[Biofuel] I don't get it, (was: Shakeup for Big Pharm)
Bob Molloy wrote: Hi All, Something to ponder, a helluva shakeup for Big Pharm. Regards, Bob. (grumble, I hate formatted text) Medical Breakthrough Could Change Global Politics By Chris Floyd t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent snip Tuesday 16 January 2007 BIG SNIP The approach is called ethical pharmaceuticals, and it was unveiled on January 2 by Sunil Shaunak, professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College, and Steve Brocchini of the London School of Pharmacy, the Guardian reports. Their team of scientists in India and the UK, financed by the prestigious Wellcome with technical assistance from the UK government, --key point here-- have developed a method of making small but significant changes to the molecular structure of existing drugs, thereby transforming them into new products, circumventing the long-term patents used by the corporate giants of Big Pharma to keep prices - and profits - high. BIG SNIP Okay, so the 'new' drug is clearly derived from the old drug, and derivatives are usually covered under pretty much all 'intellectual property' law, so I don't see how this would accomplish anything. Note, that I am totally and completely opposed to patented drugs, and if possible even more opposed to patented code, and the concept of patented organisms just makes my head spin. The whole concept is totally broken, and doesn't need revisiting, it all needs to be scrapped and a new system instituted. However, that isn't likely to happen any time soon, if at all. So, how does tweaking a substance protected by patent (that probably precludes tweaking it in the first place) and deriving a new substance that is intended to address the same task as the original with the expressed goal of escaping patent restriction achieve anything other than broken law or five or more? ___ 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] any info about Namibia
I grew up there in the 70's and 80's, it was occupied by South Africa at that stage and being used as a base to fight the communists in Angola. Since independance in 1990 it's been a stable, peaceful country. It has a checkered, and brutal, colonial history.(Read Andre Brink's harrowing The Other Side of Silence for an idea of the country and the landscape.) It was a German colony for many years before the 1st world war, and there are still many people of German decent. You'll find bernerwurst, sauerkraut and even a bierfest in October. There is a diverse idigenous population; the Ovambo, Damara and Herero in the North and the San and Khoi in the South. The total population is about 2m. Hot and tropical in the north and hot and arid further south. I guess you'll find more information on the net, and maybe even get some comments from people living there. You find that it doesn't deserve exclamation marks. I'm sure your daughter will enjoy the trip. Regards, Duncan No, this is not a travel agency list. Sorry! Here's the deal: One of our many daughters has just scored a research grant for credit in her undergrad science degree at U. Of Toronto, two months centred in a hospital in Namibia Many exclamation marks. Does anything we should know just spring to mind, anyone?? First thing I did was run out and rent a copy of Amandla! A Revolution in Four-Part Harmony, which ROCKED, but was not actually the right country. Jesse __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ___ 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] Back to the topic...New BD stuff
Hmm. Last I checked aluminum and HDPE were different. So why do you assume your experience with making BD in plastic has any bearing on the suitability of aluminum as a reactor vessel? Anyways there was a thread way back about a tank coating material you should use to coat the inside of your aluminum tank which the methoxide would prefer to react with. As for washing fuel in the lucite. I wouldn't do that. I've heard that growing catfish in a barrel is easy and can be a sustainable food supply. Is your fishtank big enough for that? Joe Mike Weaver wrote: I have managed to score a 50 - 60 gallon aluminum tank with fittings - perfect for a processor. I also have a 67 gallon (looks like lucite) circular fish tank. I know MOX does not like aluminum, and have heard BD does not like Lucite or Lexan or whatever this. However, BD is fine in aluminum tanks. I am wondering if I can use the aluminum tank as a processor, being careful when introducing the MOX - I've made BD in HDPE2 containers plenty (even the stray plastic bottle way early on). So, any thoughts on the aluminum as processor and the fishtank as a wash or settling tank? -Weaver ___ 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] Back to the topic...New BD stuff
Are you sure about that Jim? I use KOH as a etchant for aluminum. Works like gangbusters. I would assume methoxide would do the same. Joe JAMES PHELPS wrote: Mike, The answer is yes. If it is high alloy, even better. What happens is aluminum forms an oxide on its skin and it becomes very resistant to chemical corrosion. The trick is to be sure that you let it breath the inside of the tank. It needs an oxygen fix every so often to maintain the layer. Good luck Jim - Original Message - *From:* Mike Weaver mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:27 PM *Subject:* [Biofuel] Back to the topic...New BD stuff I have managed to score a 50 - 60 gallon aluminum tank with fittings - perfect for a processor. I also have a 67 gallon (looks like lucite) circular fish tank. I know MOX does not like aluminum, and have heard BD does not like Lucite or Lexan or whatever this. However, BD is fine in aluminum tanks. I am wondering if I can use the aluminum tank as a processor, being careful when introducing the MOX - I've made BD in HDPE2 containers plenty (even the stray plastic bottle way early on). So, any thoughts on the aluminum as processor and the fishtank as a wash or settling tank? -Weaver ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto: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 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] What's In Your Milk?
AFAIK the hormone BGH was allowed in dairy farms in the US but not in Canada. J John Mullan wrote: I'm not sure what's in U.S. milk, or Canadian milk for that matter. But I live right on the border and often we get groceries in the U.S. for significant savings. But I have to share the fact that the taste of Wegman's milk is significantly different than our Canadian milk yet I'm sure our commercial factory farms do some of the same things. John ___ 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] Back to the topic...New BD stuff
This is a direct quote from a Metalurgical Engineer I know. I am speaking from experience with another fellows reactor - 2 years old and still going - most tanks will be 5xxx series but again - I advocate - TEST IT. I dont advocate this as a desired Choice of materials but PE instead. Jim 5XXX series aluminums have good corrosion properties and form a passive layer faster than some of the other series aluminums. They contain magnesium alloying which is a good property for corrosion and ship halls are usually made from 5XXX series aluminums. To keep the aluminum from corroding, do not have the aluminum touching other metals because the aluminum will start acting as an anode and be sacrificed to protect the other metals. Your operating temperatures are also variable which increase your rate of reactions for corrosion. Your operating temperatures may not be interfering with the passive layering process on the aluminum and the passive layer is protecting the aluminum like it should. Other processes may have more particulates in the solution being processed which causes erosion corrosion and then the passive layer is being removed faster than it can heal if there is mixing going on in the tank; making aluminum tanks a bad idea for storing their solutions. I need some more back ground information to get down to the nuts and bolts on both questions. Methanol, CH3OH, OH- is looking for a positively charged ion other than the carbon atom. So the iron from the steel bonds with OH- ion due to the activity rates at a thermodynamic level and corrodes the steel. Methanol is relatively reactive solution, you can tell by the flammability signs on the barrels from shipment so that is why most of the methanol that is shipped these days is in polyurethane-ethylene tanks and most of the steel barrels all leak. From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back to the topic...New BD stuff Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:49:31 -0500 Are you sure about that Jim? I use KOH as a etchant for aluminum. Works like gangbusters. I would assume methoxide would do the same. Joe JAMES PHELPS wrote: Mike, The answer is yes. If it is high alloy, even better. What happens is aluminum forms an oxide on its skin and it becomes very resistant to chemical corrosion. The trick is to be sure that you let it breath the inside of the tank. It needs an oxygen fix every so often to maintain the layer. Good luck Jim - Original Message - *From:* Mike Weaver mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:27 PM *Subject:* [Biofuel] Back to the topic...New BD stuff I have managed to score a 50 - 60 gallon aluminum tank with fittings - perfect for a processor. I also have a 67 gallon (looks like lucite) circular fish tank. I know MOX does not like aluminum, and have heard BD does not like Lucite or Lexan or whatever this. However, BD is fine in aluminum tanks. I am wondering if I can use the aluminum tank as a processor, being careful when introducing the MOX - I've made BD in HDPE2 containers plenty (even the stray plastic bottle way early on). So, any thoughts on the aluminum as processor and the fishtank as a wash or settling tank? -Weaver ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto: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 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:
[Biofuel] Question
Hi all, came across some info on Jatropha oil recently. The oil from some spieces is considered non-edible, but I have found no reason for it. Can somebody spread a little light on this ? Jan Warnqvist aGERATEC AB___ 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] I don't get it, (was: Shakeup for Big Pharm)
Chip Melford asked: So, how does tweaking a substance protected by patent .achieve anything other than broken law or five or more? The answer was there in the original post: Quote: The potential benefits and geopolitical implications of this approach are almost limitless. Imagine a world where the most downtrodden can be rescued from the ravages of chronic disease that now beset them, generation after generation. A world where they don't droop and languish, where their energies are not consumed and exhausted in the struggle for survival. A world where their children are born to healthy mothers, with all the proven advantages for future development, both physically and mentally, that such a birth provides. Imagine a world where the preventable deaths and epidemics that break down societal bonds, devastate communities, cripple local economies, destroy families and make any kind of political action almost impossible are a thing of the past. Unquote. - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:12 AM Subject: [Biofuel] I don't get it, (was: Shakeup for Big Pharm) Bob Molloy wrote: Hi All, Something to ponder, a helluva shakeup for Big Pharm. Regards, Bob. (grumble, I hate formatted text) Medical Breakthrough Could Change Global Politics By Chris Floyd t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent snip Tuesday 16 January 2007 BIG SNIP The approach is called ethical pharmaceuticals, and it was unveiled on January 