: Friend Earthworm: Practical Application of a Lifetime Study of Habits of the Most Important Animal in the World by George Sheffield Oliver, 1941. Dr Oliver was one of the first to harness the earthworm to the needs of the farmer and gardener -- to make highly fertile topsoil for optimum crop growth, and to produce a constant supply of cheap, high-grade, live protein to feed poultry. He devised simple yet elegant and effective systems to bring costs and labour down and productivity up to help struggling farmers to make ends meet. Oliver had an observant and critical eye and understood Nature's round. His ideas on the nature of modern food and health (or the lack of it) are only now being confirmed, half a century later. A delightful book. Full text online. http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#oliver By the way, in the end it is overall a cheaper than pesticide system because of yield increases, no environmental impact therefore no safeguards necessary, no soil erosion, and many more benefits. For the desperate and the believers among you, see the 2 attachments. Sorry, Ed, no attachments: Virus-free As an essential anti-virus measure the list does not accept attachments. All attachments are automatically removed before messages are distributed to the members. It is not possible to receive a virus from the Biofuel list. -- List rules: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040906/05.html This article about a US worm-farmer is worth a read: http://www.newfarm.org/features/0903/worms/index.shtml Ups and downs of worm growing keep Georgia farmer on his toes Worm farming can be lucrative, says Jack Brantley of Bear Creek Worm Farm É but it's like any other live-animal feeding operation. It takes experience, skill and patience. He recommends starting small. Best wishes Keith Good luck, Ed Starr (for Mondays Thursdays-Main Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 949-496-0050 | FAX 949-388-7828 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Dana Point, CA, USA (for Tue., Wed. Fri-Home Ofc.) | Ed Starr | Star Marketing | 619-749-9647 | FAX 619-749-9648 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 26/01/05 GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala A http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.phpfully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS membersâ website. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails
