[Biofuel] Advice to Bush: Break up Monsanto
How the World Works Advice to Bush: Break up Monsanto Andrew Leonard http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/01/23/break_up_monsanto/ Alexei Barrionuevo's roundup of all things ethanol in today's New York Times, setting the stage for an expected announcement tonight by President Bush calling for significantly increased ethanol consumption in the United States, is a generally good introduction to the topic. But one fragment caught my eye: Responding to concerns that there just isn't enough corn to supply expected future demand, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johans was described as confident that more corn will emerge to ease the pain of higher grain prices, as seed companies improve yields. Seed companies? Now, who might that be? As of 2005, worldwide, 10 companies controlled about 50 percent of the global seed business. At the top of the heap are just three companies, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Industry concentration is continuing to proceed apace. Monsanto is currently waiting for antitrust approval to complete its merger with the 11th largest seed company, Delta Pine Land. All three companies have been snapping up smaller firms at every opportunity. All three are also huge chemical and pesticide conglomerates that are aggressively pursuing advanced genetic modification technologies. So when Secretary Johans talks about seed companies improving yields, what he's really saying is that a tiny group of huge multinational chemical companies will be introducing a steady stream of new transgenic corn strains, in a frantic attempt to keep innovating humanity's way out of an energy crisis. Let's take a break today from worrying about whether scientists are properly evaluating the potential risks to human health and the environment from transgenic research. I've only just started reading Denise Caruso's Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet, a clear contender for best book yet on that topic, and so we'll save a more detailed discussion of the problem for later. Here's a different angle: A few years back, the USDA publicized research that found that seed industry consolidation had led to a decrease in research and development intensity. In a classic display of what happens when a market is locked up by a small number of players, competition suffers and the pressure to innovate slackens: ...increased competition in RD, concluded the researchers, as indicated by low levels of market concentration and the participation of more competing firms in the GM crop approval process, is positively related to RD intensity. As the number of firms declined through mergers and acquisitions, the intensity of RD fell. If President Bush and Mike Johans want to put some muscle behind their faith that new breeds of corn will deliver ever-higher yields, maybe they ought to do something about the continuing consolidation of control over the seed industry. Stop Monsanto's merger with Delta Pine Land, which will give the St. Louis giant effective control over cotton seed. Even better, break it up. Let a hundred seed companies bloom, instead of just a few. Just trying to be helpful here. President Bush has some really low poll approval ratings going into tonight's State of the Union speech. It's time for bold moves! ___ 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] Biodiesel Sweeps China in Controversy
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4870 | Worldwatch Institute Biodiesel Sweeps China in Controversy Jiao Li - January 23, 2007 - 5:43am Everyone seems eager to get a share of China's biofuels pie. Liang Yulin, a 28-year-old real estate tycoon in southern China's Guangzhou City, began investing in biodiesel production last October. Using palm oil imported from Southeast Asia, the manager of the Guangzhou Tinyo Real Estate Development Company plans to turn out 50 tons a day, selling the fuel to fishing boats that work around the Pearl River Delta. Although he has yet to see returns from his new investment, Liang says he will keep persevering. And he is not alone to venture in this seemingly promising industry. As far as I know, there are dozens of biodiesel companies just in Guangzhou, he said. Even the latest price cut in the international oil market does not seem to dampen Chinese enthusiasm for the new energy resource. Leading the game are a variety of government-supported demonstration projects. State-funded biodiesel production lines have been reportedly built in Guizhou, Guangxi, Shandong, and Anhui, with capacities varying from 300 to 600,000 tons a year. The raw materials range from used cooking oil to cotton seed, tung oil tree, and organic wastes. What is mostly promising, according to the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, is a new kind of hybrid rapeseed developed by the Academy of Agricultural Sciences to meet the market demand for renewable energy. The rapeseed has an oil content of 54.7 percent, which set a record, according to Wang Hanzhong, principal investigator of the project at the Academy's Institute of Oil Crops Research. China's Yangtze River Valley is the world's largest rapeseed producer, accounting for nearly one-third of the total rape yield, Wang said. It has the potential to produce 40 million tons of biodiesel per year, equaling the oil output of one-and-a-half Daqing Oilfields, he added. The Daqing Oilfields is currently China's leading crude oil producer. In parallel, the United Nations Development Programme and China's Ministry of Science and Technology are co-funding a four-year project in southwestern China's Guizhou, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces to encourage local farmers to grow Jatropha curcas trees as raw materials for biodiesel. In addition to producing the fuel, the project aims to eliminate