2 by Sunil Shaunak, professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College, and Steve Brocchini of the London School of Pharmacy, the Guardian reports. Their team of scientists in India and the UK, financed by the prestigious Wellcome with technical assistance from the UK government, --key point here-- have developed a method of making small but significant changes to the molecular structure of existing drugs, thereby transforming them into new products, circumventing the long-term patents used by the corporate giants of Big Pharma to keep prices - and profits - high. BIG SNIP Okay, so the 'new' drug is clearly derived from the old drug, and derivatives are usually covered under pretty much all 'intellectual property' law, so I don't see how this would accomplish anything. Note, that I am totally and completely opposed to patented drugs, and if possible even more opposed to patented code, and the concept of patented organisms just makes my head spin. The whole concept is totally broken, and doesn't need revisiting, it all needs to be scrapped and a new system instituted. However, that isn't likely to happen any time soon, if at all. ___ 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] I don't get it,
Bob Molloy wrote: Chip Melford asked: So, how does tweaking a substance protected by patent .achieve anything other than broken law or five or more? The answer was there in the original post: Quote: The potential benefits and geopolitical implications of this approach are almost limitless. Imagine a world where the most downtrodden can be rescued from the ravages of chronic disease that now beset them, generation after generation. Granted. But, this doesn't address the question. Sure, taking patented drugs and removing the profit from them so regular people of earth can gain the benefit has great appeal. However, that still doesn't make it legal. ___ 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] Doomsday Clock
Hawking: Doomsday Clock closer to midnight By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph UK) Last Updated: 6:45pm GMT 17/01/2007 The world has nudged closer to apocalypse as a result of climate change and nuclear proliferation, Prof Stephen Hawking and other prominent scientists warned today as the hand of a symbolic Doomsday Clock moved two minutes closer to midnight. Stephen Hawking: Doomsday clock moves closer to midnight Professor Hawking spoke as scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward The clock, devised at the dawn of the nuclear age, made official what many now feel in their bones - that the world has edged closer to disaster. “We foresee great peril if governments and societies do not take action now,” said Prof Hawking. It was the fourth time since the end of the Cold War that the clock has ticked forward, this time from 11:53 to 11:55, amid fears over what the scientists are describing as “a second nuclear age”, prompted largely by failure to curb the atomic ambitions of Iran and North Korea. “As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth,” said Prof Hawking, of Cambridge University. “As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change.” Prof Hawking described how the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by scientists, including Albert Einstein and those who had worked on the Manhattan Project and were deeply concerned about nuclear weapons, which they called “the most destructive technology on Earth”. Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, said the world is now confronted by the prospect of terrorists detonating a nuclear weapon in the heart of a city, “killing tens of thousands along with themselves, and millions around the world would acclaim them as heroes”. And the way mankind is changing the world, and endangering it, means “we have entered a new geological era, the anthropocene”, Lord Rees said. He added that 21st century technology, “if optimally applied, could offer immense opportunities, for the developing and the developed world. But it will present new threats more diverse and more intractable than nuclear weapons did. To confront these threats successfully – and to avoid foreclosing humanity’s long-term potential – scientists need to channel their efforts wisely and engage with the political process nationally and internationally.” In 1947 the Bulletin introduced its Doomsday Clock to evoke both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). Since it was set to seven minutes to midnight in 1947, the hand has been moved 18 times, including today’s move. The clock has been as far away as 17 minutes, set there in 1991 following the demise of the Soviet Union, and came closest to midnight — just two minutes away — in 1953, following the successful test of a hydrogen bomb by the United States. “But for good luck, we would all be dead,” said Prof Hawking. “As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age, and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility.” The decision to move the clock is made by the bulletin’s board, which is composed of prominent scientists and policy experts, including 18 Nobel laureates, in coordination with the group’s sponsors. The clock would now also measure the world’s rising temperatures, said the bulletin’s editor Mark Strauss. “There’s a realisation that we are changing our climate for the worse,” he said. “That would have catastrophic effects. Although the threat is not as dire as that of nuclear weapons right now, in the long term we are looking at a serious threat.” _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d ___ 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] I don't get it,
