date:20121030

[Biofuel] 'Wild, Wild West' Mentality Pervasive as Global Land-Grab Continues

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/29-4

Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by Common Dreams

'Wild, Wild West' Mentality Pervasive as Global Land-Grab Continues

FAO chief says private investors threaten food sovereignty of world's poorest

- Common Dreams staff

In an interview with The Guardian, chief of the UN's Food and 
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) José Graziano da Silva, has compared 
the acquisition of large agricultural lands by private investors and 
aggresive hedge funds to the 'wild, wild West' saying that lack of 
international structures have left countries vulnerable to land 
grabbing that puts some of the world's most vulnerable populations 
at even greater risk of losing their food sovereignty.

I don't see that it's possible to stop it. They are private 
investors, said Graziano da Silva in a telephone interview. We do 
not have the tools and instruments to stop big companies buying land. 
Land acquisitions are a reality. We can't wish them away, but we have 
to find a proper way of limiting them. It appears to be like the wild 
west and we need a sheriff and law in place.

Oxfam International, which has raised the alarm about land-grabbing 
in Africa and elsewhere has said that it is not necessarily a problem 
when wealthy companies invest in agricultural land in poor countries, 
but when families are kicked off the land or less food is grown as a 
result, that's a very big problem indeed.

The problem, according to Oxfam, is that recent data indicates that 
at least 80 million hectares of land deals have been identified since 
2001 - an area 20 times the size of the Netherlands and in many 
cases, land sold as 'unused' or 'undeveloped' is actually being used 
by poor families to grow food. These families are often forcibly 
kicked off the land. Promises of compensation are broken. Often 
people are violently evicted by hired thugs.

Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam's Executive Director, said: The world is facing 
an unbridled land rush that is exposing poor people to hunger, 
violence and the threat of a life-time in poverty. The World Bank is 
in a unique position to stop this from becoming one of the great 
scandals of the 21st century.

By implementing a temporary freeze, and reviewing its approach, the 
Bank can set an example to all investors and governments that could 
help put a stop to these human rights abuses and ensure that 
investors genuinely help boost development in some of the poorest 
communities. Investment should be good news for developing countries 
- but it is important that it is truly beneficial and does not harm 
people or consign them to greater poverty, hunger and hardship.

Speaking to The Guardian, Graziano da Silva said he is doing his best 
to bring about more co-ordination among the different institutions 
concerned with food security and suggests the FAO could act like an 
executive arm of a UN-led group called the Committee on World Food 
Security (CFS), that includes governments, business and civil society.

The Guardian reports that others share Graziano da Silva 's concernts, adding:

Olivier De Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, 
acknowledges the importance of the CFS voluntary guidelines, but 
points out the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. He argues 
that governments in sub-Sahran Africa or south-east Asia with poor 
governance, or tainted by corruption, will continue to seek to 
attract investors at all costs.

The international community should accept it has a role in 
monitoring whether the rights of land users, as stipulated in the 
guidelines, are effectively respected, De Schutter told the 
Guardian. Since there is no 'sheriff' at global level to achieve 
this, at the very least, the home states of investors should exercise 
due diligence in ensuring that private investors over which they can 
exercise control fully respect the rights of land users. Export 
credit agencies, for example, should make their support conditional 
upon full compliance with the guidelines, and in the future, the 
rights of investors under investment treaties should be made 
conditional upon the investors acting in accordance with the 
guidelines.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] How to Bomb Iran

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

Israeli Jets Bomb Sudan Missile Site in Dry Run for Iran attack
By Uzi Mahmaini, Tel Aviv and Flora Bagenal, Nairobi
October 28, 2012
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32882.htm

Iranian warships dock in Sudan, days after alleged Israeli airstrike
Naval commanders of two states to meet, as Tehran conveys 'message of 
peace and friendship'
By ILAN BEN ZION October 29, 2012
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-warships-dock-in-sudan-days-after-alleged-israeli-airstrike/

Report: Intel found on slain Hamas official led to Sudan strike
Newsletter Monday October 29, 2012
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6228

--0--

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32884.htm

How to Bomb Iran

An Israeli attack is risky--and it might not even eliminate Iran's 
nuclear facilities.

