Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions a dud: researchers
I read somewhere (may even have been on this list) that the incentives for alternate fuels (i.e. biodiesel) from the gov't totalled a whopping 18 mil... that sum was for all alternate fuel sectors (as I understood it) Big oil was awarded a paltry 40 Billion to explore... like they don't have any money of their own to invest... that speaks a volume to me... and not in very nice language either... Kyoto shot down?? Same reasons... not at all popular with big oil because it cuts directly (or should) into their bottom line, so their bottom line to gov't is simple - drop Kyoto, or think about going back to a real job in the private sector instead of playing Mr./Mrs./Ms. Politician... Care to guess how those Kyoto targets suddenly became too optimistic to meet ?? One more little tidbit... just *try* to get a license/permit to operate a still to make ethanol... *If* you manage to even get close enough to a gov't person to actually apply for one, I sincerely hope you have another (good paying) job, and you are only about 20-23 years old... 25 at the most... by the time you hit retirement age, you *might* have made your way through the maze of red tape, red herrings, red faces (temper control) ad infinitum, to finally arrive at being allowed to run a still... *However*... *If* you happen to be Big Oil, how many stills would you like, how soon, and how much do you need to get set up??... As I said... Cynical? You bet... - Original Message - From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions a dud: researchers I didn't know that you guys in Canada had the same problem as we do in the US. Our govenment is totally controlled by big corporations. Ken --- A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only real plan (Liberal or Conservative) is to keep big business feeding their election campaigns... They (big biz) won't feed the election coffers unless they're allowed to continue business as usual... Us little guys and home producers couldn't hope to contribute at big biz levels, even if we were of a mind to... Money talks. BS walks and big biz hasn't the mindset to change anything - unless it increases the bottom line... Cynical? You bet... Al - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 8:37 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions a dud: researchers The results of the study come as no surprise, sadly. The Liberal administrations were more interested in photo-ops than results. While the new Conservative administration claims to have a made-in-Canada plan, suspicions are it's a made-in-neocon-USA plan. Personally, I'd welcome any real plan on the subject. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/05/28/pf-1602651.html May 28, 2006 By DENNIS BUECKERT OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberals' $12-billion plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol over seven years would have been largely ineffective, says an as-yet unpublished report by the C.D. Howe Institute. The report, marked do not cite or circulate, was written before the current government axed Project Green, as the plan was dubbed, and may have been a factor in the Conservatives' decision to scrap it. Project Green largely relied on voluntary measures and incentives which have been shown not to work, says the study, which sarcastically calls the package Project Dream. This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost, says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University. The study was written in April and obtained by The Canadian Press on the weekend. It is finally expected to be made public this week. The report says Project Green would have cost $12 billion by 2012, with much of that money being spent outside Canada. It would have reduced emissions by 175 megatonnes compared with a business-as-usual scenario, far short of the 230 to 300 Mt. reduction required to meet Canada's Kyoto target. Efforts like the One Tonne Challenge advertising campaign, which urged individuals to reduce their own greenhouse emissions through lifestyle changes, have negligible effect, says the study. The policy approach of Canada since 1990 and continued with Project Green is clearly ineffective in causing the disconnection of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from the economic output that must take place if these emissions are to be reduced and their atmospheric concentrations stabilized at low risk levels. Canada's domestic emissions remain on a path that would miss its Kyoto target by at
Re: [Biofuel] seasonal burning
The surest sign that there is other intelligent life out here is that fact that it hasn't stopped to see what we're up to... - Original Message - From: Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] seasonal burning ET is ET until they actually come down here and say Hi. when or if they do i will put some thought to it, but only then. - Original Message - From: Doug Younker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] seasonal burning Allen, I never felt Kirk's reply nit-picking, I was just a bit confused. Anyway ET rarely enters my though process, unless someone brings it up. I would be surprised if ET does exist, nor will I be disappointed if I go to my grave not knowing the answer. I have no speculation if ET is peaceful or not. -- Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA E. C. wrote: Doug; your meaning was crystal clear to me, i am an English major (more precisely, was, since i never followed the career path i trained for in college). In point of fact, your response said what i tried to, but more succinctly to the point. Kudos. :-)~ Kirk; I looked back in my archived file to see if your nit-pick was justified, didn't find it so, IMHO -- but hey, to err is human, i've been called on gaffes i've made before. Since you brought it up (the ET comment) -- a couple i know has acquainted me with the fact that there's a fair number of folks who fervently believe that, indeed, the human species IS descended from cross-breeding between early hominids and ET visitors from space (there being no clearly-defined missing link in the fossil record). True or not, we humans are a relatively new experiment in Earth's evolution -- and may not have a very long chapter in that history if we don't learn to overcome our aggressive, egocentric management style. Regards, ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] 3A molecular Sieve and Methanol recovery Results
- Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 3A molecular Sieve and Methanol recovery Results Joe, Good idea, but ... no, I don't have any unused Zeolite. I dried them on a cool, clear day low humidity. I find it hard to believe that they could have absorbed 10% of their weight in water from the air but that would account for the weight gain by the control. I'll try drying the zeolite from the control gently ... raise the temp slowly cool slowly. It seems that regenerating them w. heat (400F) damages the pores expansion and contraction. Gentle heat w. vacuum is the way to go. A vacuum pump may be in my near future. A compressor from a tossed (junk) refrigerator works great for a vacuum pump - I use one all the time to dewater my WVO, and am getting set up to use another for dewatering the finished BD... Just make sure someone (that knows how) has reclaimed the freon in the system before you start hacking the compressor out... I'll try to get close to the original mass. It's raining again. Should we ever get another cool, clear day w. low humidity I'll let the zeolite sit outside in the same shallow baking pans and see if they gain mass. Tom - Original Message - From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 3A molecular Sieve and Methanol recovery Results Hi Tom; Do you have any unopened zeolite? If it is vacuum dried (and I suspect it is) at the manufacturer, it may gain mass due to adsorption of moisture from the air. Take some out and weigh it and let it sit out in the same conditions as the other stuff you are air drying and then weigh it again. Joe Thomas Kelly wrote: Hello to all, I have some concerns re: my recent results using 3A Molecular Sieve to dry recovered methanol. Concerns: 1. I distilled 4 gal ( Containers #1 2), and had to interrupt the process. Last 4 gal were distilled two days later (Containers #3 4). 2. Air drying: The Zeolite from the Control as well as from Containers # 1 2 were air-dried at the same time, for the same duration under “identical” conditions. Due to interruption of distillation and a week of rain, the Zeolite from Containers 3 4 was removed from the methanol after the same time period (24 hrs) as C, #1, #2, but stored in covered plastic containers until weather permitted, and then were air-dried for the same length of time as the others under as similar conditions as could be reasonably expected. I air-dried the Zeolite until it looked uniformly light in color. The idea was to simply remove moisture (methanol) from the surface. 3. The Control gained mass. Although the methanol in the Control was not a newly-opened barrel, I reason to believe it to be reasonably pure. I had a concern going into the experiment that 3A Molecular Sieve might allow methanol to enter (3A = 3 angstrom units ~ size of pores in the beads) It is used to dehydrate ethanol. Water molecule = 2.8 angstrom units, ethanol = 4.4 angstrom units, methanol = I don’t know. I suspected/hoped methanol was larger than the pore size. I suspect that water adheres more strongly than methanol to the inner walls of the beads and tends to remain attached. Additional air-drying Zeolite from C, #1, and #2 (done after surface was dry and original measurements were recorded) resulted in continued loss in mass. At temps of only 72 F (22.2 C) and filtered light I don’t suspect much of the weight loss is due to water. 4. Zeolite, under the best of circumstances (exposed to vapor under pressure) can absorb up to 25% of its weight in water. Zeolite from container 3 increased in mass 23.1 % and zeolite from Container 4 gained 28.8%. What gives? The results are interesting in that a comparison of the zeolite exposed to the recovered methanol to the control suggests that there was little water in the first 4 gallons recovered. This is corroborated by the fact that I used the Control and the first 2 recovered gallons + about 1 gal. from the barrel to make a 91L batch of BD that passed the “methanol quality” test. I pan to use the second 2 gal. in the next batch. (Maybe after a couple of hours of dry zeolite treatment). Tom - Original Message - *From:* Thomas Kelly mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:41 AM *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] 3A molecular Sieve and Methanol recovery Results Hello all, 3A Molecular Sieve and Methanol Recovery I first separated the glycerine mix using
Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question
ive been thinking about this, and was wondering... if during harvesting the stalks, or supporting structure, or leaves, or whatever were left in the gardens to decompose, or were composted, wouldnt the unused material returned to the soil be a carbon reduction? it doesnt get put into the fuel and it collects and adds up over time. this could bee seen as a carbon stockpile right? Only a temporary one though, there's a slow release back to the atmosphere, with the soil organic matter replenished by later crops. So it's still part of the current cycle. Increasing the amount of organic matter in the soil also increases the amount of soil life and the rate of turnover. The higher fertility level produces bigger and better crops, which in turn produce more soil organic matter. Eventually it reaches a climax, and all being well it can continue at that level indefinitely, like the American prairies used to be, or the Serengheti, or a good rain forest. Whether it's in the crop or the soil, and although it's in circulation, more carbon is held from the atmosphere when soil fertility is high than when it's not, but the overall rate of release is probably faster. I don't know where Joe's figure of 78% comes from, I'd guess from the oft-quoted life-cycle analysis featuring the legendary standard farm, which in the US means Monsanto-style monocropped soy with heavy fossil-fuel inputs. An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/docs/lifecycle.html This EPA ref is cited by the NBB: We were not able to identify an unambiguous difference in exhaust CO2 emissions between biodiesel and conventional diesel. However, it should be noted that the CO2 benefits commonly attributed to biodiesel are the result of the renewability of the biodiesel itself, not the comparative exhaust CO2 emissions. -- Draft Technical Report, A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions, October 2002 (EPA420-P-02-001) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf See: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm Biodiesel Emissions Analysis Program - OTAQ - EPA A low-input high-output sustainable farm can achieve zero fossil fuel inputs in crop production, and the biodiesel can be produced on-farm with no fossil-fuel inputs, and used locally without wasting energy in further distribution, so the fuel would be carbon-neutral. Actually the same issues affect food production and distribution. Fossil-fuel inputs and an average of 1,500 food miles before the crop reaches the consumer don't have much of a future. Best Keith - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question Joe, CO2 emissions should be the same. You wrote: If the CO2 reduction number of 78% attributed to biodiesel is a result of the crops it comes from, does the 78% number assume that no crops would have been grown on the land if it were not being used for fuel crops, or is the 78% in addition to whatever crops were previously growing there. No. The % reduction in CO2 refers to a reduction in Carbon that is not part of our short-term Carbon Cycle. Let me try to explain: All crops are fuel crops. Even wilderness meadows and forests are fuel crops. The energy captured during photosynthesis and stored in organic molecules will be released either as a result of metabolic activity of living things or as a result of combustion. The amount of Carbon released as CO2 will be the same as the amount taken in to construct the organic molecules (fuel). Whether or not the land is used for food crops, fuel crops, or left wild, there is a balance between the amount of carbon taken from the atmosphere and incorporated into organic matter and the amount released when that organic matter is burned. This balance is unaffected by whether the organic matter becomes fuel for cells, or for automobiles. Fuels that do not disrupt this balance are said to be Carbon Neutral. The carbon in fossil fuels has been sequestered away for tens of millions of years. Upon burning, the release of CO2 from fossil fuels has the potential to overwhelm mechanisms that maintain relatively stable atmospheric CO2 levels, and hence disrupt the balance between CO2 fixed into organic matter and CO2 released during burning. CO2 from fossil fuels is NOT carbon neutral. It is not part of the short-term Carbon Cycle. I think that there is no actual reduction in CO2 produced when biodiesel is burned vs. petro diesel. The significance is that with biofuels, we are not unleashing Carbon that has long been trapped beneath the earth as we do when we burn fossil fuels. Any %, whether 50%, 78%, or 90% emissions reduction depends on the amount of fossil fuel used to produce the biofuel.