actually if an improvement or modification is made to an existing patent then it can itself can be patented as a whole new invention (at least in america) - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] I don't get it, Bob Molloy wrote: Chip Melford asked: So, how does tweaking a substance protected by patent .achieve anything other than broken law or five or more? The answer was there in the original post: Quote: The potential benefits and geopolitical implications of this approach are almost limitless. Imagine a world where the most downtrodden can be rescued from the ravages of chronic disease that now beset them, generation after generation. Granted. But, this doesn't address the question. Sure, taking patented drugs and removing the profit from them so regular people of earth can gain the benefit has great appeal. However, that still doesn't make it legal. ___ 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: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 4:36 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.13/632 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 4:36 PM ___ 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] Crude fatty acid distillate
Hi everyone, An oil mill has just told me that they have excess of crude fatty acid distillate which they can give me with the following specifications : Free Fatty Acid (As Lauric) - 71.8% Iodine Value mg I/g - 10 Total Fatty Matter- 96% Moisture Impurities - 0.5% Saponifiable Value mg KOH/g - 260 Unsaponifiable Matter- 0.32% I am now doing some small production for my own use with a blend of WVO and new oil on the single stage process. I've read up on the two stage process and it looks like the above will take a two stage process with 71.8% FFA. Am I right? Anyone out there with some thoughts on the matter? Its free stuff for me although its only about 200liters monthly. Would it be better to blend it or process it separately? Thanks Ken ___ 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] How richest fuel global warming - but poorest suffer most from it
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2137667.ece Independent Online Edition Environment How richest fuel global warming - but poorest suffer most from it By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent Published: 09 January 2007 By the end of tomorrow the average Briton will have caused as much global warning as the typical Kenyan will over the whole of this year, according to a report. The findings highlight the glaring imbalance between the rich countries that produce most of the pollution and the poor countries that suffer the consequences in the forms of drought, floods, starvation and disease. The World Development Movement (WDM), a poverty campaign group, has drawn up a climate calendar showing the dates when the UK will have emitted as much CO2 gas as other countries will in a year. Unsurprisingly, the poorest counties such as Chad, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo produce virtually no carbon emissions. Even populous countries such as India will be overtaken in its emissions by the UK in a month's time. In fact, 164 countries in the world have a smaller carbon footprint than the UK, while just 20, mainly including the major oil producers as well as the US, have a larger one. By the end of tomorrow the average Briton will have produced 0.26 tonnes of CO2 emissions. The poorest countries in the world, with 738 million people, make no contribution to climate change, but it is those same people who face the worst consequences, Benedict Southworth, WDM's director, said. One hundred and sixty thousand people are already dying every year due to climate change- related diseases and billions will face drought, floods, starvation and disease. WDM has calculated the figures by taking the annual CO2 emission for each country, dividing by the number of people and then working out a daily contribution. Thus while an Afghan on average will produce an annual equivalent of 0.02 tonnes of CO2, a Briton will produce 9.62 tonnes and the most prolific polluter - someone from the United Arab Emirates - will emit about 56 tonnes. WDM acknowledged that its figures were based on averages that masked differences between life in rural and urban areas, but said that the figures still exposed the injustice of global warming. It is the richest people in the world who have produced and who are still producing most of the greenhouse gases causing climate change, Mr Southworth said. The report said 7,800 Kenyans, Tanzanians and Rwandans died every year from diseases that were related to climate change. It warned that a 2C rise in temperature could lead to as many as 60 million more people being exposed to malaria in Africa. The potential for massive ecological and human suffering as a result of climate change was a key finding in the report by Sir Nicholas Stern, although it was overshadowed by the political debate over the need for higher taxes or the imposition of rationing. The Stern report found that many vulnerable regions embracing millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa were at risk from harvest failures, droughts and malaria. It warned that these phenomena would affect the poorest people most of all and fuel conflicts and raise the number of child deaths as populations moved to avoid the worst-hit areas. WDM said that although the Government had used the Stern report to show Britain's commitment to fighting climate change, emissions had risen 5 per cent under Labour. It called on the Government to include legally binding annual targets to cut emissions in its Climate Change Bill. Carbon comparison The average British citizen produces 26kg of CO2 in a day. This breaks down as follows: * 7.4 electricity * 1.6 fuel production * 3.8 manufacturing and construction * 7.4 transport, of which: (5.2 road transport, 1.7 air travel, 0.1 railways and 0.4 shipping) * 1.0 office buildings * 3.8 residential heating * 1.0 Other industrial processes, agriculture, military travel, other The average Kenyan citizen produces 0.7kg of CO2 in a day. This breaks down as follows: * 0.08 electricity * 0.08 fuel production * 0.16 manufacturing and construction * 0.31 transport * 0.07 other ___ 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] Use Of 'Precautionary Principle' For Chemicals Is Growing