poverty and improve fragile ecosytems. Initial government input is necessary, since farmers will not plant these trees before they are sure it is profitable, said Program Coordinator Xu Yunsong. Acknowledging that fossil fuel resources could be eventually exhausted, the Chinese government has created a blueprint for the development of renewable energy. Biodiesel has found its way onto the government agenda, especially since China is abundant in plant species that can be used for the fuel's production. Aside from oil crops, woody plants are considered another key source for biodiesel. A survey conducted by the Chinese Academy of Forestry in 2004 identified 151 families of oil-bearing woody plants, with 697 genera and 1,553 species, many of which can be tapped for biodiesel production, according to Wang Tao, academician of the China Academy of Engineering and chief scientist of the forestry academy. Of these, 154 species have an oil content of more than 40 percent, while nearly 30 species of trees or shrubs have a comparatively centralized distribution that can be used as convenient raw materials for biodiesel, said Wang. One of the most promising options for large-scale biofuel use is the Chinese pistachio (pistacia Chinensis Bungo), the only species of the cashew family found in China. The survey identified the woody plant as having an oil content of more than 40 percent, and it grows in 11 provinces of the country, covering a total area of over 66,000 hectares, mostly on mountains or hills. The forestry academy is cooperating with local biofuel producers to exploit these resources. One partner, the Zhenghe Bio-Energy Company Limited, a private business in northern China's Hebei Province, has-within two years-developed a capacity of 20,000 tons of biodiesel a year, using local Chinese pistachio as the raw material. Wang Tao expects production to expand to 100,000 tons by the end of 2007. Behind the enthusiasm in China's bustling biodiesel development, however, is disorder in both production and marketing, said Wang Zhongying, director of the Energy Research Institute of the Center for Renewable Energy Development in Beijing. Driven by the potential profits from biodiesel, many private investors just go ahead with production and marketing without any reference to the government, he said. As a result, it is not even known how many biodiesel factories exactly exist in China, said Zhu Ming, dean of the Academy of Planning and Design under the Ministry of Agriculture. Also lacking are standards and
[Biofuel] Tetrasilver
Why is this a suppressed invention? Who benefits? Certainly not AIDS patients. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5676977-description.html___ 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] Tetrasilver
The drug companies who want to sell AZT and other such big money treatments, that incidentally have been shown to be much less effective with more severe side effects than tetrasilvertetroxide. Sad but true! Malcolm _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: 26 January 2007 10:48 To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Tetrasilver Why is this a suppressed invention? Who benefits? Certainly not AIDS patients. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5676977-description.html ___ 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] Rise of the gripe site
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=8209 Opinions: 'Rise of the gripe site' by Derek Brower | Prospect Magazine February 2007 issue 131 Rise of the gripe site February 2007 How two men and a website in Colchester humbled one of the oil industry giants Derek Brower Derek Brower is the senior correspondent of Petroleum Economist It is not the kind of place you would expect to find at the centre of a global energy war. John Donovan's office is in a modest house in a suburb of Colchester. No electronic maps of Europe adorn his walls, as they do the walls of Gazprom's Moscow control room. And nor are there any butlers bringing cups of tea and expensive biscuits, as you find at Shell's head office on the Thames. There is just Donovan's 89-year-old father, Alfred, in the room next door. But it is the home of www.royaldutchshellplc.com, a website which can claim to have cost Shell billions of dollars-and helped Vladimir Putin score another victory over western energy interests. This is how. At the end of December, the Kremlin's politically driven campaign to win control of a liquefied natural gas project on Sakhalin island came to its predictable climax. The deal signed in Moscow between Shell and Gazprom saw the Russian company take 50 per cent plus one share of Sakhalin Energy, the consortium developing the project. It was an offer that Shell and its two Japanese partners on Sakhalin could not refuse. The project, on a remote island notorious for its harsh winters, is one of the largest ever attempted. Sakhalin Energy will produce 9.6m tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas and 180,000 barrels per day of oil when it comes on stream in 2008. But Sakhalin ran into serious problems. The most important was its escalating costs. Last year, Shell reported that the price of the project had doubled to $20bn. Insiders tell me that the figure is now closer to $26bn. That would not be such a big problem if it weren't for the production-sharing agreement (PSA) that governs the project. PSAs are typically offered by countries that are desperate for oil majors to invest. To entice the companies, PSAs state that the host nation will only get a share of the profits once the developer has recouped its costs. In the mid-1990s, when Shell signed the contract, the oil price was low and Russia was on its knees financially. Moscow needed the expertise Shell offered. But by the time Shell was announcing a doubling of costs on Sakhalin, President Putin was