[Biofuel] Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush Translated by Le Monde Posted 05/09/06 Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them. Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War and Terror his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the of a criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families. On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West. Mr President, You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness. Page 2 There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values. Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained? Mr
Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question
Jason and Katie, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar w. carbon based dirt. There are carbonates in the soil ex: calcium carbonate (limestone), and magnesium carbonate. We're getting out of my area of knowledge, but I think this has always been a part of the cycling of Carbon: I) CO2 + Water - Carbonic Acid (H2CO3) Carbonic Acid- H(+) + HCO3(-) Rain has always been a bit acid (pH ~ 6.0 - 6.5). Carbonic Acid forms from CO2 and H2O in atmos. and comes down in rain. The weak acid is involved w. the chemical weathering of rock soil (carbonates often form the cementing material that holds rock particles together and are found in igneous rock). In breaking down carbonates CO2 is released. (Similar to weak vinegar + baking soda ... Sodium Bicarbonate). This is, I think, is also how limestone caves are formed. II) Calcium Carb.+ Carbonic Acid (in rain) form Calcium Oxide and Water, with the release of twice as much CO2 as it took to make the Carbonic Acid: 2CaCO3 + 2H2CO3 2CaO + 2H2O + 4CO2 This is how limestone acts to raise pH of acid soils. Further, the CaO + H2O Ca(OH)2 a weak base. If this is correct, it may point to another aspect of the cascading effect associated with increased atmospheric CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels. Adding CO2 to the atmos. that is not part of the short-term carbon cycle, would increase acididity of rain. Acid rain enhanced breakdown of carbonates --- increased CO2 in atmos. --- etc. The White (limestone) Cliffs of Dover are carbonates formed from shells of organisms and so, represent sequestered CO2 from ancient times. In fact, virtually all limestone is organic in origin; marble is metamorphic limestone if I'm not mistaken. CO2 from fossil fuels contributes to acid rain, which breaks down carbonates (including marble) with the release of CO2 that had been sequestered away by ancient organisms. Sorry to digress ... another Just say no to fossil fuels commercial. I think the C's in glycerine and in cellulose will return to the atmoshere as CO2. The organisms in my compost pile seem to really like the glycerine I give them higher temps from enhanced metabolism? Cellulose is a structural carbohydrate, and so, resists digestion. The enzyme cellulase derived from certain soil microbes is the key to cellulosic ethanol production. It digests cellulose. I've been gardening the same plot of land ~ 12M X 15M (40' X 50') for 28 years. In that time I've added 50 or more tons of organic material ... compost, mulch, manure I haven't noticed any pH change associated w. the accumulation of carbonates (lime). The soil is rich in organic matter, but I have little doubt that if I stopped adding compost, etc to it, it would return to a condition very similar to how I found it; with no more Carbon that when I started. I would love to find that composting not only improves soil structure and fertility, but also helps to remove atmospheric CO2, but I just don't see it. I think we have to take responsibilty for carbon neutrality in terms of the fuels we use for our machines and heating systems. Best to you, Tom - Original Message - From: Jason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question what about the carbon based dirt made of the remnants of glycerine and cellulose that stas in the soil? coal is just compressed peat, oil is dissolved and heat treated plant and animal remains (which BTW used to be dirt) even the small amounts that do stay on the ground represent a net reduction in atmospheric carbon. to gassify all the carbon in even one plant would require a level of energy and efficiency that no force, man or nature could hope to attain. - Original Message - From: Joe Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hello and Question Joe and others Sorry for double posts . my computer is playing tricks on me. No problem Tom, and thanks so much for the very informative explanation. I finally got it with your last post - seems like the answer is that crops end up releasing their CO2 into the atmosphere one way or the other, either through decomposition, animals metabolising it, or it burning in a 2006 Volkswagon Jetta TDI, and that this is a natural short term cycle CO2 progression, which is largely a self-renewing/self-regulating cycle as opposed to the introduction of CO2 from fossil fuels. Thanks a million, I'm more convinced than ever that BD is something to get behind for the medium-term future, until superior fuels can be developed and made practical. Best, Joe j ___ Biofuel mailing list
[Biofuel] You've Got Mail
http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #20 8 june 06 You've Got Mail According to the Bush administration, diplomacy, not force, is their first choice to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program. Who could seriously doubt this claim's sincerity, given the administration's principled pursuit of peace, especially the manner in which it exhausted all diplomatic options before invading Afghanistan and Iraq (and then only after taking every possible safeguard to protect civilians, baby ducks, even oil pipelines)? What greater demonstration of their dedication to peace could one expect than words? Unfortunately, the Bush administration's strategy in pursuit of peace seems counter-productive. Indeed, it may unwittingly provoke the crisis it seeks to avert. For example, the Iranians may be put off by American efforts to impose sanctions through the United Nations; they may be perplexed that, despite the stakes, the American government is unwilling to engage in direct, bilateral dialogue; and they may completely misunderstand the American government's stated willingness to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons against them. It is probably innate to the Persian, if not Muslim, character, to fail to appreciate that there is a reasonable context even for the contemplation of the most unthinkable atrocities--especially if the potential victims of such atrocities are people who don't matter, like them. Imagine my delight, then, when a few weeks ago, from an unlikely source, came a ray of hope: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Najad wrote to President Bush, thus re-opening a line of communication closed since 1979. Mysteriously, the opportunity for peace that this letter represents seems unappreciated. Even the normally perspicacious Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, told the Associated Press that in the first direct communication between these two governments in 27 years, she could not find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue. If her character, intent and dedication to peace are above reproach, her imagination apparently is not. The full text of the letter is hard to find in the mainstream American media (probably due to some oversight), but trenchant analysis of it can be found there. For example, Daniel Schorr of National Public Radio opined that the letter was crazy. It gladdens my heart to know that Mr. Schorr, at least, is not intimidated by a world leader's stature or seduced by facile jingoism. (I look forward to similarly succinct, informative and critical appraisals of other leaders' actions, including those of people who are not Iranian, Muslim, dark-skinned or opposed to American policy.) In this case, however, I consider Mr. Schorr's incisive commentary misguided. When I read the letter myself (for an English version, go to www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm), I think I understand his confusion. The letter proceeds by posing a number of questions, each of which presupposes a government whose policy is ludicrously inconsistent. President Ahmadi-Najad describes a government that claims to respect human rights and to oppose nuclear proliferation, but also one that attacks countries under false pretenses and sanctions the slaughter of civilians. He describes a government whose leaders repeatedly invoke religious ideals as their motivation, but also one that imprisons and tortures suspected enemies the world over. And he describes a government that proclaims the virtues of democracy but brutally opposes democratically-elected administrations while supporting coups and dictators. Who could this government be? If we rule out the existence of such a ruthless and hypocritical government, we might very well arrive at Mr. Schorr's conclusion that the letter is crazy. A further factor contributing to this misguided assessment may be the endearing, if shy, reluctance to understand the Iranian position in any sort of context. For example, when in comments to the Associated Press, Secretary Rice described the letter as tackling only history, philosophy and religion, and added that it isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way, she seemed to imply that history, philosophy and religion have nothing to do with the current stalemate or its solution. How uncharacteristically naïve! Although widely overlooked in American media, various events and circumstances doubtlessly color Iranian views. For example, as President Ahmadi-Najad points out, memory of American involvement in the 1953 coup that replaced the legal government of Iran with dictatorial rule still rankles people. Some intractable Iranians angrily remember American support for Saddam Hussein during Iraq's ferocious war with Iran. And particularly recalcitrant Iranians wonder why the region's only nuclear power can, with outspoken American approval, pitilessly pursue policies of extraordinary
[Biofuel] Help with graphics
Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] The Developer vs. the Nation's Largest Urban Farm
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader06062006.html Ralph Nader: the Battle for South Central Farm 6-6-6 The Developer vs. the Nation's Largest Urban Farm The Battle for South Central Farm By RALPH NADER South Central Farm, Los Angeles. The showdown is likely here this week over the preservation of this nation's largest urban farm worked by 350 families for 13 years to feed themselves and their neighbors a dazzling variety of organic produce. Will the Sheriff of Los Angeles County move on this 14 acre farm with dozens of squad cards to enforce an eviction notice on behalf of its developer-owner? Or will the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio R. Villaraigosa, come up with the private benefactors to match what has already been raised in order to meet the hefty selling price of about $16 million by its present owner, Ralph Horowitz? Wednesday seems to be the day of decision. The Sheriff is focusing on eviction and has laid elaborate battle plans featuring overwhelming force in the early dawn hours and hoping for a minimum of injuries. He proudly swears that this is not going to be another Seattle, meaning a prolonged, out of control, media-saturated struggle. At the same time, the Mayor, desiring to let the farmers continue their urban community gardens and farmers' market, is racing to raise the over $1 million per acre price tag. He wants to avoid what could become a very ugly confrontation between determined residents, practicing organized non-violent civil disobedience against police with clubs, tear gas and other eviction tools. The Mayor knows that he could become either the hero of this vast, impoverished area of this city or its memorable villain. Yesterday, I visited South Central Farm and felt the energy of its people-creative energy brimming with plans to make their acres a hub of a city-wide green movement, a learning center for schoolchildren, a demonstration garden for home gardeners, a community space for art and performance, a plaza for our farmers' market, a commons for all of us. Mr. Horowitz wanted the land for use as a warehouse. The South Central Farm is fast becoming a cause-celebre earning the designation-The Whole World is Watching. Celebrities from Hollywood, the musical and political arenas have visited. The stalwart of stalwarts, Julia Butterfly Hill-of Redwood Residence fame-is living in a tree there and is in her 20th day of fasting. Contributions and expressions of support are coming in from many countries. Walking through the gardens felt like the two meanings of the word-verdure-the greenness of growing vegetation and a condition of health and vigor. The corn was shoulder high, vines, vegetable and fruit plants of large varieties were coming to fragrant fruition. The seeds are a big deal. People here talk about them lovingly. Many came from Mexico and none are the kind that are subjected to a regular payment to Monsanto. They are passed from one small farmer to another. A dualistic sense of impending doom or victory is everywhere. Having experienced a series of legal defeats, due to a bizarre history of City Hall dealings with this land, there appear to be more pessimists than optimists. At least a foreboding pessimism. To people here the law is seen as an instrument of oppression instead of a mechanism for justice. A little history will frame the present conflict. In 1986, the City of Los Angeles took over this scarred, debris-ridden tract by eminent domain for the purpose of building a waste incinerator. The city paid a developer, Horowitz, $5 million with the proviso that if the land was ever resold he would have the right to buy it back. Attorneys for the farmers assert this is an illegal proviso and there is a trial date to litigate the question on July 12th. Local opposition to the incinerator stopped the project. In 1992 after the upheavals in the wake of the Rodney King verdict, then Mayor Tom Bradley let the farmers move onto the land under the aegis of the L.A. Food Bank. They cleaned up the area and in their words, made the soil live again. In 1995, the city shifted the property to the L.A. Harbor Department as part of the Alameda Corridor plan-a commercial zone set up for development. In 2002, Mr. Horowitz sued the city alleging that the transfer violated his earlier buy back agreement with the city. Attorneys for Los Angeles won three separate motions to dismiss his case but Mr. Horowitz persisted. Suddenly city officials agreed to sell the land back to him for the same $5 million, in secrecy, even though these officials knew the land was worth over twice that sum. The developer received title in December of 2003. The next month, Mr. Horowitz told the farmers to get out immediately. A flurry of lawsuits followed-the farmers have good, conscientious attorneys-but the court ruled for the developer and issued an order of eviction on May 24th 2006. After I spoke with a well-placed city official, my
