Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
OK, one more hypocrite in a nation full of them. When I read someone harping about an electric gate, I have to think how much more of the article contains other silly concerns. ___ 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] Building a fraudulent case using coercion
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17184.htm Building a fraudulent case using coercion By Daniel M Pourkesali 02/26/07 ICH --- - Bush administration officials and their Zionist allies in the media are trying hard to portray Iran as a rogue and defiant nation that is thumbing its nose at the international community [1] by ignoring United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 [2] which gave Iran 60 days to halt its uranium enrichment program. In an article [3] written shortly after the passage of the same on Dec 23, 2006, this writer highlighted some important facts that warrant repeating. First and foremost that Iran is not in breach of any international conventions or agreements. Processing of uranium is entirely within the guidelines of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has accounted for all fissile material and confirmed that none have been diverted to prohibited activities. Prior to passage of 1737 by the UNSC; most objections to Iran's nuclear activities were loosely based on unsubstantiated allegations of violating the terms of the NPT. But in the 2 months since, the case has been entirely shifted to Iran's violation of that UN resolution. It is important to remember that passage of resolutions 1737 and the prior 1696, were made possible only after the Governors' Board of the IAEA referred Iran to the Security Council on Sep 24, 2005. In a New York Times report [4] on the following day it stated that 'perhaps the biggest surprise was India, which initially opposed the resolution but later voted in favor of it' The shocking revelation by Stephen G. Rademaker, a former ranking official of the Bush administration, first reported on Feb 16, 2007 [5] by India's national paper The Hindu that India's vote had been coerced may explain that surprise to some but reaffirms the suspicion of others. In a press release [6] posted today Professor Abbas Edalat of Campaign Iran said: The revelation that the US coerced India into voting against Iran on this crucial issue is of global significance. It brings into question the entire legitimacy of the decision by the Governors' Board of the IAEA to refer Iran to the Security Council and the consequent passing of Resolutions 1696 and 1737 and any future resolutions against Iran the UN might pass. It also raises the question that how many other members of the Governors' Board of the IAEA were coerced by the US to politicize Iran's nuclear file, refer it to the UN Security Council and bring about first resolution 1696 and then resolution 1737? What should serve as a red flag to all outraged by the deceptions which brought us the Iraqi disaster based on fabricated and manipulated intelligence, is that these people are using the very same deceiving and dishonest methods to build a case for attacking Iran which regardless of the Security Council approval would be ethically and morally void of any legitimacy. Daniel M Pourkesali - Member Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/ Notes [1] http://www.nysun.com/article/49210 [2] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm [3] http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/954/print [4] http://www.solami.com/nytiaeairan.htm [5] http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/16/stories/2007021605671200.htm [6] http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/1456 ___ 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] A quote for our time from another time
Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others: The Constitution of this Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom. - Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence I think what we have here in the USA is deadly medicine for all thanks to the FDA, the AMA, and Big Pharma along with a very cooperative Congress. Medicine here seems to be for population culling, profiteering, and control. D. Mindock ___ 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] Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/26/157241 Democracy Now! | Ex-Congressional Aide: Monday, February 26th, 2007 Ex-Congressional Aide: Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003 As Seymour Hersh reports the Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran, we examine how the Bush administration ignored a secret offer to negotiate with Iran in 2003. We speak with the National Iranian American Council's Trita Parsi, a former aide to Republican congressman Bob Ney. [includes rush transcript] While the Bush administration continues to insist it has no plans to go to war with Iran, the New Yorker magazine is reporting the Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months. In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman denied the US was planning to go to war with Iran and said To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous. Whitman went on to say the White House is continuing to address concerns in the region through diplomatic efforts. This comes against the backdrop of last week's allegation that Bush's chief advisor Karl Rove personally received a copy of a secret offer from the Iranian government to hold negotiations four years ago. The Bush administration decided to ignore the grand bargain offer. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently claimed she had never even seen the document. At the time Iran said it would consider far-reaching compromises on its nuclear program, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel. Rove's involvement was revealed by an aide to former Republican congressman Bob Ney. The aide, Trita Parsi, said Ney was chosen by the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran to carry the Iranian proposal to the White House because he knew the Ohio Congressman to be the only Farsi-speaking member of Congress and particularly interested in Iran. Trita Parsi joins me now from Washington DC. He is the President of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American organization in the US. His forthcoming book is Treacherous Triangle - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. * Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the largest Iranian-American organization in the US. He is author of the forthcoming book Treacherous Triangle - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi joins me now from Washington, D.C. He is president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iran American organization in the United States. His forthcoming book is called Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. Welcome to Democracy Now! TRITA PARSI: Thank you for having me, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what this memo, this proposal was, coming from Iran, and how you say it made its way to the highest levels of the US government. TRITA PARSI: Well, this is back in May 2003. The United States had just defeated Saddam in less than three weeks, and I think there were a lot of feelings inside Iran that they needed to present some sort of a negotiation deal with the United States. But what they presented was quite similar to many things that they had communicated verbally to the United States over the last couple of years. Basically, they said the United States has a couple of aims, Iran has a couple of aims, and there is a process to be able to proceed with the negotiations. And what the Iranians agreed to discuss as a framework of the negotiations was how to disarm the Hezbollah, how to end support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, how to open up the nuclear program, how to help the United States stabilize Iraq, and, in short, that the government there would not along sectarian lines, and also how to sign onto the Beirut Declaration, which is basically a former recognition of the two-state solution. These are far-reaching compromises that Iran potentially would have agreed to in the negotiations, but the Bush administration, as you reported, decided simply not to respond to the proposal. AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how it made its way from Iran to the US government? TRITA PARSI: The United States, back in 1991, established the Swiss embassy in Iran as a go-between between the United States and Iran. The US needed a channel of communication, a reliable channel of
[Biofuel] India's anti-Iran votes were coerced, says former U.S. official
http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/16/stories/2007021605671200.htm The Hindu : National : Friday, Feb 16, 2007 India's anti-Iran votes were coerced, says former U.S. official Siddharth Varadarajan `New Delhi should walk away from Iran pipeline project' New Delhi: A former ranking official of the Bush administration acknowledged on Thursday that India's votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were coerced. In a talk on `Iran, North Korea and the future of the NPT' at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Stephen G. Rademaker - who quit his job as Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and International Security at the U.S. State Department last December - said the July 2005 nuclear agreement had helped bring about a big change in India's attitude towards non-proliferation. The best illustration of this is the two votes India cast against Iran at the IAEA, he said, adding: I am the first person to admit that the votes were coerced. A key role in the entire process was played by the Congressional hearings on the nuclear deal, the former State Department official noted. Congressional vote In the end, India did not vote the wrong way, he said. And India's votes against Iran, in turn, paved the way for the Congressional vote on the civilian nuclear proposal last year. Mr. Rademaker joined the State Department in 2002 as Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and was put in charge of the combined bureaus of arms control and non-proliferation in 2005. At the end of 2006, he quit the U.S. government to take up a job with Barbour Griffith Rogers, the lobbying firm whose clients include the Government of India. During the time he served in the State Department, Mr. Rademaker was involved in bilateral negotiations with India on nuclear matters. He also headed the U.S. delegation to two meetings of the Nuclear Suppliers Group held soon after the July 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Though the civil nuclear bill had now cleared Congress, said Mr. Rademaker, more is going to be required [of India] because the problems of Iran and North Korea have not been solved. The former Bush administration official claimed Iran was developing nuclear weapons and that the international community was going to have to take tougher measures to persuade Iran to change course. Whether there will be more U.N. sanctions or more measures taken outside the U.N. context, we'll have to see. Russia, said Mr. Rademaker, was not fully cooperating with the U.S. If the U.N. Security Council acts against Iran, this would make things easier for countries like India. But if things go in the direction of increasing economic pressure by a coalition of countries like the U.S, Europe and Japan, India will have to make a choice, he said. India would have to decide whether to join these countries in the economic measures they took. It is India's prerogative to decide, but should it (not join), it would be a big mistake and a lost opportunity, he added. The July 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement had opened a door for India to further its integration with the industrialised world and it would be bad for India to squander this opportunity, Mr. Rademaker said. So I hope India, for its own self-interest, decides to participate (in these measures). `A low cost way' As a first step towards tightening the screws on Iran, India should withdraw from the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project, the former U.S. official argued. This would send a strong message to Iran, while not hurting India's economic interests because the pipeline was unlikely to be economically viable, he claimed. I am not sure what kind of investor would put up money for a pipeline running from Iran through Pakistan. What happens if there is an incident in Kashmir? Walking away from the IPI pipeline project, said Mr. Rademaker, would, therefore, be a low cost way of India demonstrating its commitment to non-proliferation. He clarified that the U.S. did not consider the Iran pipeline to be a litmus test for India. But scrapping the project would be a smart thing for India to do. India, he stressed, needs to stop thinking of itself as a Third World country... and start aligning itself with the First World countries. Asked about the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran, Mr. Rademaker said, I have never been a proponent of military strikes against Iran because I am not persuaded they would be effective. ___ 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] Climate Change 'Growing Threat to Society'
The largest scientific organization in the US, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has issued a consensus statement saying global warming is a growing threat to society. From: Boston Globe, Feb. 19, 2007 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_aaas_warning_on_gw.070219.htm[P rinter-friendly version] Climate Change 'Growing Threat To Society' Echoes issues raised by global panel SAN FRANCISCO -- The world's largest general scientific society on Sunday joined the concern over global climate change, calling it a growing threat to society. It is the first consensus statement of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/ on climate change. It comes just weeks after the International Panel on Climate Change issued its most recent report on human-induced warming. The evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and is a growing threat to society, the AAAS said at its annual meeting. Scientists are observing the rapid melting of glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, rising sea levels, shifts in species ranges and increased frequency of weather extremes, said John P. Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center and AAAS president. Concern focuses on carbon dioxide and other gases produced by burning fossil fuels and other processes. As these gases accumulate in the atmosphere they trap heat from the sun, much like a greenhouse, warming the climate. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be, the group said. Holdren noted that some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in the far North where warming has occurred more rapidly than in other areas. Retreating sea ice and rising sea level are driving some natives from their villages, the group said. On Feb. 2 the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change reported that global warming is so severe that it will continue for centuries, leading to a far different planet in 100 years. The panel, established by the United Nations, concluded that global warming is very likely caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the report said. AAAS was founded in 1848. It reports that it serves 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, reaching 10 million individuals. ___ 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] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Another tidbit on this I saw on the tube last night, the IRS does not recognise the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as a legitimate organisation. Looks just like another smear campaign. You are right, Keith, AEI, CEI and a long list of cohorts are evil, oil soaked traitors to the planet, regards tallex ---Original Message--- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Sent: 28 Feb '07 07:26 :-) Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From the American Enterprise Institute, for one. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all the rest of the usual suspects. What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think? Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now. What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it. What exactly would you do if what were? Best Keith Weakness? gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen. If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty and honesty in politics. Kirk Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk, When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7, 2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour concert all over this planet. When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions. Terry Dyck Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net Next_Generation_Grid http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid Alternative_Energy_Politics http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/ Tomorrow-energy http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy Earth_Rescue_International http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Earth_Rescue_International ___ 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] vanishing honey bees