From: Risk Policy Report, Jan. 16, 2007 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_use_of_pp_grows.070116.htm[Prin ter-friendly version] Use Of 'Precautionary Principle' For Chemicals Is Growing Environmentalists and other public health advocates say recent movements by states, businesses and international regulatory bodies are signs of increased use of the so-called 'http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htmprecautionary principle' -- efforts that come as Democrats are raising key questions about federal toxics laws. Activists say the precautionary principle is beginning to emerge in a variety of political and commercial arenas, including efforts by businesses to reduce potential toxic exposure; the growth of green chemistry programs; and, to a lesser degree, a recently adopted European chemical regulatory program. The precautionary principle places the burden on those advocating new policies or products to prove the efforts will not cause public harm. For example, the chemical industry would be burdened with proving a chemical is safe before introducing its use. The chemical industry remains the primary focus of the precautionary principle, as environmentalists argue federal laws are insufficient to regulate chemicals that may pose a threat to human health. Activists say it takes EPA years or decades to regulate harmful chemicals, because the agency must first prove the chemicals pose a health threat. They cite lead, mercury and other well-defined hazards as examples where the agency has struggled to eliminate hazardous uses. In particular, environmentalists say the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is problematic. The law, which has not been updated since Congress passed it in 1976, may face intense scrutiny from Democrats who are promising oversight of toxics issues. The concept of the precautionary principle ruffles chemical industry officials, who say it is ill-defined and poses unnecessary burdens on the industry. Officials argue TSCA is sufficient to regulate chemicals and also note that industry voluntarily supplies data to EPA on a number of the most highly-used chemicals in the United States. Given that information, EPA has enough data to screen for chemicals that may pose a threat, industry officials say. Environmentalists, however, say the precautionary principle is already being successfully applied. For example, the Democratic governors of Maine and Michigan issued executive orders in 2006 promoting green chemistry, or the substitution of less toxic forms of chemicals for those that may pose health risks. Environmentalists say the efforts represent a form of the precautionary principle being actively applied, and note the results could generate significant economic benefits for those states. Other states, including Massachusetts and New York, are considering similar programs. In addition, California is considering a legislative approach to green chemistry, though it has yet to be unveiled. (Risk Policy Report, Nov. 7, p1). In another example, environmentalists cite San Francisco's recent decision to ban phthalates in children's toys as a regulatory driver for the precautionary principle. The city voted to ban the chemicals, which are used to soften plastics, based on concerns that the chemicals may cause reproductive harm. But industry and retailers say the risks are minimal, and filed suit to block the ban. If the ban sticks, toy manufacturers may be forced to examine other alternatives (Risk Policy Report, Oct. 31, p2).Some businesses are also taking steps to reduce toxics in their products, which environmentalists say is another application of the precautionary principle. For instance, some retailers are leaning on suppliers to provide furniture, medical supplies or other products that do not contain chemicals suspected of causing health problems. In the international arena, the European Union (EU) adopted a new chemical regulatory program known as Registration, Evaluation Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) in late 2006. REACH is aimed at requiring data on most chemicals produced or sold in the EU, and requires safety testing for certain chemicals before they can be used. Environmentalists are divided on whether the program is an example of the precautionary principle. Some argue it is one of the greatest triumphs of the principle, while others argue it is simply a more stringent regulatory program than that of the United States and does little to implement the precautionary principle. One public health advocate says REACH will generate more hazard data but is still shy of precautionary. What's going on in Europe is a preview, the source says, but other regulatory efforts and incentive- based programs will likely be needed to take a precautionary approach to public health. Industry officials, on the other hand are adamant that REACH is not a sign of the precautionary principle being invoked. Instead, they say the