[Biofuel] Myth of the Liberal Nanny State
http://www.alternet.org/story/36895/ Myth of the Liberal Nanny State By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 8, 2006. Economist Dean Baker lays waste to one of the most cherished myths of conservative philosophy. Our economic arrangements, and the political discourse that supports them, balance precariously on some deeply held myths. Among the most fanciful is the notion that conservatives are self-reliant actors who embrace a private sector free from government meddling. Supposedly, the right is content to take on the free-market with strength and skill, and let the chips fall where they may, while liberals look to the state to be their protective nanny, there to iron out the wrinkles of a dynamic, entrepreneurial society. It's a zombie lie -- no matter how many times you shoot it in the face, it keeps coming back to haunt you. But economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is trying his best to knock it down. Baker knows what the phrase free market really means, and in his new book, The Conservative Nanny State (which you can purchase in paperback or download as an e-book free of charge), he lays waste to the notion that American conservatives embrace anything resembling a truly free market. In fact, they're perverse Marxists, using heavy-handed government intervention to redistribute wealth upward. I recently caught up with Baker at his Washington, D.C., offices to get the scoop on The Conservative Nanny State. Joshua Holland: Your book cuts right to the heart of one of the most cherished myths of conservative philosophy. You say that conservatives are not, in fact, self-reliant fans of free-markets. Lay out your thesis in a nutshell. Dean Baker: Well that's the stereotype -- that conservatives are willing to take the hard knocks when they come -- but in my book I argue that what the conservatives have done is they've rigged the deck. They've made sure that certain people come out ahead, that income flows upward, and that other people are put at a disadvantage -- and these things are built into the rules of the system. And then what they want to do -- in talking about free markets -- is they want to kick back and say, No, no, no; those are the rules, and we can't talk about them. They don't want to talk about how the deck is rigged; they want us to fight over the small scraps. Holland: That's a good segue. You made a point about how our economic arrangements are considered part of a natural system. And you say that when it comes to markets, nanny-state conservatives are all creationists and adherents of intelligent design. What do you mean by that? Baker: Well, you go through a list of policies, and they want to act like the way the market works today -- the way the economy's structured -- that it's simply the natural course of things. They didn't do it; it just evolved that way. And what I'm trying to argue is that they did do it. And let's just get into some concrete examples. Take trade -- they've managed to frame the debate beautifully. They're for free trade. They want to compete in the world economy, and if you're a loser, you should get better skills or get more education. Maybe we'll throw you a bone here or there, but it's basically your problem if you can't compete. But the truth is, we carefully structured these trade agreements -- we put great effort into it -- to put our manufacturing workers into competition with manufacturing workers in developing nations. That meant going to these places and asking: What kind of problems does General Motors face if they want to set up a manufacturing plant in Mexico or Malaysia or China? What can we do to make it as easy as possible? That means that they know they can set up their factory and not have it nationalized, not have restrictions on repatriating profits, etc. Then they need to be able to import the goods back into the United States, and that means not only making sure there are no tariffs or quotas, but also that there's no safety or environmental restrictions that might keep the goods out. Now what they could have done -- and this would have been a true free trade policy -- they could have said, Look, there are a lot of very smart people in Mexico and China and India. And they can be doctors, lawyers, accountants and economists, and they would drive down costs in those areas enormously. We'd get our health care for much, much less -- we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars per year -- our college tuition would fall, because we'd pay college professors much less. We could make the whole thing transparent -- set up standards to make sure that we get the same quality of doctors. Enormous savings for the United States -- a great free trade story -- but instead of putting downward pressure on the wages of our auto workers, we'd be putting downward pressure on the wages of our highest earners. If we brought our wage structure for
Re: [Biofuel] seasonal burning
Hi Jason i just read the book, and i think its all crap. sorry if i offend any believers, but i truly believe it to be slop not fit for compost. Oh I don't know, it's just paper and soy-based inks, manure worms would probably turn it into something more useful. :-) Anyway, what I said was keep the intelligent design BS off the list. Of course we can discuss anything, but we also won't welcome someone who tries to tell us global warming is just a con, or (these days) that it's good for you anyway, more carbon makes plants grow so it will help feed the hungry, or something like that. Nor someone who says GM crops have great potential to help mankind and contribute to sustainable living (ie higher yields means less land required to support a given population)... as to fears about the GM DNA in food, everything you eat has DNA in it. Nor someone who says there's no need to wash your biodiesel, just put it in and go. Nor any other benighted stuff that we've settled time and again long ago. Jay Mathews of the Washington Post wrote: The [Intelligent Design] researchers seemed to be grasping at gaps in the fossil record, rather than seeing the irresistible Darwinist logic of what scientists have discovered. But comparing their arguments to Darwin's was, I thought, a wonderful way to teach Darwin. I could not understand why important educators and scientists were spending money on lawyers to keep ID out of the classroom. In my op-ed I said we ought to let ID be explained to students so that they could understand how it defied the scientific method, just as the flaws of perpetual motion theory, I said, should be a part of a physics course and the fallacies of the Steady-State theory should be part of an astronomy course. http://tinyurl.com/6s2nk http://snipurl.com/rmjf COMMENTARY LA Times, March 30, 2005 Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science By Michael Shermer Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the author of Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown (Times Books, 2005). http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/2624/1/147/ Political Affairs Magazine - War Against Reason: The Intelligent Design Scam As always, purveyors of right-wing pseudoscience rely on ignorance and lack of education as necessary preconditions for successfully peddling their poisonous product. http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html Intelligent Design - The Skeptic's Dictionary ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are not contradictory and they are not necessarily competitors. ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality. Only in America. It's hard not to agree with Mark Malloch Brown, unless you happen to see the world through stars-and-stripes-tinted specs. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0609-08.htm Published on Friday, June 9, 2006 by OneWorld.net Bolton's Threats Raise Fears of UN Shut-Down Best Keith - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] seasonal burning Kirk wrote: You might like http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?extend.128 Please keep this intelligent design BS off the list. It has been thoroughly debunked and can contribute nothing but confusion. If we now have to debunk it all over again I won't be amused. Thankyou. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner E. C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug; your meaning was crystal clear to me, i am an English major (more precisely, was, since i never followed the career path i trained for in college). In point of fact, your response said what i tried to, but more succinctly to the point. Kudos. :-)~ Kirk; I looked back in my archived file to see if your nit-pick was justified, didn't find it so, IMHO -- but hey, to err is human, i've been called on gaffes i've made before. Since you brought it up (the ET comment) -- a couple i know has acquainted me with the fact that there's a fair number of folks who fervently believe that, indeed, the human species IS descended from cross-breeding between early hominids and ET visitors from space (there being no clearly-defined missing link in the fossil record). True or not, we humans are a relatively new experiment in Earth's evolution -- and may not have a very long chapter in that history if we don't learn to overcome our aggressive, egocentric management style. Regards, Allen (E. Allen C.) --- Doug Younker wrote: Kirk, The reason I bothered to post was to detail why I believe seasonal burning, while it may have apparent benefits, is not natural, as practiced by man. I would
[Biofuel] Don't Forget Those Other 27,000 Nukes
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0608-29.htm Published on Thursday, June 8 2006 by the International Herald Tribune Don't Forget Those Other 27,000 Nukes by Hans Blix Stockholm, Sweden -- During the Cold War, it proved possible to reach many significant agreements on disarmament. Why does it seem so impossible now, when the great powers no longer feel threatened by one another? Almost all the talk these days is about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran and North Korea, or to terrorists. Foreign ministers meet again and again, concerned that Iran has enriched a few milligrams of uranium to a 4 percent level. Some want to start waving the stick immediately. They are convinced that Iran will eventually violate its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to forego nuclear weapons. While it's desirable that the foreign ministers talk about Iran, they don't seem to devote any thought to the fact that there are still some 27,000 real nuclear weapons in the United States, Russia and other states, and that many of these are on hair-trigger alert. Nor do the ministers seem to realize that the determination they express to reduce the nuclear threat is diminished by their failure to take seriously their commitment, made within the framework of the NPT, to move toward the reduction and elimination of their own nuclear arsenals. The stagnation in global disarmament is only part of the picture. In the United States, military authorities want new types of nuclear weapons; in Britain, the government is considering the replacement, at tremendous cost, of one generation of nuclear weapons by another - as defense against whom? Last year a UN summit of heads of states and governments failed to adopt a single recommendation on how to attain further disarmament or prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For nearly a decade, work at the disarmament conference in Geneva has stood still. It is time for a revival. One can well understand that policymakers in the United States, as elsewhere, feel disappointment and concern that the global instruments against nuclear proliferation - the NPT and international inspection - have proved to be insufficient to stop Iraq, North Korea, Libya and possibly Iran on their way to nuclear weapons. This may help explain their inclination to use the enormous military potential of the U.S. as either a threat or a direct means of preventing proliferation. However, after three years of a costly and criticized war in Iraq to destroy weapons that did not exist, doubts are beginning to arise about the military method, and a greater readiness may emerge to try global cooperation once again to reduce and eventually eliminate weapons of mass destruction. A report with 60 concrete recommendations to the states of the world on what they could do to free themselves from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, worked out by an independent international commission of which I was the chairman, is now available at www.wmdcommission.org. Apart from proposals for measures to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to more states and terrorists, the report points to two measures that could turn current concerns about renewed arms races into new hopes for common security. In both cases, success would depend on the United States. A U.S. ratification of the comprehensive test-ban treaty would, in all likelihood, lead other states to ratify and bring all such tests to an end, making the development of nuclear weapons more difficult. Leaving the treaty in limbo, as has been done since 1996, is to risk new weapons testing. The second measure would be to conclude an internationally verified agreement to cut off the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes. This would close the tap everywhere for more weapons material and would be of special importance if an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States were to give India access to more uranium than it has at the moment. It is positive that the U.S. has recently presented a draft cutoff agreement, but hard to understand why this agreement does not include international inspection. Do the drafters think that the recent record of national intelligence indicates that international verification is superfluous? Hans Blix is a former chief UN weapons inspector. © 2006 The Internaional Herald Tribune ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Taking Stock of Our Oceans