Kirk McLoren a écrit : ++ | Vanishing Honeybees Will Affect Future Crops | | from the bee-gone dept. | | posted by kdawson on Tuesday February 27, @14:07 (Bug) | | http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/179237 | ++ (...) also known in Europe for years. Among different causes , impact of pesticides like gaucho (imidaclopride) or regent ts (fipronil) has been proven, especially with coated sunflowers seeds. After years of struggle between environmentalists and big chemicals companies (Bayer BASF) , coated sunflowers seeds have been withdraw from french market in 1999, but not coated corn seeds. And new pesticides, maybe worst, replaced the suspected ones. But bees were still dying in some regions, 2 or 3years after those pesticides have been banned. Others explanations : very long remanence in environment after use and other chemicals involved (massive mortality at seeding time in April), climate change (too hot in summer) and new agricultural usages (less biodiversity, less interesting flowers) when Varroa and nosemose infections (and possible other unknown pathologies) are maximum, the food possibilities for honeybees are lower than before (weakness and mortality in August)... So, research is still going on... frantz (one wild hive at home) ___ 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] A quote for our time from another time
D...you first alerted the List to the Real ID Act in connection with Rife enthusiasts. I'm convinced the purposes go far beyond Rife concerns as the Rush quote and you have indicated. Looks like it's way past time for Rush's concern to be implemented. The last amendment to the U.S. Constitution lowered the voting age to 18 out of guilt for conscripting our youth who could not vote at the time to die and be forever damaged in Vietnam. Seems a similar argument could be used in regards to medical freedom, except that the present conscription is more insidious. Folks don't even know they are being conscripted. Present them with the facts and they think you're crazy. Truly, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has become more real than the movie. U.S. Citizens: States--Reject Real ID; Congress--Repeal Real ID. If you will not act, you will be acted upon. Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: D. Mindock To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:30 AM Subject: [Biofuel] A quote for our time from another time Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others: The Constitution of this Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom. - Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence I think what we have here in the USA is deadly medicine for all thanks to the FDA, the AMA, and Big Pharma along with a very cooperative Congress. Medicine here seems to be for population culling, profiteering, and control. D. Mindock -- ___ 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] Climate draft allows spike in oil-sands emissions
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070226.ENVIRO25/TPStory/ Climate draft allows spike in oil-sands emissions Ottawa low-balling future development, environmentalists say of proposed plan BILL CURRY OTTAWA -- Greenhouse-gas emissions from Alberta's oil sands would be allowed to rise dramatically under a draft version of the government's long-anticipated climate-change plan obtained by The Globe and Mail. The internal documents appear to underestimate significantly future oil-sands development as a way of producing more positive figures, said two environmentalists who analyzed the documents for The Globe. The draft plan has many similarities with what was proposed in 2005 by the Liberal government and is clearly meant to show an improvement over that plan. While the rules for industry would take effect in 2010 -- two years later than the Liberal plan -- the specific reduction targets for each sector are deeper for most industrial sectors under the draft Conservative plan. Environment Minister John Baird has promised to unveil regulations before the end of March that will force every sector of Canadian industry to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Mike Van Soelen, the director of communications for Mr. Baird, would not comment in detail on the documents. He noted, however, that the minister is still consulting with industry and that no final decisions have been made. A lot of work is going into this, he said. I do note that the documents are dated Dec. 20 and a lot of work has been done [since then]. We have a new minister in place and we're working toward final decisions. The Conservative government was criticized harshly last fall when it announced that its targets for at least the next 13 years would not require companies to reduce their overall emissions, but rather reduce their intensity. That means greenhouse-gas emissions from the production of each barrel of oil would decrease, but if a company is selling more barrels of oil each year -- as is widespread in the oil sands -- overall emissions would keep going up. The leaked government documents, marked secret and dated Dec. 20, 2006, show that the government was still pursuing a plan at that time based on intensity targets until at least 2020. Former environment commissioner Johanne Gelinas expressed doubt last year the Liberals' plan to regulate greenhouse gases would lead to total reductions, because it too was based on reducing the intensity of emissions by 15 per cent over four years ending in 2012. The government has been guarding closely its plans for industry and the documents provide a first glimpse as to where they may be headed. The plan contained in the documents is similar to what a Suncor official described last week as his understanding of the government plan. They include charts and targets for each sector and compare the draft Conservative plan to the one proposed by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion in 2005 when he was environment minister. The leaked government documents were analyzed for The Globe by two environmentalists: Louise Comeau of the Sage Foundation, who provided policy advice to the Liberal government for Mr. Dion's 2005 plan, and Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute, who recently released a proposal that would see oil sands companies comply with Kyoto by adding about $1 to the production cost of each barrel of oil. The federal government's proposal for industry regulation on greenhouse gases is a fraud, Ms. Comeau said. Fabricating numbers so the current government's intensity approach looks better than the last government's intensity approach is no more acceptable today than it was two years ago. Intensity targets are dishonest. The time to regulate real reductions is now. Rather than intensity-based targets, environmentalists want rules for industry to force their total levels of emissions to go down. Preferably, they would prefer the rules to use the standard of 1990 emission levels, which are used by all Kyoto signatories. Canada, for instance, agreed to reduce its emissions levels to 6 per cent below 1990 levels, but emissions are more than 30 per cent above that target. Instead of using the 1990 baseline, the Conservative plan in the documents uses 2000 as its base for intensity targets. Separately, it also used 2003, when it said last fall that its long-term target is to reduce emissions between 45 and 65 per cent from 2003 levels by 2050. Reductions based on intensity mean that emissions are lower than what they would be if there were no mandatory rules, a concept known as business as usual. But last year's report from the environment commissioner said such an approach carries risks and is problematic, because it is easy for such projections to become outdated. The Liberal plan for heavy industry was called the Large Final Emitter System, while the leaked documents indicate it will be renamed the Clean Air Industrial Regulatory Agenda. The documents suggest the two approaches
[Biofuel] Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates]
Forwarding from another list. Darryl Original Message Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html 07.18.05 Even on a cold winter day, standing inside a greenhouse can be downright balmy if the sun is shining outside. The glass lets the sun's warming rays in, but doesn't let as much of that warmth escape outdoors. Our Earth is much like that greenhouse, where a mixture of gases in our atmosphere acts together like a pane of glass, letting the sun's rays in, and without letting as much warmth escape out to space. Singling out how much each greenhouse gas (GHG) contributes overall to climate warming can be a tricky task. When it comes to measuring the impacts of greenhouse gases on our climate, scientists typically look at how much of each gas exists in the atmosphere. However, Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, believes we need to look at the GHGs when they are emitted at Earth's surface, instead of looking at the GHGs themselves after they have been mixed into the atmosphere. The gas molecules undergo chemical changes and once they do, looking at them after they've mixed and changed in the atmosphere doesn't give an accurate picture of their effect, Shindell said. For example, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is affected by pollutants that change methane's chemistry, and it doesn't reflect the effects of methane on other greenhouse gases, said Shindell, so it's not directly related to emissions, which are what we set policies for. Once GHGs like methane and the molecules that create ozone are released into the air, these gases mix and react together, which transforms their compositions. When gases are altered, their contribution to the greenhouse warming effect also shifts. So, the true effect of a single GHG emission on climate becomes very hard to single out. The leading greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons. These gases are called â??well mixedâ?? greenhouse gases because of their long lifetimes of a decade or more, which allows them to disperse evenly around the atmosphere. They are emitted from both man-made and natural sources. Ozone in the lower atmosphere, called tropospheric ozone or smog, also has greenhouse warming effects. In the upper atmosphere, ozone protects life on Earth from the sunâ??s harmful ultraviolet rays. Some of the major investigations into the state of our warming planet come from a series of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment. These reports involved the work of hundreds of climate experts. The reports rely on measurements of greenhouse gases as they exist in the atmosphere, after they may have mixed with other gases. Shindell finds there are advantages to measuring emissions of greenhouse gases and isolating their impacts, as opposed to analyzing them after they have mixed in the atmosphere. His study on the subject was just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. According to new calculations, methane's effect on warming the world's climate may be double what is currently thought. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for a whopping third of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases between the 1750s and today. The IPCC report states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for only about one sixth of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming. Part of the reason the new calculations give a larger effect is that they include the effect methane has on air pollution. A major component of air pollution is near-surface-level or tropospheric ozone, which is not directly emitted, but is instead formed chemically from methane other hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The IPCC report includes the effects of tropospheric ozone increases on climate, but it is not attributed to particular sources. By categorizing the climate effects according to emissions, Shindell and colleagues found the total effects of methane emissions are substantially larger. In other words, the true source of some of the warming that is normally attributed to smog is really due to methane that leads to increased smog. If we control methane, which is viable, then we are likely to soften global warming more than one would have thought, so that's a very positive outcome, Shindell said. Sources of methane include natural sources like wetlands, gas hydrates in the ocean floor, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, and non-wetland soils. Fossil fuels, cattle, landfills and rice paddies are the main human-related sources. -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (now in print and eBook) http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/ ___ Biofuel mailing list
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Randall wrote: Terry, BIG SNIP But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is that Al is a politician--period. Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words.. Nonsense, they most certainly do not. End of the day, there are hundreds of thousands of folks walking the talk. Millions perhaps if you look at it world wide. Walking the talk in this particular arena, *almost* by definition translates into having very little if *any* political power. Gore's documentary wasn't news to me. I already knew all the back story, and I thought his presentation of the science was a soft sell. And I nearly fell asleep during the 'human interest' bits. Nearly everyone I've exposed to it, has complained that Gore's use of the word I was way too heavy. The science he presented, has all been presented before, in many arenas, in many ways, by many folks. Some of whom ride bikes to work, and all that stuff. But until Al took the show on the road, who heard it? Folks who were directly interested. Al has broadened the audience, very much so. In the year since documentary was released, I personally (from this US centric view) have been just flat out stunned by the shift in the dialog. Fact is, Al Gore (whom I used to refer to as the Manchurian Candidate) was *almost* president of the US. Some say he in fact was elected to the office. This I will not debate, because there really is no point. However, you don't get to be president by living a low impact life. There are a number of brilliant folks living low impact lifestyles out there, some of which would no doubt be up to the task of directing the show here in the US. However, we'll not hear from them, because they are busy. Busy living low impact lives. It is a lot of effort, as any of us who are expending effort in this direction know quite well. As to his energy holdings, make note of the sad fact that money is fungible. Folks who hold interest in diversified funds, all hold bits and pieces of energy companies. Some more than others. The more you are vested, the more influence you have. If you have no influence, then who cares what you think? ___ 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] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Kirk McLoren wrote: If he used the power in his business ok but natural gas lanterns in his yard Those are decorative - if you want light you dont burn a torch. So if he wont curb personal indulgance he doesnt believe what he espouses for the rest of us.. Forget weak flesh - how about belief. He doesnt believe what he tells us. That is a liar not a hypocrite. Are we destroying the world or not? for ambiance at his parties? Hey Kirk, please see my earlier response to Randall. Not exactly point for point, but overall applicable. ___ 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] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Tallex Another tidbit on this I saw on the tube last night, the IRS does not recognise the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as a legitimate organisation. It's the state's Department of Revenue, apparently not on account of their rightwing ideology but because of their complete lack of professionalism. Looks just like another smear campaign. Yes. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is doing well out of it though, their website just got its first hits: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.tennesseepolicy.org Related Info for: tennesseepolicy.org/ :-) CNN Headline News called them an environmental group, I guess that makes for a better story angle but it's probably deeply insulting for a free-market group like the Tennessee Center for Policy Research to be lumped in with all the hated treehuggers. That makes them no better than Al Gore, maybe they'll sue. Whatever, Drew Johnson's the little blue-eyed boy of the right now, he'll never look back. I'll bet he's ecstatic, seeing himself in the White House next. Watch the noise-level go up (Coulter, Limbaugh etc) and the signal go down. There's a blow-by-blow at Huffington Post: http://snipurl.com/1bkti You are right, Keith, AEI, CEI and a long list of cohorts are evil, oil soaked traitors to the planet, :-) Not an unfair description. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/ Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge's Latest Hysterics Vice President Gore's office told ThinkProgress: 1) Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. 2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint - a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore's office explains: What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero. Let's wait and see how this plays out. It should be a good measure of democracy in action in the USA today. What wins, facts or thuggery? Best Keith regards tallex ---Original Message--- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Sent: 28 Feb '07 07:26 :-) Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From the American Enterprise Institute, for one. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all the rest of the usual suspects. What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think? Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now. What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it. What exactly would you do if what were? Best Keith Weakness? gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen. If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty and honesty in politics. Kirk Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk, When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7, 2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour concert all over this planet. When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets
[Biofuel] US's Iraq oil grab is a done deal
See also: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4020 Foreign Policy In Focus Oil Grab in Iraq February 22, 2007 - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html Feb 28, 2007 THE ROVING EYE US's Iraq oil grab is a done deal By Pepe Escobar By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies. - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999 US President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney might as well declare the Iraq war over and out. As far as they - and the humongous energy interests they defend - are concerned, only now is the mission really accomplished. More than half a trillion dollars spent and perhaps half a million Iraqis killed have come down to this. On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet in Baghdad approved the draft of the new Iraqi oil law. The government regards it as a major national project. The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy Federal Oil and Gas Council boasting a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq. That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives. The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized (from 1972 to 1975) Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements (PSAs) - which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically US) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit. As if this were not enough, the law reduces in practice the role of Baghdad to a minimum. Oil wealth, in theory, will be distributed directly to Kurds in the north, Shi'ites in the south and Sunnis in the center. For all practical purposes, Iraq will be partitioned into three statelets. Most of the country's reserves are in the Shi'ite-dominated south, while the Kurdish north holds the best prospects for future drilling. The approval of the draft law by the fractious 275-member Iraqi Parliament, in March, will be a mere formality. Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, is beaming. So is dodgy Barnham Salih: a Kurd, committed cheerleader of the US invasion and occupation, then deputy prime minister, big PSA fan, and head of a committee that was debating the law. But there was not much to be debated. The law was in essence drafted, behind locked doors, by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush administration and then carefully retouched by Big Oil, the International Monetary Fund, former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz' World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development. It's virtually a US law (its original language is English, not Arabic). Scandalously, Iraqi public opinion had absolute no knowledge of it - not to mention the overwhelming majority of Parliament members. Were this to be a truly representative Iraqi government, any change to the legislation concerning the highly sensitive question of oil wealth would have to be approved by a popular referendum. In real life, Iraq's vital national interests are in the hands of a small bunch of highly impressionable (or downright corrupt) technocrats. Ministries are no more than political party feuds; the national interest is never considered, only private, ethnic and sectarian interests. Corruption and theft are endemic. Big Oil will profit handsomely - and long-term, 30 years minimum, with fabulous rates of return - from a former developing-world stalwart methodically devastated into failed-state status. Get me a PSA on time In these past few weeks, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been crucial in mollifying the Kurds. In the end, in practice, the pro-US Kurds will have all the power to sign oil contracts with whatever companies they want. Sunnis will be more dependent on the Oil Ministry in Baghdad. And Shi'ites will be more or less midway between total independence in the south and Baghdad's dictum (which they control anyway). But the crucial point remains: nobody will sign anything unless the advisers at the US-manipulated Federal Oil and Gas Council say so. Nobody wants to colonial-style PSAs forced down their throat anymore. According to the International Energy Agency, PSAs apply to only 12% of global oil reserves, in cases where costs are very high and nobody knows what will be found (certainly not the Iraqi case). No big Middle Eastern oil producer works with PSAs. Russia and Venezuela are renegotiating all of them. Bolivia nationalized its gas. Algeria and Indonesia have new rules for future contracts. But Iraq, of course, is not a sovereign country. Big Oil is obviously ecstatic - not only
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
I would like to personally thank all of you in helping to cure my ignorance. From:Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power UseDate:Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900Hi Fred actually to me both are important.I think one of the worst things one can be called is a hypocrite.Sticks and stones, and plenty of folks with their own agendas tothrow stones if there's aught to be gained from it. Both sides ofsuch accusations need checking for hipocrisy. if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth."They" ought to? Who's "they"?Did you ever notice Darryl's sig?"It's your planet.If you won't look after it, who will?"Like everybody else, YOU are the spokesperson for the Earth, not someother guy appointed by "them".BestKeith From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.org To:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject:Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST) The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it. So how true is it - at least to him. If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont. So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board of directors.Kirk Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk and all, When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man. Tom Irwin From:Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.org To:biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject:[Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 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] Germans take pride in local money
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6333063.stm Germans take pride in local money By Tristana Moore BBC News, Magdeburg, Germany The next time you venture out for lunch in Magdeburg, check what kind of loose change you have in your wallet. Like any other city in Germany, the normal currency here is the euro. But bizarrely, they also have another currency in circulation: the Urstromtaler . Before you doubt its existence, it is not Monopoly money - it is very real. At a jewellery shop in the city centre, Gerfried Kliems explained how people use the regional currency. It's quite simple, he said. The money you spend stays in the region. When I accept Urstromtaler in my shop, I then have to see how I can spend the local banknotes. You get to know everyone who's participating in this project, and at the end of the day, you have a good feeling about life. More than 200 businesses are using the regional currency, including shops, bakeries, florists, restaurants. There is even a cinema which accepts Urstromtaler. 'Local boost' Frank Jansky, a lawyer, launched the regional currency in Magdeburg. We are fostering links with businesses in the whole region and through the contacts that we develop, we are supporting the domestic German market, he said. All the businesses have signed contracts, and it's official. We have our own banknotes and we have an issuing office in the city centre. At the Urstromtaler central bank in Magdeburg, which is no larger than a small office, the banknotes are issued at a rate of 1:1 against the euro. The banknotes have a time limit and lose value after a certain date, so people are encouraged to spend their money quickly. Campaigners argue that the currency can help boost the local economy. The unemployment rate in Magdeburg is about 20%, and like other areas in the former communist east, many young people have left to look for work elsewhere. Dilapidated, run-down houses and old factories still dot the landscape, even though billions of euros' worth of subsidies have poured into the east since the fall of communism. Everyone who uses the regional currency develops a social network. People get to know each other, said Joerg Dahlke. It's also good for the environment, as you are not buying goods from big supermarket chains who import their goods. Instead you are buying products from regional producers, he said. The Bundesbank is keeping an eye on what we are doing - regional currencies are still in a legal grey area Frank Jansky It is easy to dismiss the regional currency as a gimmick, but supporters take it very seriously. We are disillusioned with the euro, as it doesn't bring many benefits to the local community, said Joerg Dahlke. But at the same time, we don't want to get rid of the euro completely. Our regional currency runs in parallel to the euro. Of course, we still need the euro for big purchases, he explained. Residents can choose to pay one-third of their purchase in the local currency, and the rest in euros, or sometimes they can pay for their purchase entirely in Urstromtaler. The phenomenon is not limited to the state of Saxony-Anhalt. 'Social money' Regional currencies have sprung up all over Germany. According to Professor Gerhard Roesl, author of a report commissioned by the Bundesbank, there are at least 16 regional currencies in Germany. The regional currencies are not really a threat to the Bundesbank, although technically they are illegal and could pose a problem. The Bundesbank tolerates the local currencies, which are regarded as a kind of 'social money', said Mr Roesl. Frank Jansky and representatives of other regional currency projects are lobbying the federal government to introduce a change in the law. The Bundesbank is keeping an eye on what we are doing. Regional currencies are still in a legal grey area. But there are other comparable financial schemes, like 'miles and more', which also pose a challenge to the status quo, said Mr Jansky. We are supporting our regional economy and culture, which will benefit future generations. And in case anyone thinks it's an old-fashioned system, they have now launched an online banking system for the regional currency in Magdeburg. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6333063.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6333063.stm Published: 2007/02/06 14:09:06 GMT © BBC MMVII The individual is supreme and finds its way through intuition. Sepp Hasslberger ___ 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] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Enough already! We can kick the messenger, but the message is still relevant. By winning the Oscar, An Inconvenient Truth got lots of publicity, and just maybe will help spread the word. Steve - Original Message - From: Fred Oliff To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use I would like to personally thank all of you in helping to cure my ignorance. From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900 Hi Fred actually to me both are important. I think one of the worst things one can be called is a hypocrite. Sticks and stones, and plenty of folks with their own agendas to throw stones if there's aught to be gained from it. Both sides of such accusations need checking for hipocrisy. if Al Gore's squanders energy perhaps they ought to find someone esle to be the spokesperson for the Earth. They ought to? Who's they? Did you ever notice Darryl's sig? It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? Like everybody else, YOU are the spokesperson for the Earth, not some other guy appointed by them. Best Keith From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST) The message is - It isnt really that important. If it were I would do it. So how true is it - at least to him. If it doent motivate him maybe he knows something we dont. So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him. You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal which he is on the board of directors. Kirk Tom Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk and all, When the message cannot be attacked then attack the messenger. Ok, so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us do? We try to, but there is a long way to go for most everyone in the developed world. It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man. Tom Irwin From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) ___ 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: 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] Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
This was recently posted on Dr. Mercola's website. It is a two part article by Jane M. Orient, MD, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. This was her banquet address to AAPS 43rd Annual Meeting, Oct. 24, 1986. I agree with the article's message, but know nothing about this Association. Aside from how anyone feels about Mercola or that the address was given to their meeting in Bermuda, can anyone on the List expose these folks for anything but honorable and on the path toward health care that is truly in the best interests of the patient? Thanks for your help. Mike DuPree http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/7/hippocrates_constitution.htm___ 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] Germans take pride in local money