[Biofuel] Dr Strangelove Saves The Earth
From: The Economist, Jan. 15, 2006 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_global_engineering.070115.htm[P rinter-friendly version] Dr Strangelove Saves The Earth How big science might fix climate change Few scientists like to say so, but cutting greenhouse-gas emissions is not the only way to solve the problem of global warming. If man-made technologies are capable of heating the planet, they are probably capable of cooling it down again. Welcome to geo-engineering, which holds that, rather than trying to change mankind's industrial habits, it is more efficient to counter the effects, using planetary-scale engineering. This general approach has been kicking around for decades. A paper on climate change prepared for President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 made no mention of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. It nonchalantly proposed dealing with the results by dumping vast quantities of reflective particles into the oceans, to increase the amount of sunlight reflected into space. That school of thinking has since fallen out of fashion. As scientists have accumulated evidence for global warming and its possible consequences, so the scientific and political consensus has favoured attempts at reducing carbon emissions through taxes and regulations and subsidies, many of them directed at factories and motor-cars. More needs to be done. Greenhouse-gas levels have gone on rising. The rapid industrialisation of China and India means they are going to rise even more. This gloomy outlook has encouraged new interest in a technological fix. A scientific journal, Climatic Change, published a series of papers on the subject in August, including one by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-prize-winning atmospheric chemist. Other journals followed up. In November the Carnegie Institution and NASA held a conference. Many big ideas for global cooling have been suggested over the years. They include seeding the skies with compounds to encourage the formation of low-lying, cooling clouds; building a giant sun-shade in space; and dumping iron in the oceans to encourage the growth of algae that would take in carbon when alive and trap it in on the sea floor when dead. Ken Caldeira, a scientist at the Carnegie Institution, says the most promising idea may be to spray tiny sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere, where they will reflect incoming sunlight. Nature has already done the proof-of-concept work: volcanic eruptions spew such particles into the air, and the cooling effect is well documented. Schemes of this kind may sound half-crazy; and, admittedly, they do tend to have some technical and aesthetic complications. Deliberately polluting the stratosphere would make the sky less blue, although sunsets would probably be prettier. Blocking out the sun might keep the planet cool, but it would do little to address other effects of high carbon-dioxide levels, such as the acidification of the oceans. Deliberately polluting the stratosphere would make the sky less blue, but sunsets would probably be prettierA more fundamental objection is that the models used in geo-engineering are similar to those used in forecasting climate change. Which is to say, they rely similarly on assumptions and extrapolations. Still, the basic science seems sound. I started doing this work in an attempt to show that geo-engineering was a bad idea, says Mr Caldeira. I still think it's a bad idea, but every simulation we do seems to shows it could be made to work. Ralph Cicerone, president of America's National Academy of Sciences, has said that geo-engineering inspires opposition for various and sincere reasons that are not wholly scientific. Others might say the same about its support. One early enthusiast was Edward Teller, an emigre Hungarian physicist known in America as the father of the hydrogen bomb, and often cited as an inspiration for Dr Strangelove. Scientists tend now to see geo-engineering research as a form of insurance policy against the effects of continued global warning, not as an excuse for downplaying the problem, nor for tolerating more carbon emissions in the meantime. You might expect green groups to applaud this belt-and-braces approach. More often, they resist it in principle, and have little time for the research involved. At worst they seem to see it as a scheme by devious scientists to thwart Nature's just revenge. Still, there is a reasonable fear here that an illusory hope of a scientific fix might undermine the sort of dogged and grubby policy solutions, such as carbon caps and carbon quotas, needed for taking the fight against climate change to its source. The http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htmprecautionary principle, which calls for extra prudence in areas of scientific uncertainty, also applies. You can look at climate change as an experiment which mankind has -- to its horror -- found itself performing on the planet. To start a second experiment, in the
Re: [Biofuel] I don't get it, (was: Shakeup for Big Pharm)