rather less respectful of foreign energy companies. The cost increase-which postponed, some said indefinitely, the moment when Russia would profit from the production of its own energy reserves-was too much for impatient officials in Moscow. To get control of the project, the Kremlin, much to the joy of animal welfare and environmental groups outside of Russia, suddenly got green. It unleashed Rosprirodnadzor, the country's environmental watchdog, on Sakhalin. The alleged environmental abuses of the project-including deforestation, disruption of marine life, and careless infrastructure across an earthquake-prone region-are so bad that they threaten to make Exxon Valdez look small, says one insider. Oleg Mitvol-the deputy head of Rosprirodnadzor, who was entrusted with the job of bringing Sakhalin Energy to heel-had by last December accumulated sufficient evidence of Shell's and its partners' abuses to lay charges against the consortium amounting to $30bn. There were also threats that the licence to develop the project could be removed. With the green gun at its head, Shell allowed Gazprom to take control of the project-giving Russia an immediate share of profits and oversight of costs. Taking the role of the humiliated man seriously, Shell's head Jeroen van der Veer thanked Putin for helping to resolve the conflict. What most astonished Shell was the detailed inside knowledge Mitvol had accumulated about the company's abuses. Some in the company suspected industrial espionage. But it was actually information that the Donovans of Colchester were passing to Mitvol. The two men had received detailed material about Shell's ecological abuses on Sakhalin: a catalogue of corner-cutting, mismanagement and efforts to cover up damaging evidence. They say they got this information from Shell insiders. Mitvol clearly trusted the material, and in December he admitted for the first time publicly that his deep throat on Sakhalin was John Donovan. The Donovan website has become an open wound for Shell. The Anglo-Dutch giant has tried to shut it down on the grounds that it uses the company name. However, as www.royaldutchshellplc.com makes no money, this hasn't worked. We wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company, Donovan told me when I visited him recently. It has. The Ogoni tribe of Nigeria uses the website to spread information about Shell's activities in the
Re: [Biofuel] Can these people be trusted with our planet?
David Kramer wrote: DK A film you absolutely must see is Jesus Camp, about brainwashing by DK fundamentalists. Richard Dawkins is absolutely right when he speaks of DK child abuse in this context. I left a couple of words out (been staying up too late). I meant to write about brainwashing of children by fundamentalists. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803 Prospect Magazine October 2006 issue 127 Dawkins the dogmatist October 2006 Incurious and rambling, Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault of Darwinism Andrew Brown Andrew Brown's books include The Darwin Wars (Simon Schuster) The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Bantam, £20) It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works. In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational. The agnostics must be right and the atheists very well may be. There is no purpose to the universe. Nothing inconsistent with the laws of physics has been reliably reported. To demand a designer to explain the complexity of the world begs the question, Who designed the designer? It has been clear since Darwin that we have no need to hypothesise a designer to explain the complexity of living things. The results of intercessory prayer are indistinguishable from those of chance. Dawkins gets miffed when this is called 19th-century atheism, since, as he says, the period of their first discovery does not affect the truth of these propositions. But to call it 19th-century is to draw attention to the important truth added in the 20th century: that religious belief persists in the face of these facts and arguments. This persistence is what any scientific attack on religion must explain-and this one doesn't. Dawkins mentions lots of modern atheist scientists who have tried to explain the puzzle: Robert Hinde, Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, DS Wilson, Daniel Dennett, all of them worth reading. But he cannot accept the obvious conclusion to draw from their works, which is that thoroughgoing atheism is unnatural and will never be popular. Dawkins is inexhaustibly outraged by the fact that religious opinions lead people to terrible crimes. But what, if there is no God, is so peculiarly shocking about these opinions being specifically religious? The answer he supplies is simple: that when religious people do evil things, they are acting on the promptings of their faith but when atheists do so, it's nothing to do with their atheism. He devotes pages to a discussion of whether Hitler was a Catholic, concluding that Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, but even if he was the bottom line is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of other religions and hundreds of thousands of Baptists. The claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous in the book, but it has competition from a later question, Why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief [atheism]?-as if the armies of the French revolution had marched under icons of the Virgin, or as if a common justification offered for China's invasion of Tibet had not been the awful priest-ridden backwardness of the Dalai Lama's regime. One might argue that a professor of the public understanding of science has no need to concern himself with trivialities outside his field like the French revolution, the Spanish civil war or Stalin's purges when he knows that history is on his side. With notable exceptions, such as the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent, most people play lip service to the same broad liberal consensus of ethical principles. Really? The majority of us don't cause needless suffering; we believe in free speech and protect it even if we disagree with what is being said. Do the Chinese believe in free speech? Does Dawkins think that pious Catholics or Muslims are allowed to? Does he believe in it himself? He quotes later in the book approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas Humphrey which argued that, We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out. But of course, it's not interfering with free speech when atheists do it. He repeats the theory that suicide bombs are caused by religious schools: If children were taught to question and think