Awesome...I sense something perversely wrong with this picture from an Elitist's point of view. Who on the List in Germany can inform us further along these lines, especially if it is allowed to flourish? I know it isn't an ultimate answer, that local production is still the key to local self-reliance and sustainability, but what a start!!! Hotfreakindamn...or am I missing something and too caught up in irrational exuberance??? Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: D. Mindock To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:47 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Germans take pride in local money http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6333063.stm Germans take pride in local money By Tristana Moore BBC News, Magdeburg, Germany The next time you venture out for lunch in Magdeburg, check what kind of loose change you have in your wallet. Like any other city in Germany, the normal currency here is the euro. But bizarrely, they also have another currency in circulation: the Urstromtaler . Before you doubt its existence, it is not Monopoly money - it is very real. At a jewellery shop in the city centre, Gerfried Kliems explained how people use the regional currency. It's quite simple, he said. The money you spend stays in the region. When I accept Urstromtaler in my shop, I then have to see how I can spend the local banknotes. You get to know everyone who's participating in this project, and at the end of the day, you have a good feeling about life. More than 200 businesses are using the regional currency, including shops, bakeries, florists, restaurants. There is even a cinema which accepts Urstromtaler. 'Local boost' Frank Jansky, a lawyer, launched the regional currency in Magdeburg. We are fostering links with businesses in the whole region and through the contacts that we develop, we are supporting the domestic German market, he said. All the businesses have signed contracts, and it's official. We have our own banknotes and we have an issuing office in the city centre. At the Urstromtaler central bank in Magdeburg, which is no larger than a small office, the banknotes are issued at a rate of 1:1 against the euro. The banknotes have a time limit and lose value after a certain date, so people are encouraged to spend their money quickly. Campaigners argue that the currency can help boost the local economy. The unemployment rate in Magdeburg is about 20%, and like other areas in the former communist east, many young people have left to look for work elsewhere. Dilapidated, run-down houses and old factories still dot the landscape, even though billions of euros' worth of subsidies have poured into the east since the fall of communism. Everyone who uses the regional currency develops a social network. People get to know each other, said Joerg Dahlke. It's also good for the environment, as you are not buying goods from big supermarket chains who import their goods. Instead you are buying products from regional producers, he said. The Bundesbank is keeping an eye on what we are doing - regional currencies are still in a legal grey area Frank Jansky It is easy to dismiss the regional currency as a gimmick, but supporters take it very seriously. We are disillusioned with the euro, as it doesn't bring many benefits to the local community, said Joerg Dahlke. But at the same time, we don't want to get rid of the euro completely. Our regional currency runs in parallel to the euro. Of course, we still need the euro for big purchases, he explained. Residents can choose to pay one-third of their purchase in the local currency, and the rest in euros, or sometimes they can pay for their purchase entirely in Urstromtaler. The phenomenon is not limited to the state of Saxony-Anhalt. 'Social money' Regional currencies have sprung up all over Germany. According to Professor Gerhard Roesl, author of a report commissioned by the Bundesbank, there are at least 16 regional currencies in Germany. The regional currencies are not really a threat to the Bundesbank, although technically they are illegal and could pose a problem. The Bundesbank tolerates the local currencies, which are regarded as a kind of 'social money', said Mr Roesl. Frank Jansky and representatives of other regional currency projects are lobbying the federal government to introduce a change in the law. The Bundesbank is keeping an eye on what we are doing. Regional currencies are still in a legal grey area. But there are other comparable financial schemes, like 'miles and more', which also pose a challenge to the status quo, said Mr Jansky. We are supporting our regional economy and culture, which will benefit future generations. And in case anyone thinks it's an old-fashioned system,
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hello Keith, How do you equate GHGs to overall pollution? I equate GHG's to overall pollution in this instance because Mr. Gore positions himself as an environmental advocate. Granted, most recently, Mr. Gore has spoken almost entirely about Global Warming. I see no reason to limit the discussion in this forum to just one aspect of protecting the environment, since it is all related. BTW: Mr. Gore started his environmental discussions/career in the 1970's around toxic waste and other pollution, not Global Warming...that started in the 1980's. To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it? Did you? I agree, if a significant number of people that hear Gore's message actually do anything to reduce their contribution of GHG's, it is a good thing. However, wouldn't it be an EVEN BETTER thing if when delivering the message to those same people, they found a method that was the most efficient with regards to GHG emissions? Wouldn't that be a good, first practical lesson to all of those people? Just a thought. If you were planning such a media and publicity campaign would you choose video conferences or personal appearances? This is for an Oscar-winner, right? In America. If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such a way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and not actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message. :-) So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can all buy another SUV. (sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-) His attackers also assume something of a moral high ground in delivering their message, why don't you also suggest examining their motives? Excellent point! I agree wholeheartedly! (and it appears that in later posts, you and other have done this...bravo!) However, Mr. Gore does assume a moral stance on this issue, so the criticism is not unfair: From his Academy Award speech: My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis, it's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act, that's a renewable resource, let's renew it. -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/gore-wins-hollywood-in-a-landslide/ Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen televangelists. :-) IMO he is simply another person that wants (or needs) to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result. Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the personal attention he needs? Or both? Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his personal life, even if it was inconvenient. So, I exercise my right (as previously stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives. Nothing more. Granted Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on the environment? Why do they need so much power for their home? Why stop there? You mean Gore could just as well have left the stage arm in arm with Jerry Falwell as with Leonardo DiCaprio? In my personal opinion (and that is all that this is, really)...YES. I do not like (insert name) and I do not trust (insert same name). Feel free to choose from Al Gore, Jerry Falwell or your recent addition to my list, Leonardo DiCaprio. Why should I trust any one of them? I think your US party political views are leaking. Much more important than the global warming crisis is which wing of the US Business Party people should vote for, I guess. Well done AEI! LOL! Care to guess what my party political leanings actually are? They are likely not what you are implying... :-) Last time I checked, AEI doesn't speak for me. --Randall ___ 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] LED light bulbs
Some of them dim -- depends on how the driver circuit is designed. 7W LEDTronics Bright White LED Flood dims -- about $130, and about half the brightness of a 20 watt CFL. LED's lights still have a little ways to go for general area lighting -- I'd say another year or two at current rates of improvement. Z On 2/27/07, Paul S Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe, I did test out a LED exit light in our dining room light fixture with a dimmer, but they didn't dim. It was just on at a certain point and stayed on. Maybe there are ones designed to dim??? Like dimmable CFL's? On 2/27/07, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are these LED lights able to work with a dimmer? The last place in my house that doesn't have CF bulbs is a room which has five pot lights which are connected to a dimmer. CF bulbs can't be used on a dimmer so I hope these LED lights are an alternative. Anyone tried it? Joe -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. - Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962) ___ 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] Farmer power the key to green advance
Well Keith, it seems Journey to Forever's prime objective is hitting the news stands. I believe your site probably played more than a small part in the emergence of these ideas. Best, Frank On 2/25/07, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6387975.stm BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 23 February 2007, 11:42 GMT Farmer power the key to green advance VIEWPOINT Michel Pimbert Behind several kinds of environmental damage lurks the hand of the farmer. The key to better prospects for them and the environment, argues Michel Pimbert in the Green Room, is giving them more control over what they do. - It is simply unacceptable to allow over 850 million people go to bed hungry in a world that produces more than enough food for all Farmers and other citizens in various parts of the world are engaging in a major effort to change the nature of agriculture. The key phrase is food sovereignty; and this weekend, many of the interested parties are gathering for a conference in Mali, one of two countries (the other being Bolivia) which have adopted it as their overarching policy framework for food and farming. Food sovereignty is all about ensuring that farmers, rather than transnational corporations, are in control of what they farm and how they farm it; ensuring too that communities have the right to define their own agricultural, pastoral, labour, fishing, food and land policies to suit their own ecological, social, economic and cultural circumstances. Why is it needed? From the social point of view, because everyone has an unconditional human right to food, and it is simply unacceptable to allow over 850 million people go to bed hungry in a world that produces more than enough food for all. On the environmental side, industrial farming damages our planet's life support systems in a number of ways: * it is a major contributor to global warming through intensive use of fossil fuels for fertilisers, agrochemicals, production, transport, processing, refrigeration and retailing * agrochemical nutrient pollution causes biological dead zones in areas as diverse as the Gulf of Mexico, the Baltic Sea and the coasts of India and China * human activity now produces more nitrogen than all natural processes combined * crop and livestock genetic diversity has been lost through the spread of industrial monocultures, reducing resilience in the face of climate and other changes The progress of this growing food sovereignty movement could have profound implications for scientific research, politics, trade and the twin curses of poverty and environmental degradation. Towards sustainable agriculture Within the food sovereignty approach, the environmental ills outlined above are avoided by developing production systems that mimic the biodiversity levels and functioning of natural ecosystems. Eco-farming helps poor These systems seek to combine the modern science of ecology with the experiential knowledge of farmers and indigenous peoples. Combinations of indigenous and modern methods lead to more environmentally sustainable agriculture, as well as reducing dependence on expensive external inputs, reducing the cost-price squeeze and debt trap in which the world's farmers are increasingly caught. Ecological agriculture has been shown to be productive, economic and sustainable for farmers, whether their external inputs are low or high. Scientists recently reported that a series of large-scale experimental projects around the world using agro-ecological methods such as crop rotation, intercropping, natural pest control, use of mulches and compost, terracing, nutrient concentration, water harvesting and management of micro-environments yielded spectacular results. For example, in southern Brazil, the use of cover crops to increase soil fertility and water retention allowed 400,000 farmers to raise maize and soybean yields by more than 60%. Farmers earned more as beneficial soil biodiversity was regenerated. Staying in control Food sovereignty is not against trade and science. But it does argue for a fundamental shift away from business as usual, emphasising the need to support domestic markets and small-scale agricultural production based on resilient farming systems rich in biological and cultural diversity. Networks of local food systems are favoured because they reduce the distance between producers and consumers, limiting food miles and enhancing citizen control and democratic decision-making. Can food sovereignity lead farmers to greener pastures? Equitable access to land and other resources is vital, because a significant cause of hunger and environmental degradation is local people's loss of rights to access and control natural resources such as land, water, trees and seeds. This severely reduces their incentive to conserve the environment; the displacement of farming peoples from fertile lands to steep, rocky slopes, desert margins, and infertile rainforest soils lead