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10634 Taking Stock of Our Oceans -- A Guest Commentary June 08, 2006 - By Dr. Simon Cripps, WWF International Today is World Ocean Day, a day to pause and take stock of our marine resources and our personal connection to the sea, even for all those who are landlocked or haven't had time to go to the beach this summer. Considering the sad state of our oceans these days, it seems that there is not much to celebrate. Many marine species are threatened with extinction, coral reefs are being destroyed, the waters are polluted and overfished, and the list goes on. Sadly, oceans, the largest living space on Earth - oceans cover 71% of our planet's surface - are fast deteriorating. In fact, much of the world's fisheries are already fully exploited or overfished. And each year billions of unwanted fish and other animals - like dolphins, marine turtles, seabirds and sharks - needlessly die from inefficient, illegal and destructive fishing practices. As many as 90% of the ocean's large fish, such as tuna, swordfish and marlin, as well as numerous shark species, have been fished out. Today, poor fisheries management is probably the largest threat to ocean life and habitats, not to mention the livelihoods and food security of over a billion people. The impacts of declining fish catches are being painfully felt by many coastal fishing communities around the world. Newfoundland in Canada provides a sobering example of what happens to communities when fish populations are fished to commercial extinction. For centuries the cod stocks of the Grand Banks seemed inexhaustible, but today the fishery has all but collapsed with thousands of people out of work. In Senegal, fishermen no longer catch prized barracudas and red carp, but instead go after smaller and less appetizing species because most of the time there is nothing else. Similar scenarios are being observed throughout the world. So what can we do to conserve the future of our oceans? Protect them. Less than 1% of the world's oceans are under some form of protection compared to almost 13% of the planet's land area. And the vast majority of existing marine parks and reserves suffer from little or no effective management. But with the introduction of marine protected areas, things are starting to change. Marine protected areas - which include marine reserves, areas closed to fishing or oil and gas exploration, and locally-managed marine areas - are an essential insurance policy for the future of both marine life and local people. They safeguard the ocean's rich diversity of life and provide safe havens for endangered species, as well as commercial fish populations, and can offer sources of income for local communities, such as through tourism and park management. WWF, together with its partners, is working towards a network of effectively managed, ecologically representative marine protected areas that will cover at least 10% of the world's oceans by 2020. This is an ambitious goal, but a goal that is achievable. In the last few years alone, we have helped achieve protection for more than 200,000km2 of marine areas, including coral reefs, mangrove forests, seagrass beds, fish breeding grounds and deep-sea habitats. This is but a drop in the ocean, but some countries are heeding the call. Just last year, Fiji announced that it will establish a marine protected network covering 30% of its waters by 2020 - one of the largest areas of protected ocean in the world. Other island nations have made similar commitments, including Australia, Micronesia and Granada. Protected areas do not simply mean maintaining biodiversity and providing refuges for species - although this is a significant goal within itself considering increasingly high levels of biodiversity loss - but it is also intended to support sustainable fisheries. Protected marine areas can be used to provide areas where fish are able to spawn and grow to their adult size, increasing fish catches (both size and quantity) in surrounding fishing grounds, and helping maintain local cultures, economies, and livelihoods which are intricately linked to the marine environment. Marine ecosystems are very complex and our knowledge of them limited. We are still discovering new species and new habitats. But we do know that if we continue to fish and use the world's marine resources at the rate we are now, there won't be too much left for future generations, let alone the next few years. Fortunately, many within the fishing industry and seafood sector are aware of the crisis at sea and are working with environmental organizations and forward-looking governments towards a healthy, more sustainable marine ecosystem. They are trying to find ways to improve fisheries management, reduce the impacts of destructive fishing, and promote sustainably caught seafood. In other words, tying to change the way fish are caught, marketed
[Biofuel] Defeat for Net Neutrality Backers
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0609-06.htm Published on Friday, June 9, 2006 by the BBC / UK Defeat for Net Neutrality Backers US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation. by Tom Lasseter Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use. The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law. All three mounted vigorous lobbying campaigns prior to the vote in the House of Representatives. Tier fear The rejection of the principle of net neutrality came during a debate on the wide-ranging Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act). Among other things, this aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Representative Fred Upton, head of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said competition could mean people save $30 to $40 each month on their net access fees. An amendment to the Act tried to add clauses that would demand net service firms treat equally all the data passing through their cables. The amendment was thought to be needed after the FCC ripped up its rules that guaranteed net neutrality. During the debate House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, said that without the amendment telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway. This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the internet, she added. Critics of the amendment said it would bring in unnecessary government regulation. Prior to the vote net firms worried about the effect of the amendment on their business lobbied hard in favour of the amendment. They fear their sites will become hard to reach or that they will be forced to pay to guarantee that they can get through to web users. Meg Whitman, eBay chief executive, e-mailed more than one million members of the auction site asking them to back the idea of net neutrality. Google boss Eric Schmidt called on staff at the search giant to support the idea, and film stars such as Alyssa Milano also backed the amendment. The ending of net neutrality rules also spurred the creation of activism sites such as Save The Internet and Its Our Net. Speaking at a conference in late May, web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee warned that the net faced entering a dark period if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise. The amendment was defeated by 269 votes to 152 and the Cope Act was passed by 321-101 votes. The debate over the issue now moves to the US Senate where the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will vote on its version of the act in late June. The debate in that chamber is also likely to centre on issues of net neutrality. © BBC MMVI ### ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions adud: researchers
Al, You wrote: One more little tidbit... just *try* to get a license/permit to operate a still to make ethanol... *If* you manage to even get close enough to a gov't person to actually apply for one, I sincerely hope you have another (good paying) job, and you are only about 20-23 years old... 25 at the most... by the time you hit retirement age, you *might* have made your way through the maze of red tape, red herrings, red faces (temper control) ad infinitum, to finally arrive at being allowed to run a still... Have you contacted the National Revenue Center re: application for ethanol distillation permit? Me: I would like to ferment and distill ethanol to produce ethyl esters (biodiesel) for my own use. The biodiesel would be used in my diesel cars and my heating system. Do I need a permit to proceed? If so, how do I get one? Thank You in advance, Thomas Kelly The response I got was prompt and very helpful: Mr. Kelly, Since you would be distilling ethanol for use in your biodiesel production, you do need an Alcohol Fuel Producer's Permit with our Bureau. I'll send you that application packet via a separate e-mail. There's no application fee or excise tax due on fuel alcohol. You may want to review the regulations to understand what records must be kept and about filing an annual report of operations with us. The regulations can be found at the following link to Part 19. The AFP regulations begin at subpart Y of Part 19. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/27cfr19_05.html Tom - Original Message - From: A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions adud: researchers I read somewhere (may even have been on this list) that the incentives for alternate fuels (i.e. biodiesel) from the gov't totalled a whopping 18 mil... that sum was for all alternate fuel sectors (as I understood it) Big oil was awarded a paltry 40 Billion to explore... like they don't have any money of their own to invest... that speaks a volume to me... and not in very nice language either... Kyoto shot down?? Same reasons... not at all popular with big oil because it cuts directly (or should) into their bottom line, so their bottom line to gov't is simple - drop Kyoto, or think about going back to a real job in the private sector instead of playing Mr./Mrs./Ms. Politician... Care to guess how those Kyoto targets suddenly became too optimistic to meet ?? One more little tidbit... just *try* to get a license/permit to operate a still to make ethanol... *If* you manage to even get close enough to a gov't person to actually apply for one, I sincerely hope you have another (good paying) job, and you are only about 20-23 years old... 25 at the most... by the time you hit retirement age, you *might* have made your way through the maze of red tape, red herrings, red faces (temper control) ad infinitum, to finally arrive at being allowed to run a still... *However*... *If* you happen to be Big Oil, how many stills would you like, how soon, and how much do you need to get set up??... As I said... Cynical? You bet... - Original Message - From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions a dud: researchers I didn't know that you guys in Canada had the same problem as we do in the US. Our govenment is totally controlled by big corporations. Ken --- A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only real plan (Liberal or Conservative) is to keep big business feeding their election campaigns... They (big biz) won't feed the election coffers unless they're allowed to continue business as usual... Us little guys and home producers couldn't hope to contribute at big biz levels, even if we were of a mind to... Money talks. BS walks and big biz hasn't the mindset to change anything - unless it increases the bottom line... Cynical? You bet... Al - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 8:37 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions a dud: researchers The results of the study come as no surprise, sadly. The Liberal administrations were more interested in photo-ops than results. While the new Conservative administration claims to have a made-in-Canada plan, suspicions are it's a made-in-neocon-USA plan. Personally, I'd welcome any real plan on the subject. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/05/28/pf-1602651.html May 28, 2006 By DENNIS
[Biofuel] War, War and More War is What Bush Really Wants