[Biofuel] Bush Continues to Unite the World... Against Him
See also below: The World Agrees: Stop Bush Before He Kills Again --- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16248.htm Bush Continues to Unite the World... Against Him By Jim Lobe 01/23/07 IPS -- - Despite two years of a concentrated effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her public diplomacy major- doma Karen Hughes to boost Washington's global image, more people around the world have an unfavourable opinion of U.S. policies than at any time in recent memory, according to a new BBC poll released here Monday. The survey, which polled more than 26,000 people in 25 countries, including the U.S., between November and January, found that a 49 percent plurality overall believes the U.S. is playing a mainly negative role in the world today, compared to less than a third (32 percent) who said Washington's influence was mainly positive. And in the 18 countries where respondents were asked the same question in each of the past two years, the latest poll found a substantial drop in the percentage who said they viewed U.S. influence as positive, from 40 percent in 2005, to 36 percent last year, to 29 percent in 2007. According to world public opinion, these days the U.S. government hardly seems to be able to do anything right, said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) which, along with Canada-based Globescan, conducted the survey. Germany and Indonesia, where nearly three out of four respondents said they had a mainly negative opinion of U.S. influence, were the least favourable, while 69 percent of French and Turkish respondents agreed. The sharpest drops in positive ratings over the past year were found in Poland (62 percent in 2006 compared to 38 percent in 2007), Indonesia (40 percent to 21 percent), the Philippines (85 percent to 72 percent), and India (44 percent to 30 percent). Respondents in the United States also showed greater opposition to their government's policies than in previous years, according to the survey. Another Washington Post-ABC News poll, released on the eve of President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday, found that 65 percent of respondents oppose the so-called surge of more than 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, while 48 percent called the war the most important issue today. The findings of the BBC poll echo those of another major survey of 14 foreign countries released last June by the Pew Research Centre's Global Attitudes Project. It found that Washington's global image had slipped over the previous year, particularly in Europe and Asia, as well as predominantly Muslim countries, and that Washington's continuing intervention in Iraq appeared to be the main cause. The new BBC poll found that the most negative views were evoked by policies pursued by the Bush administration in connection with its global war on terror and the Middle East. Nearly three in four respondents overall (73 percent) said they disapproved of Washington's role in the Iraq war. Opposition was particularly intense in Egypt, France, and Lebanon where more than three out of four respondents said they strongly disapprove(d). At the same time, more than two out of three (68 percent) overall said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents. More than four out of five respondents in three Latin American countries -- Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico -- and in two mainly Muslim countries -- Egypt and Indonesia -- took that position. Conversely, only 17 percent overall said they thought Washington's military presence exercised a stabilising influence in the Middle East. The most positive views on this question were found in Nigeria, the only country where a plurality (49 percent) said it was stabilising, the Philippines (41 percent), and Kenya (40 percent). Perhaps not coincidentally, the same three countries were the only ones, aside from the U.S. itself, where majorities of respondents said Washington's influence in the world was mainly positive. On related issues, 67 percent of all respondents said they disapproved of Washington's handling of detainees at Guantanamo, while only 16 percent, concentrated in Kenya, Nigeria, India, the Philippines and the U.S., said they approved. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents overall also said they disapproved of U.S. policy during last summer's war between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah, compared to 21 percent -- again concentrated in the same five countries -- who said they approved. Opposition to the U.S. role in the conflict, during which Washington strongly backed Israel and repeatedly defended it in U.N. Security Council deliberations, was particularly intense in Argentina (79 percent strongly disapproved of the U.S. role), Egypt (78 percent), Lebanon itself (76 percent), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (71 percent), France and
Re: [Biofuel] Can these people be trusted with our planet?