Chip Melford asked: So, how does tweaking a substance protected by patent .achieve anything other than broken law or five or more? The answer was there in the original post: Quote: The potential benefits and geopolitical implications of this approach are almost limitless. Imagine a world where the most downtrodden can be rescued from the ravages of chronic disease that now beset them, generation after generation. A world where they don't droop and languish, where their energies are not consumed and exhausted in the struggle for survival. A world where their children are born to healthy mothers, with all the proven advantages for future development, both physically and mentally, that such a birth provides. Imagine a world where the preventable deaths and epidemics that break down societal bonds, devastate communities, cripple local economies, destroy families and make any kind of political action almost impossible are a thing of the past. Unquote. Health is not just the absence of disease, or the product of better pills, or any pills. It's not so much rampant disease that the most downtrodden are most trodden down by but poverty, which isn't cured by pills. The dieases of poverty are a subset, not a cause. Poverty isn't just happenstance (or incompetence), it's a function of an inequitable world economic system, not just a by-product but an integral part of the resource extraction and wealth concentration of the corporate-style globanomics that has seen all the poor countries getting poorer in the last 20 years. Eg.: http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000 - Twenty Years of Diminished Progress By Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen July 11, 2001 Similarly with food: http://snipurl.com/rcij [Biofuel] Bushfood http://snipurl.com/rcik [Biofuel] Myth: More US aid will help the hungry http://snipurl.com/rcim Re: [Biofuel] US Foreign aid Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty http://snipurl.com/rcig [Biofuel] The US and Foreign Aid Assistance http://snipurl.com/rcih [Biofuel] Famines as Commercial Opportunity http://snipurl.com/rcii [Biofuel] Famine As Commerce http://snipurl.com/rcin [Biofuel] Inequality in wealth Nearly three billion people live on less than $2 a day, a miserable figure that doesn't begin to tell the story. Rushing in with pills to cure their ills is a well-known no-no among development workers who work with Primary Health Care. A term used in PHC is deferred mortality. Sounds good eh? Death postponed. An example would be using antibiotics to cure a child of a disease only for the child to die of starvation a year later. That's not to say that there aren't cases where using modern drugs might be appropriate, but it needs a systems approach, not a silver bullet. Anyway the very poor would probably be the last to receive any such benefits, if ever. The title of the article is better, Shakeup for Big Pharm. If this approach hurts the big pharmaceutical companies and helps to loosen the corporate grip on patenting and intellectual property rights it will probably have done the poor more good than the pills ever will. Everyone, not just the poor. All best Keith - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:12 AM Subject: [Biofuel] I don't get it, (was: Shakeup for Big Pharm) Bob Molloy wrote: Hi All, Something to ponder, a helluva shakeup for Big Pharm. Regards, Bob. (grumble, I hate formatted text) Medical Breakthrough Could Change Global Politics By Chris Floyd t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent snip Tuesday 16 January 2007 BIG SNIP The approach is called ethical pharmaceuticals, and it was unveiled on January 2 by Sunil Shaunak, professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College, and Steve Brocchini of the London School of Pharmacy, the Guardian reports. Their team of scientists in India and the UK, financed by the prestigious Wellcome with technical assistance from the UK government, --key point here-- have developed a method of making small but significant changes to the molecular structure of existing drugs, thereby transforming them into new products, circumventing the long-term patents used by the corporate giants of Big Pharma to keep prices - and profits - high. BIG SNIP Okay, so the 'new' drug is clearly derived from the old drug, and derivatives are usually covered under pretty much all 'intellectual property' law, so I don't see how this would accomplish anything. Note, that I am totally and completely opposed to patented drugs, and if possible even more opposed to patented code, and the concept of patented organisms just makes my head spin. The whole concept is totally broken, and doesn't need revisiting, it all needs to be scrapped and a new system instituted.
Re: [Biofuel] Dr Strangelove Saves The Earth
The geoengineering approach appears to ignore the problem of the seas becoming more acid due to more dissolved CO2. I don't see an engineering approach to that one at any bearable cost. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Keith Addison wrote: From: The Economist, Jan. 15, 2006 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_global_engineering.070115.htm[P rinter-friendly version] Dr Strangelove Saves The Earth How big science might fix climate change Few scientists like to say so, but cutting greenhouse-gas emissions is not the only way to solve the problem of global warming. If man-made technologies are capable of heating the planet, they are probably capable of cooling it down again. Welcome to geo-engineering, which holds that, rather than trying to change mankind's industrial habits, it is more efficient to counter the effects, using planetary-scale engineering. This general approach has been kicking around for decades. A paper on climate change prepared for President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 made no mention of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. It nonchalantly proposed dealing with the results by dumping vast quantities of reflective particles into the oceans, to increase the amount of sunlight reflected into space. [snip] ___ 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/