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13542.htm War, War and More War is What Bush Really Wants By BILL CHRISTISON Former CIA analyst 06/08/06 Counterpunch -- -- George W. Bush. Dubya. In the media, the practice of using the W to distinguish the current president from his father is common. George Senior has two middle initials -- H and W -- but few media flacks seem to use them. Nevertheless, two beats one, and adding to the fetid miasma constantly enveloping Washington these days is the old but oft-repeated rumor about a dominating motivation of Bush Junior -- that he would do almost anything to assure that his own reputation surpasses that of his father in historians' future rankings of presidents. It seems to me that we might in common courtesy push him a little more quickly than might otherwise occur, at least in the name game, toward equality with (though not superiority over) his father -- by giving him the honor and dignity of two middle initials. We should decree that henceforth the son shall be known as George P. W. (Perpetual War) Bush. Instead of just Dubya, how about calling him Pee Dubya? Is it unfair to label the current president Pee Dubya? No, it is not. Let's look at a little background. Back on March 16, 2006, the White House published a new document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This replaces or, more properly, supplements an earlier document with the same title that the White House put out in 2002. Most people in the U.S. and elsewhere did not pay much attention to the new version of this document, because it is loaded with clichés and much of it reads like the propaganda put out by far too many current Bush administration spokesmen these days. It is not an inspired piece of writing. The first two pages contain a cover letter from George W. Bush to My fellow Americans that seems particularly propagandistic. In these two pages, the words democracy or democratic appear seven times; the words freedom or free, eleven times. But the document is nonetheless important. Perhaps the major difference between the 2006 and the 2002 version is the greater bluntness with which the new version proclaims that the U.S. is in a struggle that will last for many years and defines who our alleged principal enemy is. Several recent speeches of Bush had already presaged this bluntness, but the new White House document puts the same thoughts into the most prestigious and official foreign policy pronouncement that the present administration makes public. In the very beginning of the paper, immediately following Bush's covering letter, the ultimate goal of the U.S. is described as ending tyranny in our world. A cliché? Of course, but noteworthy for its arrogance. The paper then continues, Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long struggle. . . . The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion. Later in the document, this statement appears: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century. This comparison of 20th century threats with 21st century threats makes it quite clear that the Bush administration foresees new world wars in the 21st century that may be every bit as bad as the world wars of the 20th. And there are no statements that the U.S. will make any great efforts to avoid such wars. Pee Dubya just doesn't seem to care. Nowhere in the 2002 version of The National Security Strategy were such comparisons of 20th century fascism and communism with 21st century militant Islamic radicalism made, although a formulation almost as blunt did appear in a very high-level U.S. publication (for the first time that this writer can recall) -- in the 9/11 Commission Report released in July 2004. The 9/11 Commission, consisting of both Republicans and Democrats appointed by the leaders of both parties, issued a report that contained absolutely no dissents or even hints of disagreements. The commissioners unanimously concluded, in what was a key passage of the report, that the enemy is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil. . . . It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. . . . Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the 'head of the snake,' and it must be converted or destroyed. . . . [This] is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground -- not even respect for life -- on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated. . . . This process is likely to be measured in decades, not years. The only things missing from this diatribe were the comparisons with
[Biofuel] NASA shelves climate satellites
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/09/nasa_shelves_cli mate_satellites/ The Boston Globe NASA shelves climate satellites Environmental science may suffer By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | June 9, 2006 NASA is canceling or delaying a number of satellites designed to give scientists critical information on the earth's changing climate and environment. The space agency has shelved a $200 million satellite mission headed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor that was designed to measure soil moisture -- a key factor in helping scientists understand the impact of global warming and predict droughts and floods. The Deep Space Climate Observatory, intended to observe climate factors such as solar radiation, ozone, clouds, and water vapor more comprehensively than existing satellites, also has been canceled. And in its 2007 budget, NASA proposes significant delays in a global precipitation measuring mission to help with weather predictions, as well as the launch of a satellite designed to increase the timeliness and accuracy of severe weather forecasts and improve climate models. The changes come as NASA prioritizes its budget to pay for completion of the International Space Station and the return of astronauts to the moon by 2020 -- a goal set by President Bush that promises a more distant and arguably less practical scientific payoff. Ultimately, scientists say, the delays and cancellations could make hurricane predictions less accurate, create gaps in long-term monitoring of weather, and result in less clarity about the earth's hydrological systems, which play an integral part in climate change. ``Today, when the need for information about the planet is more important than ever, this process of building understanding through increasingly powerful observations . . . is at risk of collapse, said Berrien Moore III, director of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire. Moore is cochairman of a National Research Council committee that will recommend NASA's future earth science agenda later this year. It is unclear, however, whether NASA will follow those recommendations. ``NASA has canceled, scaled back, or delayed all of the planned earth observing missions, he said. Despite NASA's best-known role as a space agency, one of its key missions is to study the earth. Scientists collect data through ground- and space-based observatories using instruments that can sense heat and through which they can see with exquisite detail from many miles up. In recent years, these missions have increased in importance and visibility as global temperatures rise and scientists rush to better understand the phenomenon and the role of humans in it. While NASA is proposing similarly deep cuts to other important science programs such as astrobiology -- the search for life in space -- the earth science mission cancellations and delays take on greater significance, some scientists say, given recent allegations by a top NASA researcher and other government scientists that the Bush administration tried to silence their warnings about global warming. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Public Interest in News Topics Beyond Control of Mainstream Media
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0609-29.htm Published on Friday, June 9, 2006 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Washington) Public Interest in News Topics Beyond Control of Mainstream Media by Kenneth F. Bunting The blogosphere has been abuzz. But in the days since Rolling Stone magazine published a long piece that accused Republicans of widespread and intentional cheating that affected the outcome of the last presidential election, the silence in America's establishment media has been deafening. In terms of bad news judgment, this could turn out to be the 2006 equivalent of the infamous Downing Street memo, the London Times story that was initially greeted by the U.S. media with a collective yawn. Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone mega-essay is titled Was the 2004 Election Stolen? It focuses on widespread voting irregularities, questionable tallies and disenfranchising practices, particularly in Ohio, which President Bush won by more than 100,000 votes. Singling out Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell for much of the blame, Kennedy writes persuasively that enough was awry in that state alone to raise serious questions as to whether Bush really defeated John Kerry in 2004. Blackwell, now a Republican candidate for governor, headed Bush's state re-election campaign at the same time he was constitutionally in charge of the state's voting machinery. While Kennedy's article perhaps gives far too much weight to suspicious discrepancies between exit polls and the final election outcome, it meticulously asserts and documents questionable methods of purging voter rolls, intentionally created long lines at Democratic polling places, court-defying practices regarding registrations and provisional ballots, a phony terrorist alert on Election Day and final tallies in some counties and precincts that, to Kennedy's way of seeing it, simply don't make sense. Already, it notes, three Cleveland-area election officials have been indicted for illegally rigging the recount. Kennedy's 11,000-word article was Rolling Stone's cover story, published on Thursday of last week. But if you were looking in the five or six days afterward for follow-up stories, investigations or even a mention in the P-I, its cross-town competitor or just about any other major U.S. newspaper, you were almost certainly disappointed. To his credit, CNN's Wolf Blitzer aired a brief and not-very-illuminating interview with Kennedy late the next day after the Rolling Stone issue hit the newsstands. There was a brief mention on the Lou Dobbs report later that same evening and MSNBC got around to mentioning the article's assertions several days later. But for the most part, national and regional newspapers, the major networks and news services have behaved as if the article was never published, that it broke no new ground and there was nothing of interest or significance in it. Understandably, some readers are asking why. One Whidbey Island resident e-mailed the news editors of the P-I and The Seattle Times simultaneously, asking Which one of you has the honesty and guts to investigate and report about the charges that Robert Kennedy Jr. has written about in regards to stolen 2004 presidential election? That someone could claim that our American electoral process was criminally thwarted should be BIG news. P-I News Editor Gil Aegerter answered courteously, telling the reader he would pass his concerns along to our political coverage team. In the meantime, Aegerter wrote, I'll direct you to online coverage that the P-I has been doing on this issue, about the original Rolling Stone report and about reaction to it. Despite the critical tone in his note to Aegerter and his Times counterpart, our reader, and others who have similarly complained, are right. Aegerter and other P-I editors who have taken time to respond to complaining readers are to be commended. While there is no pretense here that it is adequate, I'm also proud that, having seen no wire-service accounts, political team Assigning Editor Chris Grygiel was smart enough to write and start a blog about it on our Web site. It is news. It certainly deserves mention, at the very least in stories about the story, reaction to it or even ones debunking it. Any of those choices would be better judgment than simply ignoring it. Those of us in what bloggers and Internet journalists derisively call mainstream media should have learned that lesson last year, when Internet-fueled curiosity about the Downing Street memo made us pay attention to a story we were too quick to dismiss as old news. Badly undervaluing the significance and the public's interest in the new disclosures, we thought former Bush administration officials, including ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and White House counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke, had told us a year earlier that the administration had a predisposition for war with Iraq long before
[Biofuel] Air Pollution Goes Global
http://snipurl.com/rllr Air Pollution Goes Global Stephen Leahy , Inter Press Service (IPS) Sun Jun 4, 2:44 PM ET BROOKLIN, Canada, Jun 4 (IPS) - U.S.-based coal-burning power companies have become the target of international lawsuits so Canadians can one day hope to breathe cleaner air. Last month, the province of Ontario joined the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, along with two environmental groups, in a legal action against seven coal-fired electricity plants run by Duke Energy Corp. I stand here representing 12 million Ontarians who every day breathe in the air pollution coming from those seven electrical generating facilities from Ohio and Indiana, Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten said in media reports. More than 55 percent of the health and environmental impacts of air pollution in Ontario are the result of U.S. emissions, Monica Campbell of the Environmental Protection Office in the city of Toronto told IPS. U.S. trans-boundary pollution accounts for an estimated 2,750 premature deaths and five billion dollars in health and environmental damages annually, according to an Ontario government study last year. Diplomacy is not working, Campbell said of efforts to clean up emissions from U.S. coal plants, some of which were built in the 1950s. Toronto and Ontario have appealed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not weaken its air pollution rules to allow the old, worst polluting plants to continue to operate without emissions reductions. We've told the EPA that these plants are having serious adverse health impacts on our residents, she said. However, as long as the George W. Bush administration remains at the helm, Campbell expects to see little progress on the issue, even though cleaning up dirty coal plants benefits residents on both sides of the border. Lawsuits have a reasonable chance of success, the Canadian official said. But even if successful, they take a long time to resolve. In 2000, Ontario and New York State sued the American Electric Power Corporation (AEP) because its nine power plants violate U.S. environmental laws. The case is still before the courts. This is just one small part of a global problem. Pollution, especially air pollution, is free to travel to all parts of the world. Last