Keith, I'm surprised that you feel sufficiently offended by Dawkins to post such an article. In the last few months there has been a spate of articles in the press attacking Richard Dawkins Sam Harris. They basically regurgitate the same arguments over and over: atheists are arrogant, atheists are dogmatists, etc etc. This is the opening paragraph of An Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris: [quote] Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this? No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. [quote end] As to the charge of arrogance: given the utter insigificance of our sun on the scale of the galaxy and the utter insigificance of our galaxy on the scale of the universe, it's hubris of the highest order to imagine that God, if such a thing exists, would have the slightest interest in what what one particular member of one particular species on one particular planet is getting up to. KA http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803 KA Prospect Magazine October 2006 issue 127 KA Dawkins the dogmatist KA October 2006 KA Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion KA doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault KA of Darwinism Faith (belief in something for which there is no evidence) is by definition impervious to reason. I would point out here that the Catholic church now officially accepts evolution. Not because the Pope suddenly became reasonable, but because he had no choice but to face the fact that creationism is untenable. So the assault of Darwinism has not been entirely ineffectual. KA The results of intercessory prayer are indistinguishable from those KA of chance. That's a good one, I must remember it. KA ... important truth added in the 20th KA century: that religious belief persists in the face of these facts KA and arguments. See above. KA This persistence is what any scientific attack on religion must KA explain Bollocks. KA -and this one doesn't. Dawkins mentions lots of modern atheist KA scientists who have tried to explain the puzzle: ... KA all of them worth KA reading. But he cannot accept the obvious conclusion to draw from KA their works, which is that thoroughgoing atheism is unnatural and KA will never be popular. And thoroughgoing homosexuality is unnatural and will never be popular? KA Dawkins is inexhaustibly outraged by the fact that religious opinions KA lead people to terrible crimes. But what, if there is no God, is so KA peculiarly shocking about these opinions being specifically KA religious? The answer he supplies is simple: that when religious KA people do evil things, they are acting on the promptings of their KA faith but when atheists do so, it's nothing to do with their atheism. KA He devotes pages to a discussion of whether Hitler was a Catholic, KA concluding that Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, KA but even if he was? the bottom line is very simple. Individual KA atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name KA of atheism. KA Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was KA exterminated . This argument is trotted out with depressing regularity by the apologists. The atrocities of Hitler, Stalin others were comitted in the name of their particular ideologies, not in the name of atheism. KA One might argue that a professor of the public understanding of KA science has no need to concern himself with trivialities outside his KA field like the French revolution, the Spanish civil war or Stalin's KA purges when he knows that history is on his side. With notable KA exceptions, such as the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian KA equivalent, most people play lip service to the same broad liberal KA consensus of ethical principles. Really? The majority of us don't KA cause needless suffering; we believe in free speech and protect it KA even if we disagree with what is being said. Do the Chinese believe KA in free speech? Does Dawkins think that pious Catholics or Muslims KA are allowed to? OK, so Dawkins left out China. So what? Does that invalidate his argument? KA Does he believe in it himself? He quotes later in the KA book approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas KA Humphrey which argued that, We should no more allow parents to teach KA their children to believe,
Re: [Biofuel] Can these people be trusted with our planet?