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Chip, But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is that Al is a politician--period. Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words.. Nonsense, they most certainly do not. Then we can all rest easy...Big Business is going to help...and they care ...At ExxonMobil, we work to balance these different needs. It's why we have invested more than $74 billion in the past five years to expand energy supplies. It's why we have promoted energy efficiency in our industry. It's why we have developed leading-edge technology partnerships. It's why we continue to invest so much in research - both into existing energy technologies for the short term and into new technologies for the decades ahead. And it's why we initiated the largest privately funded low-greenhouse-gas-energy research effort in history. By balancing all of these different energy demands, we will be able to address one of the greatest challenges of our age. http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/CCR5/index.asp So...since they talk the talk...all is good? Of course not...it is what they are actually doing that matters. Same thing...different venue...different actors. Walking the talk in this particular arena, *almost* by definition translates into having very little if *any* political power. Easy enough for Mr. Gore...he doesn't have much political power right now, so he should be walking the walk pretty well. :-) But until Al took the show on the road, who heard it? Millions of people...but they haven't heard (until recently) why it actually affects them and why they should care. All of my family and friends, co-workers and acquaintances know about the issues...the movie didn't change that. Al has broadened the audience, very much so. In the year since documentary was released, I personally (from this US centric view) have been just flat out stunned by the shift in the dialog. The shift (from my point of view) was happening long before the movie hit the theaters. I do not know anyone personally that was affected by the movie. That doesn't mean it didn't influence other people, but I think its influence is overrated. (Just my opinion based on personal observation) Fact is, Al Gore (whom I used to refer to as the Manchurian Candidate) was *almost* president of the US. Some say he in fact was elected to the office. This I will not debate, because there really is no point. However, you don't get to be president by living a low impact life. There are a number of brilliant folks living low impact lifestyles out there, some of which would no doubt be up to the task of directing the show here in the US. However, we'll not hear from them, because they are busy. Busy living low impact lives. It is a lot of effort, as any of us who are expending effort in this direction know quite well. I would generally say that most people that are NOT involved in politics are too busy living to be heard from. That's life. However, you can be a world leader without living a high impact life...a couple examples come quickly to mind...GandhiMother Theresa...and I would not rate top US politicians in the same category. Since Mr. Gore has significant financial resources, he could try demonstrating that you can have an impact on the issue at hand, without being so easily criticized for hypocrisy by not living the message. Why let controversy about the messenger get in the way of the message when it can so easily be avoided? As to his energy holdings, make note of the sad fact that money is fungible. Folks who hold interest in diversified funds, all hold bits and pieces of energy companies. Some more than others. The more you are vested, the more influence you have. If you have no influence, then who cares what you think? Then why care what most of the people of the world think, if they are not rich and vested? --Randall ___ 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] A Tale of Two Interventions
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4010 Right Web | Analysis | A Tale of Two Interventions Jim Lobe | February 20, 2007 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org For several weeks, Washington has been abuzz with rumors that President George W. Bush is preparing to attack nuclear and other sites in Iran this spring-rumors deemed sufficiently credible that lawmakers from both parties are hastily preparing legislation precisely to prevent such an eventuality. Among the growing number of recent signs suggesting U.S. preparations for military confrontation, as listed by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi in a recent edition of American Conservative, are: Bush's claim that Iran is supplying bombs to Shiite militias to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq; the seizure of Iranian diplomatic and intelligence officials by U.S. forces in Iraq; the deployment of two aircraft carrier groups with a flotilla of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf; the supply of Patriot antimissile batteries to U.S. allies in the region; the unprecedented appointment of a navy admiral and former combat pilot as the head of Central Command; the surge of as many as 40,000 troops into Iraq; and persistent reports of U.S. covert operations inside Iran. It seems clear that the administration has developed detailed plans for attacking Iran and is putting in place a formidable armada that has the means to carry out such plans without delay. But if a decision has already been made, it appears that the faction that led the pro-war propaganda offensive in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and that has long favored regime change in Iraq-the neoconservatives-has either not been clued in, or more likely, believes that an attack on Iran is still some time off, if it takes place at all. It is not that the neocons don't favor war with Iran if diplomatic and other means fail to achieve either regime change or, at the very least, Tehran's abandonment of its nuclear program. Neoconservatives, whose views on the Middle East generally span those of Israel's Likud Party and the extreme right, have long held that a nuclear-armed Iran is, in Bush's words, unacceptable, and that preventing such an outcome may require military means. The only way to forestall an Iranian nuke, wrote Joshua Muravchik, a leading neoconservative polemicist at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), in this month's Foreign Service Journal , ... is by military strikes to cripple the regime's nuclear program. It is, rather, more the fact that the neoconservatives-who helped lead the yearlong propaganda campaign to rally the United States behind the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 with an admirable single-mindedness and urgency-appear far less focused on Iran. If such an attack is on Washington's near-term agenda, the neoconservatives have been decidedly off-message. The contrast with the run-up to the Iraq War is instructive. For a full year or more before the March 2003 invasion, the neocons and their major media outlets-notably, the Weekly Standard, the National Review Online, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, and Fox News-kept up a virtually daily drumbeat of op-ed articles, television appearances, and selective leaks by their confreres within the administration with only one aim in mind: to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein must be ousted militarily. As the invasion drew near, the AEI, the movement's de facto headquarters, drew scores of reporters to its weekly black coffee briefings, where such neocon worthies as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, then-Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Iraq National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi held forth on the evils of the Baathist regime and the regional implications of the forthcoming liberation of the Iraqi people. Carefully orchestrated and coordinated with their comrades in the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, neocons were able to create a powerful media echo chamber that, by late 2002, centered entirely on Iraq and the supposed necessity of going to war, to the exclusion of almost everything else. The neocons' discipline and focus on Iraq four years ago has been nowhere evident with respect to Iran over the past month. Judging by their writings and television appearances, they have seemed far more concerned with the growing public and congressional pressure to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. That has been the overriding preoccupation of the Weekly Standard, National Review Online, and the Wall Street Journal 's editorial page. Article after article has assailed turncoat Republicans, as well as defeatist Democrats, for opposing Bush's plan to surge troop levels. The AEI has held four briefings on Iraq, compared to only one on Iran, in the past two months. Despite the sharply rising tensions between Iran and the United States over the past month, for
[Biofuel] America's Crusaders
Links to profile of the people and groups at the online version. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4024 Right Web | Analysis | America's Crusaders Tom Barry, IRC | February 23, 2007 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Ideology and faith are stirring new calls to arms among influential political factions in the United States. At a time when the U.S. public is questioning the interventionism and unilateralism of the Bush administration, leading social conservatives and neoconservatives insist that the United States needs to militarily confront the purported threats facing the Judeo-Christian world order. Leading far-right social conservative Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic and former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, is heading up a new initiative, called the America's Enemies program at the neoconservative-aligned Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), to awaken the slumbering public to what he sees as a gathering storm of adversaries. At the same time, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a devout Jew who co-chairs the Committee on the Present Danger, is calling for a global political and military alliance to defeat the threat of Islamic extremism. Ironically, while the ideology and faith-based politics of America's enemies routinely come under attack by U.S. social conservatives and neoconservatives as dangerous manifestations of radicalism, the ideology and faith-based politics of America's would-be defenders are presented as redemptive forces in world affairs. Perhaps nowhere does this merger of ideology and faith come together so clearly than at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where Santorum is a program director. A strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's war on terror, the EPPC has since the mid-1990s sought to mix religion and politics-or more specifically, to conjoin the Religious Right with a hawkish foreign policy. In its own words, the center aims to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public policy debate. Immediately after his electoral defeat in November 2006, Santorum announced his plans to carry his crusading politics into private life, which resulted in the creation of EPPC's America's Enemies program. The program focuses on identifying, studying, and heightening awareness of the threats posed to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces that are increasingly casting a shadow over our future and violating religious liberty around the world. Rather than regarding his overwhelming electoral defeat last November as an indicator that his own extreme notions about domestic and foreign policy were misguided, Santorum concluded that Americans are slumbering while at the gates gather barbarians such as Islamic fascism. Iraq is only one front in a larger war waged against the Western world, Santorum says. It is a war of ideas, according to him, waged by Islamic fascists-whose tentacles extend beyond Iraq and Afghanistan and into Iran and Venezuela. We are under siege by a people with an ideology, a plan, hundreds of millions of dollars, and an ever-increasing presence on virtually every continent (Santorum, Knowing Our Enemies, National Review Online, December 12, 2006). Topping the list of priorities is the need to confront Iran, says Santorum, who was once described by the New York Times Magazine as the country's preeminent faith-based politician, after President George W. Bush. War, said Santorum in a major speech on the Senate floor, is at our doorstep, and it is fueled, figuratively and literally, by Islamic fascism, nurtured and bred in Iran (December 6, 2006). Likening the current array of countries that oppose the United States to what Winston Churchill called the gathering storm before World War II, Santorum paints a picture of enemies closing in on the United States. With the exception of the state of Israel, we are fighting this battle alone, and I suspect we will for quite some time, laments Santorum. Along with Islamic fascists, Santorum points to supposed threats to U.S. national interests and security coming from Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia, and China. To support his alarmist rhetoric, Santorum claims, apparently without evidence, that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela plans to spend $30 billion to build 20 military bases in neighboring [sic] Bolivia, where Bolivian soldiers will answer to Venezuelan and Cuban officers. In a speech last December, Santorum warned that the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and the Bolivarian revolution are constructing a 21st-century socialism in the U.S. backyard. Although Santorum played an important role in the Senate in building support for confrontational resolutions on Iraq and Iran, he was mainly known for his aggressive leadership in legislative efforts against abortion, in favor of intelligent design, against gay rights, and in favor of faith-based
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hello Randall Hello Keith, How do you equate GHGs to overall pollution? I equate GHG's to overall pollution in this instance because Mr. Gore positions himself as an environmental advocate. Granted, most recently, Mr. Gore has spoken almost entirely about Global Warming. I see no reason to limit the discussion in this forum to just one aspect of protecting the environment, since it is all related. Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy, not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution. There's a difference between broadening the discussion and smokescreening. BTW: Mr. Gore started his environmental discussions/career in the 1970's around toxic waste and other pollution, not Global Warming...that started in the 1980's. To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it? Did you? It's a good bet, I'd have taken a chance on it. I agree, if a significant number of people that hear Gore's message actually do anything to reduce their contribution of GHG's, it is a good thing. However, wouldn't it be an EVEN BETTER thing if when delivering the message to those same people, they found a method that was the most efficient with regards to GHG emissions? Wouldn't that be a good, first practical lesson to all of those people? Just a thought. It's not just a thought, Randall. You're using it to try to discredit what is being accomplished as well as the man himself. If you were planning such a media and publicity campaign would you choose video conferences or personal appearances? This is for an Oscar-winner, right? In America. If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such a way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and not actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message. :-) I guess that's what the movie accomplishes, no? I'd advise against your seeking employment as a publicist. So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can all buy another SUV. (sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-) Does that mean he doesn't just do it for the money? His attackers also assume something of a moral high ground in delivering their message, why don't you also suggest examining their motives? Excellent point! I agree wholeheartedly! (and it appears that in later posts, you and other have done this...bravo!) However, Mr. Gore does assume a moral stance on this issue, Yes, so I said. so the criticism is not unfair: You're saying it's a moral criticism? Do you actually believe that? It's typical of the kind of morally bankrupt cheap hits one has come to expect from such sources. From his Academy Award speech: My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis, it's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act, that's a renewable resource, let's renew it. -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/gore-wins-hollywood-in- a-landslide/ Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen televangelists. :-) IMO he is simply another person that wants (or needs) to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result. Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the personal attention he needs? Or both? Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his personal life, even if it was inconvenient. And if he did do more, if he did do EVEN BETTER, would it ever be enough, in your judgment? At what stage would his doing more allow for the possibility that he might actually believe his message, this man you say has been campaigning on environmental issues for the last 30 years? Why don't you apply the same criteria to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? Do you think they really believe their message? Or should they do more? So, I exercise my right (as previously stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives. Nothing more. Yes it was, it was not even-handed, it was biased, and it included some ugly accusations you're not prepared to substantiate. More like character assassination than honest scepticism. Granted Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on the environment? Why do they need so much power for their home? Why stop there? Who said they stopped? You didn't answer the
[Biofuel] Is Washington Being Sidelined on the Middle East?