month, out-of-control farm fires in Russia were blamed for soaring particulate levels in Scotland and Northern England that exceeded safety levels. Heavy black smoke blanketed Gibraltar for days in late May because of a problem at an oil refinery in neighbouring Spain. And it's not just the impact of emissions from one country on its neighbour -- pollutants that affect human health, such as mercury, ozone and particulates, regularly cross the oceans, says Dan Jaffe, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Washington who made the first discoveries of trans-boundary pollution in the 1990s. Pollutants from Asia can actually affect U.S. air quality, Jaffe told IPS. The most famous incident was an enormous brown dust cloud from China that descended on the U.S. in April 2001 and pushed air pollution up to unhealthy levels over much of the country, he said. A large quantity of Asia's ocean-spanning pollution comes from coal-burning power plants, which are also responsible for 25 percent of U.S. mercury emissions. Children exposed to even low levels of mercury before birth can experience serious neurological and development impairments. Currently more than 60,000 children born each year may suffer from learning disabilities due to mercury exposure before birth, according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has also warned that one in 12 women of childbearing age carry levels of mercury in their bodies that are unsafe for a developing fetus. But even if the United States reduced its homegrown mercury emissions from coal plants, trans-boundary mercury emissions are rising fast. The number of coal power plants in Asia is expected to double in 10 years to meet the region's fast-growing energy needs, said Jaffe. That will have a much larger impact on the air quality of the U.S., the scientist noted, adding that these emissions will also hurt Asia. Air pollution is already a huge drain on local economies in Asia because of the economic costs of the health and environmental problems. But the situation offers a great opportunity for the U.S. to help Asia develop cleaner sources of energy, he said. Technology transfer, financial assistance and information sharing are in the U.S.'s best interests. There are already efforts underway between the U.S, China and India, but it remains to be seen how effective they are, he said. Equally important is international regulation of emissions. Formed in 1979, the U.N.-sponsored Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution is intended to reduce and prevent air pollution. The convention is
[Biofuel] The Neocons Are Talking War-Again
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3303 Right Web | Analysis | The Neocons Are Talking War-Again Tom Barry, IRC | June 8, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org The neocons are largely united over Iran policy, which they say should have three pillars: avoid diplomacy, which they call appeasing the evildoers; destabilize Iran and set the stage for regime change by supporting the true democrats; and bomb Iran before it poses an imminent threat to Israel or the United States. The neocons and their allies in the Pentagon and vice president's office set the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. As they set their sights on the next target of preventive war and regime change, what the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Iran Policy Committee, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and other neocon groups are saying about Iran merits attention. In both the House and the Senate, the large majority of policymakers on both sides of the aisle back the Iran Freedom and Democracy Act, whose unstated but implicit objective is U.S.-guided regime change in Iran. Nothing wrong with freedom and democracy-Iranians themselves clearly want more of both-but lawmakers are once again setting the stage for war, just as they did in the late 1990s when they passed similar neocon-inspired bills calling for the liberation of Iran. Today, the gathering War Party on Iran is discussing a two-pronged strategy-having the United States and Israel begin preparations for military strikes, while at the same time immediately putting into motion a destabilization strategy involving U.S. support for Iranian dissidents. Back in the 1980s, the neoconservatives who helped guide the rollback policies of the Reagan presidency didn't use the term regime change. But the policies they helped put in place-democratization aid to U.S. allies and covert support for freedom fighters in Central America, Afghanistan, and Angola-are playing out again in the war on terror. The neocons and liberal hawks are again playing what proved to be a successful strategy. More alarming still is the easy talk circulating in Washington of missile strikes, bombing, and an expanded U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Not Just Containment, but Extended Commitment While some neocons are focusing on increasing U.S. democratization aid to media and information projects, others such as Thomas Donnelly, Reuel Gerecht, and Raymond Tanter are talking about military strategies that could advance the war on terrorism in the Middle East. AEI's Tom Donnelly explicitly links Iran policy to the overall objective of transforming and controlling the Middle East through new military operations, including an expanded U.S. troop presence throughout the region. Donnelly, former top military analyst for the moribund Project for the New American Century (PNAC), was the lead author of Rebuilding America's Defenses, PNAC's 2000 policy blueprint for military transformation. In an October 2005 essay in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, Donnelly contends that a nuclear Iran represents a security threat-not so much because Tehran would use the weapons or pass them on to terrorists, but rather because of the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon U.S. strategy for the greater Middle East. The greatest danger, according to Donnelly, is that the realists will pursue a 'balance of power' approach with a nuclear Iran, undercutting the Bush 'liberation strategy'. The scope of U.S. national security strategy extends beyond the war against radical Islamist networks to an extended commitment to reshape the region's political order in a liberal and democratic fashion, says Donnelly. Consequently, American security strategy requires more than containment or even a 'rollback' of enemies in the greater Middle East; it demands that we establish something more lasting in partnership with local allies. The job for our forces is to create the opportunity for these more representative, liberal, and ultimately stable governments to take root. In Iraq, this grand strategy means occupying Iraq beyond the time when there is a return of sovereignty, democratic elections, and a modicum of security. Even if the United States successfully achieves these goals, it will remain obligated to help a free Iraq defend itself in a hostile region. He warns that U.S. withdrawal is not possible: There is a substantial 'defer forward' mission that looms after the 'win decisively' is done. And what is true in Iraq is also true on a smaller scale in Afghanistan. Nuclear Earth Penetrators and MEK Empowerment Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee says that one option in Iran would be for the U.S. military to use a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which the Pentagon still seems interested in developing. The problem that Tanter sees with using these bunker-busting bombs to take out underground Iranian nuclear
[Biofuel] No New Refineries
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php No New Refineries Frank O'Donnell June 06, 2006 Frank O'Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch , a 501(c)3 nonpartisan, nonprofit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (and Exxon defender) recently compared Al Gore to Joseph Goebbels for his new film An Inconvenient Truth. If there is a Goebbels reference to be made it should start with the Big Lie and it is not to Al Gore that it applies. Goebbels is credited with inventing the idea that if you repeat a lie often enough it eventually will be believed. Naturally, conservatives think that if they keep using Gore and Nazi-environmentalist in the same sentence pretty soon the rest of us will, too. And, painful as it is to draw the analogy, it's deplorable to see a similar tactic being used today by congressional Republicans, who seem desperate to find a scapegoat for high gasoline prices. In this case, the Big Lie involves politicians and others scapegoating environmental requirements for blocking the construction of new oil refineries. With the House planning to vote this week on yet another bogus bill which ostensibly is designed to promote more refining, it might be worth examining both the rhetoric and the reality. Here's the Big Lie, as uttered May 3 on the House floor by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a principal sponsor of new refinery legislation: The last American refinery to be built from scratch in this country was over 30 years ago. It takes as long as 10 years just to get the permit to build or expand [an] existing refinery. And here's what President George W. Bush said, in a speech on April 25: There has not been a new refinery built in America in 30 years. Again on May 16, Bush said: There has not been a single new refinery built in America since 1976. This mindless mantra is generally accompanied by calls to streamline or simplify environmental permit requirements-the implication being that if only we could shut up those mouthy environmentalists, we'd have lots more refineries and be enjoying 99-cents-per-gallon gasoline. That rhetoric is the wind in the sails of the House Republican bill. This bill would have the president designate at least three closed military bases as sites for new refineries, and call for creation of a federal refinery czar-technically called a federal coordinator-to speed along permit applications. It's tempting to not to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but even the oil industry itself admits this issue is a red herring. For example, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association conceded at a May 23 Senate hearing on price gouging that gasoline supplies were temporarily tight. But the oil industry lobby went on to note that: This situation will ultimately be addressed through announced additions to U.S. refinery capacity, estimated at 1.4 to 2.0 million barrels per day. This is an 8-11percent increase in U.S. capacity, which should be in place by 2010 at the latest. over the past 10 years, domestic refining has increased by an average of 177,000 barrels per day of production each year or the equivalent of building one new, larger than average refinery each year. This fact should assuage some concerns about the fact that no new grassroots refinery has been built in the U.S. in over 30 years. Indeed, at a Senate hearing last year, BP's chief executive officer explained that [refinery] margins over the last 10 to 15 years have not been high enough on average to justify building a new refinery. And in a recent closed-door briefing with congressional aides, an Exxon Mobil official said that company foresees no need to build new refineries at least through the year 2030. If that weren't fast enough, last year's Energy Policy Act included provisions to coordinate state and federal permitting for new refineries. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman hailed the refinery provisions as easing the constraints on new refinery construction. So much for the baloney about no new refineries. But what about the related argument about alleged barriers and permit delays for expansions of existing refineries? First, note that all the expansions mentioned above have taken place and are expected to continue without any change in current rules. Backing up that experience, CEOs for BP, Shell and Conoco all testified to Congress last year that environmental requirements have not blocked a single planned refinery expansion. And, contrary to Joe Barton's wild assertion, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner testified to Congress in 2000 that about half the permit modifications for refineries were issued within five months and that most of the others were issued within a year. That conclusion
[Biofuel] Bush's Atomic Two-Step