Sorry, I accidentally sent off my post before it was finished. Keith, I'm surprised that you feel sufficiently offended by Dawkins to post such an article. In the last few months there has been a spate of articles in the press attacking Richard Dawkins Sam Harris. They basically regurgitate the same arguments over and over: atheists are arrogant, atheists are dogmatists, etc etc. This is the opening paragraph of An Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris: [quote] Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this? No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. [quote end] As to the charge of arrogance: given the utter insignificance of our sun on the scale of the galaxy and the utter insignificance of our galaxy on the scale of the universe, it's hubris of the highest order to imagine that God, if such a thing exists, would have the slightest interest in what one particular member of one particular species on one particular planet is getting up to. KA http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803 KA Prospect Magazine October 2006 issue 127 KA Dawkins the dogmatist KA October 2006 KA Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion KA doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault KA of Darwinism Faith (belief in something for which there is no evidence) is by definition impervious to reason. I would point out here that the Catholic church now officially accepts evolution. Not because the Pope suddenly became reasonable, but because he had no choice but to face the fact that creationism is untenable. So the assault of Darwinism has not been entirely ineffectual. KA The results of intercessory prayer are indistinguishable from those KA of chance. That's a good one, I must remember it. KA ... important truth added in the 20th KA century: that religious belief persists in the face of these facts KA and arguments. See above. KA This persistence is what any scientific attack on religion must KA explain Bollocks. KA -and this one doesn't. Dawkins mentions lots of modern atheist KA scientists who have tried to explain the puzzle: ... KA all of them worth KA reading. But he cannot accept the obvious conclusion to draw from KA their works, which is that thoroughgoing atheism is unnatural and KA will never be popular. And thoroughgoing homosexuality is unnatural and will never be popular? KA The answer he supplies is simple: that when religious KA people do evil things, they are acting on the promptings of their KA faith but when atheists do so, it's nothing to do with their atheism. KA He devotes pages to a discussion of whether Hitler was a Catholic, KA concluding that Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, KA but even if he was? the bottom line is very simple. Individual KA atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name KA of atheism. KA Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was KA exterminated . This argument is trotted out with depressing regularity by the apologists. The atrocities of Hitler, Stalin others were comitted in the name of their particular ideologies, not in the name of atheism. KA With notable KA exceptions, such as the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian KA equivalent, most people play lip service to the same broad liberal KA consensus of ethical principles. Really? The majority of us don't KA cause needless suffering; we believe in free speech and protect it KA even if we disagree with what is being said. Do the Chinese believe KA in free speech? Does Dawkins think that pious Catholics or Muslims KA are allowed to? OK, so Dawkins left out China. So what? Does that invalidate his argument? KA Does he believe in it himself? He quotes later in the KA book approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas KA Humphrey which argued that, We should no more allow parents to teach KA their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the KA Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents KA to knock their children's teeth out. But of course, it's not KA interfering with free speech when atheists do it. Raising kids has nothing to do with free speech. My brother told me once that his then 7 year-old son came home from school one day, visibly distressed. It turned out that some teacher had been
Re: [Biofuel] Can these people be trusted with our planet?
Hello David Keith, I'm surprised that you feel sufficiently offended by Dawkins to post such an article. I'm certainly not offended by Dawkins, David, and that certainly wasn't my reason for posting the piece. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath just posted a piece at AlterNet attacking Dawkins - The Dawkins Delusion http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ - and I could see that he was offended, it's shrill, which is one of the accusations he chucked at Dawkins. Check it out, if you like. I thought it was quite weak, so I didn't post it. Andrew Brown (an ex-colleague at The Independent) is more reasoned, worth posting. You're mistaken if you think I necessarily agree with news pieces I post here. I'm a journalist, after all. Does it inform? Does it broaden the debate? Does it add depth? In this case I think it does, so I posted it. But would I have written it? No. Which side do you think I'm on? In fact you don't know, I haven't stated an opinion on it. Here's one for you, of sorts: actually I think the whole religionist vs atheist tussle misses the mark. I wouldn't write anything on either side. But I'll post stuff. This topic of religion (or non-religion, or anti-religion, or perverted religion) is a recurrent theme here, and I'm not the only one who thinks it's relevant enough. Ethics, principles, integrity are surely a part of sustainability (the true subject of this list), just as lack of principle, hubris and corruption are so integral to the destructive course society has been led on up to now. We're not through with Dawkins, it'll all come up again, and next time we can cut through a lot of stuff we've been through before and get to the point sooner through having good resources from the previous round to refer to, resources on all sides of the issue. In the last few months there has been a spate of articles in the press attacking Richard Dawkins Sam Harris. They basically regurgitate the same arguments over and over: atheists are arrogant, atheists are dogmatists, etc etc. This is the opening paragraph of An Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris: [quote] Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this? No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. [quote end] As to the charge of arrogance: given the utter insigificance of our sun on the scale of the galaxy and the utter insigificance of our galaxy on the scale of the universe, it's hubris of the highest order to imagine that God, if such a thing exists, would have the slightest interest in what what one particular member of one particular species on one particular planet is getting up to. I happen to disagree with that. What do you think God is, some sort of corporate CEO? Hubris is a strange choice of words to use. Maybe there's more hubris in such a flat view that cannot conceive of a spiritual dimension that includes all living creatures, each and every one, in particular, and everything else too. Doesn't your imagination stretch that far? Give it some exercise. Anyway I don't quite see what all this above and below has to do with Andrew Brown's criticism of Dawkins' The God Delusion. For instance, he doesn't use the word arrogance (nor arrogant). Seems to me you're being a bit shrill yourself, aren't you? By the way, please do be careful of lumping Andrew Brown on one side or the other, same as me, it doesn't fit - I've never seen Andrew being an apologist for anything, any more than I am, I don't think it's in his nature. Also by the way, I think I rather object to this emailer style of labelling every line in the piece I posted KA. I didn't author it, please don't attribute it to me. Best Keith KA http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803 KA Prospect Magazine October 2006 issue 127 KA Dawkins the dogmatist KA October 2006 KA Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion KA doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault KA of Darwinism Faith (belief in something for which there is no evidence) is by definition impervious to reason. I would point out here that the Catholic church now officially accepts evolution. Not because the Pope suddenly became reasonable, but because he had no choice but to face the fact that creationism is untenable. So the assault of Darwinism has not been entirely ineffectual. KA The results of
Re: [Biofuel] Can these people be trusted with our planet?