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4009 Right Web | Analysis | Is Washington Being Sidelined on the Middle East? Leon Hadar | February 20, 2007 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Once upon a time, an American president would have been a leader in the effort to bring peace between Israel and its neighbors, since, after all, such reconciliation would bring stability to the Middle East and serve long-term U.S. geopolitical interests. In that context-with the struggle over the Holy Land at the core of the Mideast conflict-finding ways to end the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians would be central. In the past, the working assumption in Washington and in Jerusalem was that as part of any Israeli-Arab process, the occupant of the White House would, at some point, have no choice in the negotiations but to exert pressure on its ally in Jerusalem to make the necessary concessions to the Arab side. But recently the U.S. president seems to be unable or unwilling to play the role assigned to him in that old Mideast script. Take the recent diplomatic coup achieved by Saudi Arabia when it succeeded in brokering a deal between the two leading Palestinian factions, allowing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party to join a government headed by the radical group Hamas. The accord not only brings an end to the bloody fighting between Fatah and Hamas, but also creates conditions-like setting the stage for overcoming Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel- that are more conducive for restarting negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli officials. Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could hold direct talks with President Abbas as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian Authority. But while America's Arab allies, members of the European Union (EU), and Russia have welcomed the Saudi-brokered deal, Bush administration officials have expressed wariness and have given it the diplomatic cold shoulder. In fact, the lack of diplomatic progress during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to the Middle East was a direct result of Washington's refusal to back negotiations between Israel and a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. An even more dramatic sign that Washington is refusing to play its old role has been the diplomatic pressure it has been exerting on the Israeli government to refrain from opening a diplomatic dialogue with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Indeed, according to reports in the Israeli press, Assad has sent the Israelis diplomatic messages expressing interest in negotiating a peace accord that would include recognition of and diplomatic ties with Israel in exchange for the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The proposal has been taken seriously in Israel and has been debated by members of the Israeli political elite and public. But the Bush administration has argued that Israeli negotiations with Syria would reward a regime accused of cooperating with Iran to challenge U.S. interests in the Middle East. There is little doubt that the hostile U.S. response tipped the balance in Jerusalem in favor of those who oppose talks with Syria. The current role that Washington seems to have taken on vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli peace process, including its skeptical reactions to Saudi mediation in Palestine and to the Syrian proposal, suggests that the old script has ceased to reflect current foreign policy realism and has acquired an air of surrealism. In a way, the change demonstrates an erosion of U.S. influence in the Middle East, which is a direct result of the implementation of the neoconservative agenda that has led to the disastrous political and military situation in Iraq. These policies have produced a series of developments that counter the neocon goal of attaining hegemony in the region, including the emergence of Iran as a regional power, the growing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites, the failure of Israel to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, the electoral victory of Hamas, and Turkey's increasing impatience with U.S. policy. It's not surprising that changes in the alignment of forces in the Middle East make it more difficult for the United States to use its military and diplomatic power to affect policy outcomes in the region. After all, the status and success of the United States as the indispensable mediator between Israelis and Arabs was tied directly to its ability and willingness to pursue that costly task during the competition with the Soviet Union (the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace accord) and after the first Gulf War (the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, which aimed to jump start peace negotiations between Israel and its neighbors). There is a direct correlation between the rising U.S. push for hegemony in the Middle East and mounting anti-American sentiments there-a situation that emphasizes U.S. ties with Israel. Yet these ties make it less
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Well said Chip! I haven't seen it, but I was wondering when someone would say the movie is a soft sell. It would have to be, wouldn't it? As for whether actions speak louder than words, another case in point is the speech that put environmental issues on the map and on everybody's lips almost overnight (well, maybe not in the US). It was a speech made to Britain's Royal Society on 27 Sep 1988 by Margaret Thatcher, not otherwise widely known for her environmental activism, in which she called for action on global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, and acid rain. Heaven knows if she actually meant it or it was just a political ploy. IIRC she made the speech on the advice of her personal adviser, Sir Alan Walters, a controversial figure. It's said she subsequently regretted raising the spectre of human-caused global warming, but she also made later speeches calling for action on climate change: the cost of doing nothing, of a policy of wait and see, would be much higher than those of taking preventive action now to stop the damage getting worse. The global warming message didn't sink in, any more than it did with James Hansen's address to the US Congress the year before. But the general environment message did sink in, and it didn't go away again. Chopping down rainforests suddenly became a Bad Thing To Do. There wasn't any action, just words, Thatcher hadn't done anything in particular, or rather she'd done nothing at all, and as with Al Gore's movie now she didn't say anything new. I guess the scales were ready to be tipped, and she went and tipped them, quite possibly to her dismay. Even Maggie Thatcher says so - environmental issues weren't just for shaggy-looking folks in sandals anymore. Here's the relevant excerpt from her speech: The environment Mr. President, the Royal Society's Fellows and other scientists, through hypothesis, experiment and deduction have solved many of the world's problems. -Research on medicine has saved millions and millions of lives as you have tackled diseases such as malaria, smallpox, tuberculosis and others. Consequently, the world's population which was 1 billion in 1800, 2 billion in 1927 is now 5 billion souls and rising. -Research on agriculture has developed seeds and fertilizers sufficient to sustain that rising population contrary to the gloomy prophesies of two or three decades ago. But we are left with pollution from nitrates and an enormous increase in methane which is causing problems. -Engineering and scientific advance have given us transport by land and air, the capacity and need to exploit fossil fuels which had lain unused for millions of years. One result is a vast increase in carbon dioxide. And this has happened just when great tracts of forests which help to absorb it have been cut down. For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself. Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases-carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons-which has led some to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s-though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain! The second matter under discussion is the discovery by the British Antarctic Survey of a large hole in the ozone layer which protects life from ultra-violet radiation. We don't know the full implications of the ozone hole nor how it may interact with the greenhouse effect. Nevertheless it was common sense to support a worldwide agreement in Montreal last year to halve world consumption of chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. As the sole measure to limit ozone depletion, this may be insufficient but it is a start in reducing the pace of change while we continue the detailed study of the problem on which our (the British) Stratospheric Ozone Review Group is about to report. The third matter is acid deposition which has affected soils, lakes and trees downwind from industrial
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hello Keith, Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy, not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution. There's a difference between broadening the discussion and smokescreening. Ok. If it isn't relevant, then I have learned more today than I knew when I woke up. To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it? Did you? It's a good bet, I'd have taken a chance on it. Then you would care to share your results? But, my guess (yes, a guess, not a calculation) would be that someone staying local to their home and either seeing a FREE screening of the movie, or seeing it on television would result in lower GHG emissions compared to the GHG emissions of many people traveling to some central location, along with all the extra people needed traveling to such an event to make it possible. It's not just a thought, Randall. You're using it to try to discredit what is being accomplished as well as the man himself. Nope. Just common sense. I applaud what is trying to be accomplished, but I do not applaud Mr. Gore's lifestyle or choice of proposed methods to deliver his message. You can try as much as you like to write or assume more into my statements if you so choose, but you will be wrong. Just because a news item comes from someone opposed to Mr. Gore, or the message he is delivering, doesn't make it untrue. 'nuff said. If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such a way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and not actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message. :-) I guess that's what the movie accomplishes, no? I'd advise against your seeking employment as a publicist. That is my point...if the movie was so influential, then there is no need for large gatherings, before less environmentally unfriendly methods are first used. Never considered that as a career but thanks, I guess. So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can all buy another SUV. (sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-) Does that mean he doesn't just do it for the money? I am quite certain that he doesn't just do it for the money, as is obvious by his long record of environmental causes and then Global Warming. However, it does show a lack of personal accountability for his choices despite his stated beliefs. Once again, the messenger is getting in the way of the message...much like the much maligned Televangelists. so the criticism is not unfair: You're saying it's a moral criticism? Do you actually believe that? It's typical of the kind of morally bankrupt cheap hits one has come to expect from such sources. Morally bankrupt? Please explain. Such sources? Tennessee Center for Policy Research ? Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his personal life, even if it was inconvenient. And if he did do more, if he did do EVEN BETTER, would it ever be enough, in your judgment? At what stage would his doing more allow for the possibility that he might actually believe his message, this man you say has been campaigning on environmental issues for the last 30 years? Why don't you apply the same criteria to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? Do you think they really believe their message? Or should they do more? Yes. Actually, if he did more, especially within his means, that would be wonderful! Actually, I think the TCPR does believe their message--that doesn't make the message correct...but that also doesn't make some of their facts incorrect, either. But, if that is important that TCPR believes their message, then it is certainly important if Mr. Gore believes his message. So, I exercise my right (as previously stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives. Nothing more. Yes it was, it was not even-handed, it was biased, and it included some ugly accusations you're not prepared to substantiate. More like character assassination than honest scepticism. Do you mean like what you are doing to me? Granted Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on the environment? Why do they need so much power for their home? Why stop there? Who said they stopped? You didn't answer the question. Since I haven't read about anything else they have done in their personal lives that is particularly pro-environmental (solar hot
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