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/09/bushs_atomic_twostep.php Bush's Atomic Two-Step Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung June 09, 2006 Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung are senior research associates at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center. http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/tangledweb.html The game of nuclear diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran continues, with the ball squarely in the Iran's court. Last week, the United States abruptly shifted tactics and began to engage directly with European-led negotiation efforts aimed at convincing Iran to limit or end its nuclear activity. This week U.S. and European officials revealed that the U.S. has even offered Iran nuclear technology. In what is being viewed as an upset for administration hawks, the U.S. promised that Iran will be allowed to continue its enrichment program, as long as it agrees to first suspend all activity, so that it can prove-presumably through IAEA inspections-that its intentions are entirely civilian. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006 060600685.html However, some observers have already pointed out that proving civilian intentions can be difficult-remember the conundrum Iraq was faced when asked to prove the destruction of WMDs that never existed in the first place? Similarly, the Bush administration's demand that Iran suspend its enrichment activities before sitting down at the table-in other words, concede the goal of negotiations before negotiations even begin-is far from a new diplomatic strategy. The White House has used exactly the same strategy elsewhere-notably with Hamas-to avoid having to engage with those whom Bush views as enemies. The United States is setting the bar pretty high for Iran. Is it impossibly high? One administration official has indicated that a rejection of the U.S. overture by Iran may in fact be the White House's objective. Such a rebuff would allow the Bush administration to take forceful action without being seen as unreasonable unilateralists. Initially, President Bush said that the offer would be on the table for only two weeks before the U.S. moved on to U.N. Security Council-backed sanctions. The Bush administration hoped a dismissal of the offer would make Russia and China more willing to vote for sanctions against Tehran. This cynical approach is similar to U.S. actions in the run-up to the Iraq war, when President Bush falsely claimed that a diplomatic solution was possible even after the decision to attack Saddam Hussein's regime had been decided. Given all of the obstacles, it would be surprising if this new package would convince Iran to suspend its nuclear program. What would the United States be doing if it were truly committed to a diplomatic resolution? In addition to pursuing a more gradual approach that would give the negotiating process months or years, not weeks, to bear fruit, non-aggression pledges by the United States and Israel might get things moving. Ultimately, negotiations should move towards a nuclear-free Middle East, with the elimination of Israel's nuclear arsenal as part of those talks. Nowhere is the Bush administration's inconsistent, and at times hypocritical, position on nuclear weapons more evident than in its approaches to Indian and Iranian nuclear pursuits: aiding one and threatening the other, all the while denying that its own position as the world's ultimate nuclear power is a catalyst for proliferation and an impediment to peace and security. India, for example, stepped out of the international consensus on nuclear abolition in 1998 when it tested a nuclear device. Now a new nuclear deal that President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed in March-which still needs to approval by Congress-would shelve the moratorium barring U.S. sale of nuclear-related materials to India; allowing New Delhi to receive U.S. reactor components, nuclear fuel and expertise for its civilian nuclear power plants. The deal undermines the already tattered Non-Proliferation Treaty, rewarding a country that has refused to abide by international non-proliferation norms. Effectively, India has charted a new course into the nuclear club. What is to stop other countries with nuclear ambitions from following in their footsteps? The deal makes it extremely difficult for Washington to enter good faith negotiations aimed at thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. As an Indian opponent to the deal opined, the U.S. has itself become the biggest proliferators of nuclear technology-the only difference is that what the U.S. is practicing is selective proliferation. Iran concurs: a senior Iranian official, speaking soon after the outlines of the India-U.S. deal were released in July 2005, said: India is looking after its own national interests. We cannot criticize them for this. But what the Americans are doing is a double standard. On the one
[Biofuel] Dirk's Dirty Money
http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #20 8 june 06 NATURE POLITICS Dirk's Dirty Money After serving for five years as Interior Secretary in the Bush Cabinet, Gale Norton, protégé of James Watt, quietly stepped down from her post overseeing the ruination of the American West. Norton's sudden exit was almost certainly hastened by the widening fallout from the corruption probes into Jack Abramoff and his retinue of clients and the politicians and bureaucrats he held on retainer. Abramoff, it will be recalled, performed some of his most extravagant shakedowns of clients, many of them destitute Indian tribes, seeking indulgences from the Interior Department. To date, Norton has escaped being directly implicated in Abramoff's crimes of influence peddling and bribery. But her former chief deputy, super-lobbyist J. Steven Griles, who oversaw oil and gas leasing on federal lands at the same time he remained on the payroll of his lobbying firm, may be entering in the crosshairs of the Abramoff investigation. In a series of emails remarkable for their braggadocio and name-dropping, Abramoff advised his clients to donate money to an industry front group founded by Norton that promotes the privatization and industrialization of federal lands. In return, Abramoff bragged that he could offer them unfettered access to the top officials at the Interior Department, where their fondest desires would get a favorable hearing from people like Griles. In one instance, Abramoff claimed that Griles promised to block an Indian casino proposal opposed by one of Abramoff's clients. If Griles goes down, Norton may soon follow him into the dock. To replace Norton, Bush called upon his old pal Dirk Kempthorne, the Idaho governor and former US Senator who once cherished notions, fantastical though they may have been, of occupying the White House. In picking Kempthorne, Bush has once again demonstrated that mindless consistency which will be one of his hallmarks as president. Far from moving to clean up an office sullied by corruption and inside-dealing, Bush tapped a man who has, over the course of his 20 years in politics, taken more money from timber, big ag, mining and oil companies than any governor in the history of American politics. Unlike many other western conservatives, Kempthorne doesn't hit up the religious right for money. He goes straight to the corporations who want something done in Boise: JR Simplot, the potato king; Boise-Cascade, the timber giant; mining companies, such as ASARCO, Hecla, and FMC Gold; and the power companies. And Kempthorne gives them what they want. Kempthorne is Jack Abramoff without the middleman, decision-maker and lobbyist rolled into one. Over the years, one of Kempthorne's most loyal political patrons has been the Washington Group International, a Boise-based company that functions like a mini-Bechtel. During Kempthorne's tenure as governor, WGI has contributed more money to the politician than any other interest. The company got immediate returns on its investment. With an assist from Kempthorne, WGI won the lucrative contract to manage Idaho's highways. The federal government scuttled the deal, saying the contract had been awarded illegally. The contract went up for bid again and, miraculously, Kempthorne once again picked WGI for the job. With Idaho mired in a decade-long drought, water has become as contentious a political issue as oil in Alaska. Farmers, ranchers and Idaho's powerful sportsfishing industry formed a rare coalition last year intent on reforming Idaho's archaic water laws to give more water to ranchers and salmon. The bill moved through the state legislature with surprising speed, much to the irritation of the Idaho Power Company, the state's biggest water hog. Even Idaho Power's threat to jack up electric rates by millions of dollars didn't stall progress of the bill. So the company turned to Kempthorne, who flattened the bill with a veto. Idaho Power is Kempthorne's second largest political contributor. The phone giant Qwest is Kempthorne's fourth biggest contributor. In 2004, Qwest approached Kempthorne with an urgent plea: the deregulation of pricing for landline phones in Idaho. When Kempthorne sent a message to the Idaho state legislature urging it to bow to Qwest's desires, it was met with a certain measure of hostility by Idaho residents, who viewed with some skepticism the phone company's contention that such a move would save them money in the long run. Even members of Kempthorne's party balked and the bill went down to a narrow defeat. Over the next few months, Kempthorne disciplined recalcitrant Republicans and when the session opened in early 2005 the Qwest bailout bill sailed through and was signed into law by the governor. This is run-of-the-mill quid pro quo politics. But Kempthorne has been implicated in a more pungent scandal that may yet lead to
Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics
Keith, You might like to download the 30-day eval copy of this converter: http://www.processtext.com/abcvisio.html which converts visio vector graphics drawings to many image or pdf formats. As far as I can see, it installs and runs fine, but I couldn't find a visio file to try it out. Cheers. Chandan Keith Addison wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics
Uh-oh... sorry, I didn't notice the mac part in your mail... this converter is Windoz sw. Send me the visio file and I'll have a go at it. Chandan Chandan Haldar wrote: Keith, You might like to download the 30-day eval copy of this converter: http://www.processtext.com/abcvisio.html which converts visio vector graphics drawings to many image or pdf formats. As far as I can see, it installs and runs fine, but I couldn't find a visio file to try it out. Cheers. Chandan Keith Addison wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics
Keith, Send me a sample, I have an old version of visio somewhere, before I substituted if for smartdraw. I have a go and if smartdraw will take them, I can convert them to another format. Hakan At 10:38 11/06/2006, you wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Robert Fisk Article
Hello Keith!My daughter, Sabine, noticed on the Independent's website that Robert Fiskhad an article about the Canadian media and their treatment of storiesabout the Middle East or Middle Eastern communities in Canada.We can't access the whole article because we don't have a subscription tothe website. We were thinking that you might have one or know someone whodoes. It looks like a very good article worthy of forwarding widely,especially for those of us here in Canada. If you can, could you forwardit to me please?Fisk wrote the article while he was touring Canada for the Human RightsMedia Institute, a group Sabine is working with. He gave very interestinglectures notably about his new book; The War for Civilisation: theconquest of the Middle East.As you may have been following, there were 17 arrests in Toronto a fewdays back in connection with an alledged terrorist attack. Fisk's articletakes a critical look at the Canadian media's reporting about it amongother things.You should read it. It is, as always, a great piece of journalism.Thanks for your help,Fritz"Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground."- Anonymous ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Neocons Are Talking War-Again
WTF do they think is going to happen? unless the shrub finds some way to abolish the 2 term limit he wont be around to see his next war, and anyone who gets elected will have a decent chance of bringing everyone home. why do they keep this crap up? it does no good for anyone and it is destroying what little credibility america had left. and if they govt actually allows more than 2 terms, there will be a war on american soil, and it will be anything but civil. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:04 AM Subject: [Biofuel] The Neocons Are Talking War-Again http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3303 Right Web | Analysis | The Neocons Are Talking War-Again Tom Barry, IRC | June 8, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org The neocons are largely united over Iran policy, which they say should have three pillars: avoid diplomacy, which they call appeasing the evildoers; destabilize Iran and set the stage for regime change by supporting the true democrats; and bomb Iran before it poses an imminent threat to Israel or the United States. The neocons and their allies in the Pentagon and vice president's office set the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. As they set their sights on the next target of preventive war and regime change, what the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Iran Policy Committee, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and other neocon groups are saying about Iran merits attention. In both the House and the Senate, the large majority of policymakers on both sides of the aisle back the Iran Freedom and Democracy Act, whose unstated but implicit objective is U.S.-guided regime change in Iran. Nothing wrong with freedom and democracy-Iranians themselves clearly want more of both-but lawmakers are once again setting the stage for war, just as they did in the late 1990s when they passed similar neocon-inspired bills calling for the liberation of Iran. Today, the gathering War Party on Iran is discussing a two-pronged strategy-having the United States and Israel begin preparations for military strikes, while at the same time immediately putting into motion a destabilization strategy involving U.S. support for Iranian dissidents. Back in the 1980s, the neoconservatives who helped guide the rollback policies of the Reagan presidency didn't use the term regime change. But the policies they helped put in place-democratization aid to U.S. allies and covert support for freedom fighters in Central America, Afghanistan, and Angola-are playing out again in the war on terror. The neocons and liberal hawks are again playing what proved to be a successful strategy. More alarming still is the easy talk circulating in Washington of missile strikes, bombing, and an expanded U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Not Just Containment, but Extended Commitment While some neocons are focusing on increasing U.S. democratization aid to media and information projects, others such as Thomas Donnelly, Reuel Gerecht, and Raymond Tanter are talking about military strategies that could advance the war on terrorism in the Middle East. AEI's Tom Donnelly explicitly links Iran policy to the overall objective of transforming and controlling the Middle East through new military operations, including an expanded U.S. troop presence throughout the region. Donnelly, former top military analyst for the moribund Project for the New American Century (PNAC), was the lead author of Rebuilding America's Defenses, PNAC's 2000 policy blueprint for military transformation. In an October 2005 essay in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, Donnelly contends that a nuclear Iran represents a security threat-not so much because Tehran would use the weapons or pass them on to terrorists, but rather because of the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon U.S. strategy for the greater Middle East. The greatest danger, according to Donnelly, is that the realists will pursue a 'balance of power' approach with a nuclear Iran, undercutting the Bush 'liberation strategy'. The scope of U.S. national security strategy extends beyond the war against radical Islamist networks to an extended commitment to reshape the region's political order in a liberal and democratic fashion, says Donnelly. Consequently, American security strategy requires more than containment or even a 'rollback' of enemies in the greater Middle East; it demands that we establish something more lasting in partnership with local allies. The job for our forces is to create the opportunity for these more representative, liberal, and ultimately stable governments to take root. In Iraq, this grand strategy means occupying Iraq beyond the time when there is a return of sovereignty, democratic elections, and a modicum of security. Even if the United States successfully
Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions adud: researchers
its really not that hard to get the paperwork for it, i have a copy of the application as well. all you need is a short description of your property and still, and an estimate of your yearly production in proof gallons (a proof gallon is 50% alcohol by volume. 500G of anhydrous is equal to1000PG) the only reason you would hve to pay any taxes at all is if you sold it for road use, then there would be sales and road taxes. - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions adud: researchers Al, You wrote: One more little tidbit... just *try* to get a license/permit to operate a still to make ethanol... *If* you manage to even get close enough to a gov't person to actually apply for one, I sincerely hope you have another (good paying) job, and you are only about 20-23 years old... 25 at the most... by the time you hit retirement age, you *might* have made your way through the maze of red tape, red herrings, red faces (temper control) ad infinitum, to finally arrive at being allowed to run a still... Have you contacted the National Revenue Center re: application for ethanol distillation permit? Me: I would like to ferment and distill ethanol to produce ethyl esters (biodiesel) for my own use. The biodiesel would be used in my diesel cars and my heating system. Do I need a permit to proceed? If so, how do I get one? Thank You in advance, Thomas Kelly The response I got was prompt and very helpful: Mr. Kelly, Since you would be distilling ethanol for use in your biodiesel production, you do need an Alcohol Fuel Producer's Permit with our Bureau. I'll send you that application packet via a separate e-mail. There's no application fee or excise tax due on fuel alcohol. You may want to review the regulations to understand what records must be kept and about filing an annual report of operations with us. The regulations can be found at the following link to Part 19. The AFP regulations begin at subpart Y of Part 19. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/27cfr19_05.html Tom - Original Message - From: A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions adud: researchers I read somewhere (may even have been on this list) that the incentives for alternate fuels (i.e. biodiesel) from the gov't totalled a whopping 18 mil... that sum was for all alternate fuel sectors (as I understood it) Big oil was awarded a paltry 40 Billion to explore... like they don't have any money of their own to invest... that speaks a volume to me... and not in very nice language either... Kyoto shot down?? Same reasons... not at all popular with big oil because it cuts directly (or should) into their bottom line, so their bottom line to gov't is simple - drop Kyoto, or think about going back to a real job in the private sector instead of playing Mr./Mrs./Ms. Politician... Care to guess how those Kyoto targets suddenly became too optimistic to meet ?? One more little tidbit... just *try* to get a license/permit to operate a still to make ethanol... *If* you manage to even get close enough to a gov't person to actually apply for one, I sincerely hope you have another (good paying) job, and you are only about 20-23 years old... 25 at the most... by the time you hit retirement age, you *might* have made your way through the maze of red tape, red herrings, red faces (temper control) ad infinitum, to finally arrive at being allowed to run a still... *However*... *If* you happen to be Big Oil, how many stills would you like, how soon, and how much do you need to get set up??... As I said... Cynical? You bet... - Original Message - From: Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Grit plan to cut greenhouse emissions a dud: researchers I didn't know that you guys in Canada had the same problem as we do in the US. Our govenment is totally controlled by big corporations. Ken --- A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only real plan (Liberal or Conservative) is to keep big business feeding their election campaigns... They (big biz) won't feed the election coffers unless they're allowed to continue business as usual... Us little guys and home producers couldn't hope to contribute at big biz levels, even if we were of a mind to... Money talks. BS walks and big biz hasn't the mindset to change anything - unless it increases the bottom line... Cynical? You bet... Al - Original Message - From:
Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics
Uh-oh... sorry, I didn't notice the mac part in your mail... :-) My innocence of things MS is but a small sacrifice. this converter is Windoz sw. Send me the visio file and I'll have a go at it. Chandan Thankyou Chandan, I'll send it right now. I'll send it to Hakan too, as he has an old version of visio itself. It's a new design for a Turk burner, but I can't follow the text description without the graphics. If it works as claimed I'll upload it. Thanks again, all best Keith Chandan Haldar wrote: Keith, You might like to download the 30-day eval copy of this converter: http://www.processtext.com/abcvisio.html which converts visio vector graphics drawings to many image or pdf formats. As far as I can see, it installs and runs fine, but I couldn't find a visio file to try it out. Cheers. Chandan Keith Addison wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics
Hi Hakan Keith, Send me a sample, I have an old version of visio somewhere, before I substituted if for smartdraw. I have a go and if smartdraw will take them, I can convert them to another format. Thankyou Hakan, if it's not too much trouble. It looks like something useful for us all. I'll send it now offlist. Regards Keith Hakan At 10:38 11/06/2006, you wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Robert Fisk Article
Hello Fritz Robert Fisk is always a good read. I don't have a subscription to the Independent, though I used to work there. They only give you the top bit, silly, IMHO. If you can find the headline of a news story you can usually find it somewhere via Google. In Robert Fisk's case his website usually has most of them, or all of them. http://www.robert-fisk.com/ A collection of Articles Reports by Mr. Robert Fisk + Audio Video Sure enough: How racism has invaded Canada What is the term 'brown-skinned' doing on the front page of a major Canadian daily? 10 June 2006 http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles589.htm Plus a link to the full piece at Information Clearing House, which often carries his reports: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13575.htm How Racism Has Invaded Canada This is another critical piece I picked up yesterday: http://snipurl.com/rn01 Daily Times - Site Edition Thursday, June 08, 2006 Scepticism expressed over Canadian terrorist plot HTH Best Keith Hello Keith! My daughter, Sabine, noticed on the Independent's website that Robert Fisk had an article about the Canadian media and their treatment of stories about the Middle East or Middle Eastern communities in Canada. We can't access the whole article because we don't have a subscription to the website. We were thinking that you might have one or know someone who does. It looks like a very good article worthy of forwarding widely, especially for those of us here in Canada. If you can, could you forward it to me please? Fisk wrote the article while he was touring Canada for the Human Rights Media Institute, a group Sabine is working with. He gave very interesting lectures notably about his new book; The War for Civilisation: the conquest of the Middle East. As you may have been following, there were 17 arrests in Toronto a few days back in connection with an alledged terrorist attack. Fisk's article takes a critical look at the Canadian media's reporting about it among other things. You should read it. It is, as always, a great piece of journalism. Thanks for your help, Fritz Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground. - Anonymous ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Robert Fisk Article
Hello Keith, thank you a lot for your help. And let me assure you my gratitude for your staedy figth for a better world and for providing this Forum of distinguished Members. Fritz ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush
Keith Addison wrote: snip Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War and Terror his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed . . . snip Good questions, all. I've been asking them myself, and I often wonder how the NeoCons and other power brokers will answer the same questions when they're posed by a Holy God on Judgment Day . . . It's an interesting letter. Mr. Ahmadi-Najad is so often painted as an irrational lunatic in our media, yet the arguments he presents are comprehensive and cut to core issues of religious faith that require careful consideration. These do not sound like the words of a madman. The only thing I can say that might confirm Mr. Ahmadi-Najad's insanity is his presumption that Mr. Bush is ACTUALLY a follower of Jesus Christ. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] No New Refineries
This is one of those times I smell a rat, but can't find/prove it. In regards to environmental requirements, in the industry previously claimed the costs where too high and the consumer wouldn't pay the price. Here we are now: No refineries where not built and the consumer is paying unprecedented prices that result in higher profits for the industry. Chances are the industry will be allowed to build new refineries that don't meet the stricter environmental require, pocketing the savings. The cynic in me has to feel that in no way, even with relaxed environmental regulations, will the industry build capacity to significantly increase supply. Oh well... Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA Keith Addison wrote: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php No New Refineries Frank O'Donnell ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Help with graphics
Linux. Keith Addison wrote: Uh-oh... sorry, I didn't notice the mac part in your mail... :-) My innocence of things MS is but a small sacrifice. this converter is Windoz sw. Send me the visio file and I'll have a go at it. Chandan Thankyou Chandan, I'll send it right now. I'll send it to Hakan too, as he has an old version of visio itself. It's a new design for a Turk burner, but I can't follow the text description without the graphics. If it works as claimed I'll upload it. Thanks again, all best Keith Chandan Haldar wrote: Keith, You might like to download the 30-day eval copy of this converter: http://www.processtext.com/abcvisio.html which converts visio vector graphics drawings to many image or pdf formats. As far as I can see, it installs and runs fine, but I couldn't find a visio file to try it out. Cheers. Chandan Keith Addison wrote: Hello all Someone sent me some interesting diagrams, but I can't extract them. He said: the diagrams i have are microsoft visio doc.s but they may convert to html. We use Macs and I can usually get stuff out of Windoze docs, but not this time. Would anyone be able to get tiff's or jpg's or gif's out of an MS Visio doc if I sent them the file? Thanks much Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] New member - NIR biodiesel testing
Hello everyone, I just recently joined the mailing list after finishing the processing of my first test batch. I used the 1L test batch method listed on JTF using ~85% KOH, Dri-Gas, and new VO from the supermarket. I stir washed it until the wash water and biodiesel appeared crystal clear. I dried the biodiesel by heating it to 130degrees F and then letting it cool. The final product looks good from what I have compared it to on JTF. I plan to do a few test batches with the new VO and then a few test batches using WVO. Before I do another test batch I wanted to quantify my results by testing it. I'm a senior computer/electrical engineering attending the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth. I'm no chemist by any means but I know a couple people in the Chem department and I'm pretty sure they have an NIR machine. I was wondering how skilled a person would need to be in NIR testing to be able to test the biodiesel and tell me how it matches up against the US ASTM spec and the German DIN spec. Would I be better off sending a sample to an experienced lab? If anyone has experience sending samples out, are there any labs you'd recommend? How costly is the testing? Thanks in advance. After watching this mailing list for a few days I have to say I'm very impressed with how active the biofuels community is. -Aaron ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