Keith Addison wrote: KA weak, so I didn't post it. Andrew Brown (an ex-colleague at The KA Independent) is more reasoned, worth posting. I didn't know you used to write for The Independent, it's the second best British daily. I stopped reading the online version a long time ago because with half of the articles there's a short summary and then you have to pay a quid to read the whole thing. KA You're mistaken if you think I necessarily agree with news pieces I KA post here. OK, point taken. KA I'm a journalist, after all. Does it inform? Does it KA broaden the debate? Does it add depth? In this case I think it does, KA so I posted it. The article doesn't add anything to the debate. The tedious atheists also commit atrocities line is wheeled out time and time again, as if it effectively countered the assertion that religion is harmful. It's nothing new. Attacking Dawkins for failing to explain the persistence of religion in the face of rationality is scraping the barrel. That wasn't the primary intention of The God Delusion. KA actually I think the whole KA religionist vs atheist tussle misses the mark. A disturbingly large percentage of the population of the world's economically and militarily most powerful country, which is also the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, seriously believe that a mythical being called Jesus will during their lifetimes descend from the clouds like a superhero and escort his true believers to heaven and then destroy the planet and the rest of of humanity with it. These people therefore don't have the slightest interest in doing anything about environment/climate issues. Religion is relevant. As to the charge of arrogance: given the utter insigificance of our sun on the scale of the galaxy and the utter insigificance of our galaxy on the scale of the universe, it's hubris of the highest order to imagine that God, if such a thing exists, would have the slightest interest in what what one particular member of one particular species on one particular planet is getting up to. KA I happen to disagree with that. What do you think God is, some sort KA of corporate CEO? I'm an atheist. I don't think God is anything. No such thing exists. KA Hubris is a strange choice of words to use. I stand by my use of the word. Concrete example: Many survivors of Katrina - which God, in his loving omnipotence, allowed or even wanted to happen - attributed their survival to divine intervention. Since God chose not to save everyone, they must believe that there was something special about them that made them worthy of being saved, whereas others were not worthy. Maybe you can think of a better word for it; I like the word hubris and I'm sticking to it. KA Maybe KA there's more hubris in such a flat view that cannot conceive of a KA spiritual dimension that includes all living creatures, each and KA every one, in particular, and everything else too. Doesn't your KA imagination stretch that far? Give it some exercise. You're making some rather unwarranted assumptions about the elasticity of my imagination. I can conceive of, and do not categorically rule out, the existence of some kind of spiritual dimension. But since it's perfectly possible to live morally and ethically without such a belief, I don't give the matter very much thought. KA Anyway I don't quite see what all this above and below has to do with KA Andrew Brown's criticism of Dawkins' The God Delusion. For KA instance, he doesn't use the word arrogance (nor arrogant). It's possible that I was a bit hasty in lumping him with all the jornalists who are jumping so eagerly onto the Dawkins-bashing bandwagon, but the fact remains that he says nothing that hasn't already been said and refuted countless times. KA Seems to KA me you're being a bit shrill yourself, aren't you? Not in the least. KA Also by the way, I think I rather object to this emailer style of KA labelling every line in the piece I posted KA. I didn't author it, KA please don't attribute it to me. My email prog does that automatically; it's generally quite useful for keeping track of who said what and who's quoting who. I deliberately included your link in the bits that I quoted in order to avoid people getting the impression that I was attributing the article to you personally. Regards, David ___ 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] 6 stroke motor
Interesting. Hopefully someone will create an animation of it's operation. On drawback I see is that many places have reached peak water,to borrow a phrase. Yes stationery application could easily condense the exhaust. So could vehicles, but it may a trick where the trend needs to be lighter/smaller vehicles. Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA inc. ___ 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] 6 stroke motor