On 2/28/07, Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you would care to share your results? But, my guess (yes, a guess, not a calculation) would be that someone staying local to their home and either seeing a FREE screening of the movie, or seeing it on television would result in lower GHG emissions compared to the GHG emissions of many people traveling to some central location, along with all the extra people needed traveling to such an event to make it possible. But, would that central event cause more people, or a great percentage of the people who saw it, to adjust their behaviour with regards to greenhouse gasses. Just for the sake of argument, say that 10 people in a certain community see it in their own homes, and 80% of them modify their behaviour because of seeing it. 8 people lowering their emissions, with very little emissions to make them take this action. But if you have a great big party and 50 people come. Because of the social effects of seeing everyone else there, it makes a bigger impact on them than just watching it at home (peer pressure -- if they see it at home, they can decided to do something, but then back out because no one is holding them to do what they privately decided to do, but if their neighbors and friends are there, and they all promise in the excitement of the big event to all take public transportation two days a week instead of driving -- they can't as easily back out, because they told someone else they'd do it). But, in a bigger crowd, you also have a higher percentage of non-believers than in the self selected crowd that sees it in their own home. People who their brother or co-worker dragged to this event. So, this cancels out alot of the social pressure from seeing it as a group. Only half of the people modify their behavior. That's still 25 people -- three times as many. Did having the big even cause three times as much emissions as people seeing it in their houses? That's the cost/benefit equation that we're talking about here, it seems to me. It's way complicated to really calculate this, but I think that the peer pressure effect could cause a much higher incidence of modification of behaviour, compared to individual viewing and action, and therefore outweigh the higher emissions necessary to build to the scale where peer pressure occurs. Z ___ 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] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Randall, The Live Earth 24 hour concert for Global Warming Awareness is a Live Video conference which will happen on the 7 day, 7 month, 2007. Hope you can forgive Al Gore's 80 year old house, that uses more energy because of it's age, and realize that he is retro fitting that old building to be more energy efficient, so that you can over look this materialistic possession to see the good the concert will bring. Terry Dyck From: Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:18:29 -0500 Terry, Why can't Al do video conferences instead of traveling, or is he simply too important not to make personal appearances? Bet there are more than a few people that traveled more than 20 minutes just to see/hear him speak. What did that extra travelling by the audience, staff, promoters, concessions people, security, law enforcement, etc contribute to overall pollution instead of people being able to simply watching Al on TV or their computer. I bet he gets MUCH more money for making a personal appearance than just a conference call or distributing a video. He had the right idea with his movie... But, I suppose the important and inconvenient truth in this matter is that Al is a politician--period. Actions speak MUCH MUCH louder than words...and that is why it is ok to attack (or at least seriously question) the messenger's motives when the messenger is delivering an ethical message---Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of fallen televangelists. :-) IMO he is simply another person that wants (or needs) to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result.I rank him up there with Jerry Falwell and any number of failed politicos. ---Randall - Original Message - From: Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Hi Fre, I attended Dr. David Suzuki's event in Kelowna 2 days ago and he mentioned that he travels with his family to the Okanagan every summer to pick cherries and I know that Dr. Suzuki was the first person in Canada to buy a Prius Hybrid car. So he probally uses the hybrid to travel to the Okanagan valley. As far as the environmental tour called, If your were Prime Minister what would you do? I am sure that he has to cover a lot of terrritory in a short period of time. The main issue is that both Al Gore and Dr. Suzuki are influencing alot of people which is the most important thing now. Time is important because 2007 could be the pivitol year to save this planet. Terry Dyck From: Fred Oliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:40:30 -0500 Al Gore flew from Montreal to Toronto last week. I would have thought a true advocate for climate change could have found someone with 1)maybe a Smart car to drive him, 2)powered with biodiesel or some other renewable fuel. David Suzuki is on a 50-city cross Canada tour and I understand he is also flying everywhere. When does the medium (i.e. the messenger) become more important than the message? From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659 Heated pools.electronic gates.gas lanterns in yard.and $30,000 a year in utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e? (2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy. Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules. Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
That is Gores message. It isnt worth doing. Things worth doing get done.
Especially if it is just for ambiance.
I can understand keeping the house at 77 instead of opening the windows to 85
evening air. Thats human. Selfish - but human.
But to carry the message we are killing the planet and indulge in nat gas
ambiance - that is incomprehensible. It means in his heart it is a no sale. or
he is mad as a hatter.
Kirk
Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:-)
Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect
attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to
apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,
for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore
might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed
generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where
exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From
the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch
There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list
archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all
the rest of the usual suspects.
What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?
Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.
What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
What exactly would you do if what were?
Best
Keith
Weakness?
gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too
fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would
accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
and honesty in politics.
Kirk
Terry Dyck wrote:
Hi Kirk,
When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be
people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I
am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about
Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7,
2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and
make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
concert all over this planet.
When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media
hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P
federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and
heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by
very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots
of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.
Terry Dyck
From: Kirk McLoren
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel
Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut
back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
Heated pools
electronic gates
gas lanterns in yard
and $30,000 a year in
utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in
his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in
the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired
and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to
make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental
hypocrisy.
Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee
Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills
for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly
221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of
10,656 kilowatt-hours.
If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I
wouldn't care, says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. But
he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules.
Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: I think what you're seeing
here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely
lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most
effective opponent.
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the
Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed
out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that
the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And
what Vice
Re: [Biofuel] America's Crusaders
Slumbering public, huh? he has no idea what kind of monster he is trying to wake up does he? didnt the golem destroy its creator in the story? he is going to get a large amount of somebody's attention and the results will not be in his favor. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:30 PM Subject: [Biofuel] America's Crusaders Links to profile of the people and groups at the online version. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4024 Right Web | Analysis | America's Crusaders Tom Barry, IRC | February 23, 2007 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Ideology and faith are stirring new calls to arms among influential political factions in the United States. At a time when the U.S. public is questioning the interventionism and unilateralism of the Bush administration, leading social conservatives and neoconservatives insist that the United States needs to militarily confront the purported threats facing the Judeo-Christian world order. Leading far-right social conservative Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic and former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, is heading up a new initiative, called the America's Enemies program at the neoconservative-aligned Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), to awaken the slumbering public to what he sees as a gathering storm of adversaries. At the same time, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a devout Jew who co-chairs the Committee on the Present Danger, is calling for a global political and military alliance to defeat the threat of Islamic extremism. Ironically, while the ideology and faith-based politics of America's enemies routinely come under attack by U.S. social conservatives and neoconservatives as dangerous manifestations of radicalism, the ideology and faith-based politics of America's would-be defenders are presented as redemptive forces in world affairs. Perhaps nowhere does this merger of ideology and faith come together so clearly than at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where Santorum is a program director. A strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's war on terror, the EPPC has since the mid-1990s sought to mix religion and politics-or more specifically, to conjoin the Religious Right with a hawkish foreign policy. In its own words, the center aims to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public policy debate. Immediately after his electoral defeat in November 2006, Santorum announced his plans to carry his crusading politics into private life, which resulted in the creation of EPPC's America's Enemies program. The program focuses on identifying, studying, and heightening awareness of the threats posed to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces that are increasingly casting a shadow over our future and violating religious liberty around the world. Rather than regarding his overwhelming electoral defeat last November as an indicator that his own extreme notions about domestic and foreign policy were misguided, Santorum concluded that Americans are slumbering while at the gates gather barbarians such as Islamic fascism. Iraq is only one front in a larger war waged against the Western world, Santorum says. It is a war of ideas, according to him, waged by Islamic fascists-whose tentacles extend beyond Iraq and Afghanistan and into Iran and Venezuela. We are under siege by a people with an ideology, a plan, hundreds of millions of dollars, and an ever-increasing presence on virtually every continent (Santorum, Knowing Our Enemies, National Review Online, December 12, 2006). Topping the list of priorities is the need to confront Iran, says Santorum, who was once described by the New York Times Magazine as the country's preeminent faith-based politician, after President George W. Bush. War, said Santorum in a major speech on the Senate floor, is at our doorstep, and it is fueled, figuratively and literally, by Islamic fascism, nurtured and bred in Iran (December 6, 2006). Likening the current array of countries that oppose the United States to what Winston Churchill called the gathering storm before World War II, Santorum paints a picture of enemies closing in on the United States. With the exception of the state of Israel, we are fighting this battle alone, and I suspect we will for quite some time, laments Santorum. Along with Islamic fascists, Santorum points to supposed threats to U.S. national interests and security coming from Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia, and China. To support his alarmist rhetoric, Santorum claims, apparently without evidence, that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela plans to spend $30 billion to build 20 military bases in neighboring [sic] Bolivia, where Bolivian soldiers will answer to Venezuelan and Cuban officers. In a speech last December, Santorum
Re: [Biofuel] vanishing honey bees
i heard about this on the radio about a week ago. i am inclined to agree with the cumulative effects of pesticides namely the herbicides the bees get into while they are out collecting. - Original Message - From: Kirk McLoren To: biofuel Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:20 AM Subject: [Biofuel] vanishing honey bees ++ | Vanishing Honeybees Will Affect Future Crops | | from the bee-gone dept. | | posted by kdawson on Tuesday February 27, @14:07 (Bug) | | http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/179237 | ++ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/705 - Release Date: 2/27/2007 3:24 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] Poor Cambodians make big gains with organic farming - Vancouver Sun - 2007.02.28
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia - The story of leap-frog technology is a common one throughout the developing world. Scores of societies are rocketing from isolation -- from conditions, especially in rural areas, that were little better than feudal Europe -- straight into the information age. They're skipping right over the half-century or more of ubiquitous land lines -- which changed our lives in rich countries -- and embracing cellphones and even wireless computer networks. But a sizable number of small-scale farmers in the Kingdom of Cambodia are not leaping into today's chemically dependent monocultures. Rather, they're using intelligent low-tech to take them straight to what many believe should become the norm of the future -- modern, high-yield, organic farming. About 50,000 farm families in 15 of Cambodia's 20 provinces are learning to double and triple their yields and diversify their harvests without the high-cost, high-risk chemical and mechanical inputs found on most modern farms almost everywhere else. The 10-year-old project is the brainchild of Prak Sereyvath, a 35-year-old agrologist and the managing director of CEDAC (Centre d'Etude et de Developpement Agricole Cambogien). Ironically, CEDAC's success is possible thanks in part to Cambodia's tragic recent past -- an internal five-year genocide that began, after five years of fighting, in 1975 under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and was followed by an invasion from neighbouring Vietnam and still more civil war. These terrible times, Prak says, destroyed the agricultural infrastructure of the country. And they caused it to miss out on the fruits of Asia's Green Revolution which, beginning in the 1960s, provided the essential under-pinning for the spectacular economic performance of so many other southeast Asian countries. Thus, Prak was able to begin his work with a more or less clean slate when he helped to found CEDAC in 1997, just four years after the country's return to a semblance of normalcy and two years before the first full year of peace in almost three decades. CEDAC started out in just three villages. Today, it spends $1 million US a year to work in 1,500 rural locations, thanks to grants from a dozen countries. (CIDA, Canada's federal aid agency, is involved in only one of its hundreds of projects.) It teaches a wide range of organic techniques as well as farm organization and marketing. A key tool is a huge assortment of simple, well-illustrated publications in the Khmer language. They include a highly subsidized monthly magazine that sells for less than three cents a copy. Cambodia officially boasts an 85-per-cent literacy rate, but Prak estimates that half of CEDAC's farmers can't read even a simple document. Some get their children to read to them, others get the information from literate neighbours. The productivity gains of modern organic farming are dramatic and hugely important to profoundly poor peasants who previously saw little or no cash income. But Prak concedes they can't match the gains for farmers who turn to chemical fertilizer and pesticides. But there are other advantages. For example: It is much better for human health and the environment. It's also much cheaper. There are no expensive inputs, and some techniques -- like spacing rice plants farther apart so each one fills out better -- increases the yield while requiring fewer seedlings and less work. And organic farming fosters diversification, avoiding the all-eggs-in-one-basket trap of modern monocultures. A Khmer proverb says where there is water there are fish, Prak said. Because of chemicals and pollution, that has become much less true. We make it more true again. Organic rice production allows the reintroduction of both fish and frogs -- important protein sources as well as cash generators -- to paddies where fish and amphibians would die if chemical fertilizer and pesticides were used. To date, the market for these organic products is entirely internal, and they command only a tiny premium. But, given rich consumers' appetite for organics, that could change. This nation where, a few short years ago, people used to starve, is now producing a surplus. Rice has grown to become its fourth-biggest export behind only mass-produced clothing, timber and plantation-grown rubber. And there's potential for a lot more organic rice. Cambodians are starting to move to the cities, thanks in part to new jobs in textile plants. But 78 per cent -- down from 80 per cent -- of the 14 million citizens still depend on farming. So as more and more learn to double or triple their harvests, the export potential becomes huge. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Don Cayo is in Cambodia as the volunteer project leader for Seeing the World through New Eyes, a short-term fellowship program that sends new or beginning B.C. journalists to report from developing countries. It is funded by CIDA and administered by the Jack Webster Foundation. -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
You're flailing about Randall, it's getting quite funny, if only it weren't so downright tedious. Actually, I think the TCPR does believe their message--that doesn't make the message correct...but that also doesn't make some of their facts incorrect, either. But, if that is important that TCPR believes their message, then it is certainly important if Mr. Gore believes his message. LOL! You keep round and round, you've gone and gotten your trousers on back to front already. Only so belatedly do you begin to notice the mudslingers eh? And you give them a rubber-stamp for credibility. snip> > Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global > warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with > Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to > dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy, > not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution. > There's a difference between broadening the discussion and > smokescreening. > Ok. If it isn't relevant, ... to dealing with global warming... then I have learned more today than I knew when I woke up. Today? Posted 21 Feb 2007: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg68795.html [Biofuel] Global Warming: It's All About Energy Michael T. Klare | February 15, 2007 When talk of global warming is introduced into the public discourse, as in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, it is generally characterized as an environmental problem, akin to water pollution, air pollution, pesticide abuse, and so on. This implies that it can be addressed - like those other problems - through a concerted effort to clean up our resource-utilization behavior, by substituting green products for ordinary ones, by restricting the release of toxic substances, and so on. But global warming is not an environmental problem in the same sense as these others - it is an energy problem, first and foremost. snip> You can try as much as you like to write or assume more into my statements if you so choose, but you will be wrong. Nope, I didn't put anything into it, I exposed what was underneath it, and you've just been proving it. I speak as loudly and clearly for AEI as you do. I expose lies and spin and one-sided attacks that have no integrity. You are propelled by lies and spin into making one-sided attacks, and all the denial and smokescreens and overloud protests in the world won't hide it. You did just what AEI, CEI, TCPR and the rest intend. You acted from prejudice, and lent your weight to a typical right-wing smear campaign, QED. However, it does show a lack of personal accountability for his choices despite his stated beliefs. Once again, the messenger is getting in the way of the message...much like the much maligned Televangelists. I can see I'll have to put a stop to this. Your repeated attempts to align Al Gore with the likes of Jerry Falwell extend the smear beyond TCPR's wildest dreams. It's not only odious, you've now implied twice that Gore's global warming message is on a par with the televangelists' message of millennial dispensation. I think you're about as nuts as they are. Cease and desist, no more wriggling, no more smokescreening, by order, or else. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner ___ 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] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
That is Gores message. It isnt worth doing. Things worth doing get
done. Especially if it is just for ambiance.
I can understand keeping the house at 77 instead of opening the
windows to 85 evening air. Thats human. Selfish - but human.
But to carry the message we are killing the planet and indulge in
nat gas ambiance - that is incomprehensible. It means in his heart
it is a no sale. or he is mad as a hatter.
Kirk
He's a closet nat gas ambience indulger?
:-/
Sorry Kirk, as a demonstration of his sincerity or lack of it that's
right up there with his doing live shows instead of video
conferencing. IMHO,
It fails to distract from the point, which is that Al Gore and his
soft-sell movie have been THE major factor in breaking through the
laager of global warming denial in the US, putting it on the map
throughout the media and the community with a high priority level,
and opening the way for the changes we see everywhere now, in stark
contrast to the inaction of a year ago. About bloody time too, 20
years later, 20 years plus many billions of tons of carbon emissions.
The purpose of this smear was just that, to distract from that point,
and it seems to have worked in some cases at least. It won't get far,
too late for that now, though Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center
for Policy Research will no doubt not go short of grants from Big
Fossil nor ever higher fees for rightwing speaking engagements. So
what.
Best
Keith
Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:-)
Spin sure works well huh? See how easy it is to distract and redirect
attention from what matters to what doesn't. And how nobody thinks to
apply the same thinking to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,
for instance, or to see how well the epithets they throw at Gore
might apply to them, to those whose pockets they're in, and indeed
generally to the so-called free market that they espouse. Where
exactly is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research coming from? From
the American Enterprise Institute, for one.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch
There's a lot about where the AEI is coming from in the list
archives. See how deep you can dig before you hit ExxonMobil and all
the rest of the usual suspects.
What sort of lamps do they have burning in their yard, do you think?
Thought we'd've learnt a little more here by now.
What does this mean, Kirk, it's not very clear: The message is - It
isnt really that important. If it were I would do it.
What exactly would you do if what were?
Best
Keith
Weakness?
gas lamps in the yard are not an indulgance in driving a bit too
fast or fogetting to turn off the light in the kitchen.
If you dont see anything wrong with that then I suppose you would
accept Bush as a spokesman for civil liberty
and honesty in politics.
Kirk
Terry Dyck wrote:
Hi Kirk,
When a do gooder becomes as famous as Al Gore there are always going to be
people who will point out weeknesses that he may have. On the other hand I
am looking at the good that Al Gore has done at educating the public about
Global Warming. The Live Earth concert that Al Gore is doing on July 7,
2007 on 7 continents will be one of the best things to educate people and
make them aware of GHG s. Billions of people will watch this 24 hour
concert all over this planet.
When it comes to walking the walk, some people have done this and the media
hasn't really picked up on it. In Canada the national leader of the N.D.P
federal political party, Jack Layton, bikes to work and has solar power and
heating in his home and does other green things but this is not known by
very many people. On the other hand the Prime Minister of Canada gets lots
of publicity about green issues and doesn't do much in the way of actions.
Terry Dyck
From: Kirk McLoren
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel
Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth': While telling the rest of us to cut
back, he uses 20 times more energy to run his house than everyone else
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_worldid=5072659
Heated pools
electronic gates
gas lanterns in yard
and $30,000 a year in
utility bills. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in
his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in
the Oscar awarded to An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary he inspired
and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to
make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental
hypocrisy.
Armed with Gore's utility
Re: [Biofuel] LED light bulbs
I'm wondering about the production-scalability angle of LEDs. Incandescents aren't exactly made by craft methods. What is involved in the manufacture of LEDs? Whatever the case, LEDs have the advantage that individual ones are fairly generic. That means that an endless variety of composite globes can be assembled out of individual mass-produced LEDs - which process can concievably happen on a small scale using craft methods, albeit new ones - in the same way that all kinds of amplifiers and electronic components can (or could once) be crafted with mass-produced resistors, capacitors, etc. on p.c. board. That would seem to me a healthy relationship between scales of production. Moreover, I'd like to see a composite-LED globe whose individual LEDs can be replaced easily. I like to maintain the principle of replacing only that which is actually broken. -Dawie From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:57:53 -0700 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_Part_41921_5097667.1172681873855 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] LED light bulbs Message: 2 Some of them dim -- depends on how the driver circuit is designed. 7W LEDTronics Bright White LED Flood dims -- about $130, and about half the brightness of a 20 watt CFL. LED's lights still have a little ways to go for general area lighting -- I'd say another year or two at current rates of improvement. Z ___ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk ___ 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] A quote for our time from another time
I would broaden that to technological freedom. With apologies: Unless we put technological freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when manufacture will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of making to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others: ... Isn't that exactly what has happened? -D - Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 2:53:23 PM Subject: Biofuel Digest, Vol 22, Issue 94 From: D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:30:22 -0600 Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_0324_01C75AE0.65308040 Subject: [Biofuel] A quote for our time from another time Message: 4 Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others: The Constitution of this Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom. - Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence I think what we have here in the USA is deadly medicine for all thanks to the FDA, the AMA, and Big Pharma along with a very cooperative Congress. Medicine here seems to be for population culling, profiteering, and control. D. Mindock ___ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.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/