OK, I hear the term peak water and know the idea behind it, but I can't wrap my mind around the idea that water will become scarcer as the globe warms, unless it escapes our atmosphere into space. The way I see it, warmer temperatures, combined with a larger water surface on the earth, (rising sea levels, covering what once was dryland) should make more clouds, and while warmer air can hold higher levels of water vapor, don't the clouds rain eventually? I think water capturing systems might be of benefit in the future... Unless I'm missing something. Someone, please explain this to me... I mean, I do see that there's lower water flow in some of the waterways in my area, and in my yard, but in my yard, what once was weeds and scrub is now trees, and I think that in this case, the trees are drawing water from the ground, diminshing the flow of the streams... The trees are also contributing to the evaporation of ground water as it is drawn up through the trunk, branches and leaves, bringing the earth's minerals through every part of its being, before finally evaporating from it from the surface of its leaves... doug swanson Doug Younker wrote: Interesting. Hopefully someone will create an animation of it's operation. On drawback I see is that many places have reached peak water,to borrow a phrase. Yes stationery application could easily condense the exhaust. So could vehicles, but it may a trick where the trend needs to be lighter/smaller vehicles. Doug, N0LKK Kansas USA inc. ___ 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/ -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * All generalizations are false. Including this one. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software. ___ 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] Crude fatty acid distillate
Jan / James, You've been good help!! I'm going to do some tests this coming week. Thanks so much!! Any other inputs are still welcome!! best regards, Ken - Original Message - From: JAMES PHELPS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate Jan, Ken, I have pushed the procedure to double the acid amount in the first phase, dewatered and went to the second phase (base base) in small batches without problem. I suggest testing in small amounts and working up a procedure that fits the product. This will take some time to do but when you get it you can get repeatbility thereafter. I did use Venturi acid introduction so that perhaps makes a big difference as well. Jim From: Jan Warnqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:48:10 +0100 If you have that much tri-glycerides you may most likely do one acid esterification followed by one base trans-esterification. Just check the FFA value after the first step after removal of the (acidic) water phase. If the FFA value is 5%, go as described above, in any other case as described before. With best regards AGERATEC AB Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate Thanks again Jan. Its 71.8% FFA. But doing acid esterification twice? Do you finish with a base transesterification after the two acid esterification? Please pardon my ignorance. Can you expound a bit. First time to hear about acid esterification twice. Appreciate very much your help on the matter. Thanks. Ken - Original Message - From: Jan Warnqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate No, if you are working with 100% free fatty acids, you will have to do the ACID esterification twice with water content evapoation inbetween With best regards AGERATEC AB Jan Warnqvist. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate Thanks Jan, So you are saying that Aleks Kac's two stage process is the way to go on this one? Start with the acid-based stage and finish with the base-based stage. That's doing it twice right? Am doing small batches on the single stage base process (about 100 liters veg. oil). Will blending this with new veg. oil make a difference? Been reading the Foolproof Method over and over again to familiarize myself. Looks like it. Much thanks again. Ken - Original Message - From: Jan Warnqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate Hello Ken, fatty acids are possible to esterify with an acid catalyst. The formed water has to be drawn off, so it is always nice to start with a low water content. Performed correctly, the esterification will produce 90-95% esters. Usually these kinds of reactions are performed twice for a good conversion grade. With best regards AGERATEC AB Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Crude fatty acid distillate Hi everyone, I sent this out a few days ago. I was told by someone in the oil mill that crude fatty acid distillate is just a fancy name for their seconds or reject oils, which soap factories take from them and make into soap. Anyone has any experience with this kind of stock being made into biodiesel? Will such a high FFA content give problems? Thanks. Ken - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:15 AM Subject: [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-
[Biofuel] Sharing Sustainable Solutions
http://www.bagelhole.org/ - Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.___ 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] another do it yourself project
http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/index.html - Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail QA for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.___ 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/