By Philip Giraldi

October 29, 2012 Information Clearing House - During the Napoleonic 
Wars, when it was reported that the French were preparing to invade 
England, Admiral John Jervis said I do not say they the French 
cannot come-I only say they cannot come by sea. Barring the movement 
of a regiment of sans culottes across the English Channel by a fleet 
of Montgolfier balloons, the Jervis comment pretty much summed up the 
limits to French ambitions as long as Britannia ruled the waves.

A similar bit of military overreach appears to be surrounding the 
alleged planning by the Israelis to stage an air assault on Iran's 
nuclear facilities. The US media and even some Pentagon spokesmen 
have suggested that Israel cannot do the job alone, but the problem 
is much larger than that, leading to the question whether Israel can 
do it at all. Israel has over 400 fighters, but many of them are 
configured to establish air superiority over an opponent by shooting 
down opposing aircraft and disabling air defense facilities on the 
ground. They are fighters supporting ground operations first with a 
limited secondary capability as bombers.

Israel has no dedicated bomber force but it does have an estimated 
125 advanced F-15I and F-16I's, which have been further enhanced 
through special avionics installed by the Israel Aircraft Industry to 
improve performance over the types of terrain and weather conditions 
prevailing in the Middle East. The planes are able to fly long range 
missions and very capable in a bombing role but they do have their 
limitations.

It is generally agreed that any attempt to destroy the hardened and 
well-defended Iranian nuclear sites would require use of the United 
States-provided GBU-28, a five thousand-pound laser-guided smart bomb 
that can be directed to the target. The GBU-28 is regarded as 
accurate and able to penetrate deep into a target, which is why it 
has been described as the bunker buster. Exact performance 
specifications of the weapon are classified, but it is believed to be 
able to penetrate twenty feet of reinforced concrete. Whether that 
would be enough to take out the expected Iranian targets at the 
research centers in Natanz and Fordow, the heavy water facility at 
Arak, and the operating reactor at Bushehr is unknown and some 
analysts have opined that it might require multiple hits on the same 
spot to do the job. As Bushehr, the most accessible target of the 
three, is an active reactor, an attack would release considerable 
contamination.

Assuming that the US has supplied Israel with a sufficient supply of 
GBU-28s to go around to all the available aircraft, there remain two 
additional problems with the weapon that impact Israeli ability to 
stage an attack. First, it is so heavy that only Israel's twenty-five 
F15Is are able to carry it, one bomb for each plane. For optimum use 
against a target, the GBU-28 also requires a clear line of sight, 
which means that the plane has to be flying low and relatively 
slowly, making the fighters more vulnerable to ground defenses, 
particularly with their maneuverability limited due to the bomb load. 
This first problem creates the second problem, which is that an 
attack will require a separate fleet of F-16 fighters unencumbered by 
GBU-28s to go in first and suppress the defensive fire, further 
complicating the mission.

Assuming that all the Israeli fighters capable of carrying the GBU-28 
are available, which would not normally be the case, twenty-five 
bombs might not be enough to do critical damage to the targets. 
Perfect intelligence is required to place the bombs where they will 
do the most harm, an element that will likely be lacking with the 
underground targets. Some bombs will miss while others might not 
function perfectly and will detonate before penetration. And before 
the bombs are dropped the planes have to arrive over Iran.

Let's assume that the Israelis opt for an attacking force of 50 
fighters, one third of which would be designated for suppression of 
ground fire. The planes would be equipped with conformal fuel tanks 
built into the fuselages for extended range. They would

[Biofuel] Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

Climate Change Feeds Hurricane Sandy
Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by Science 2.0
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/29-0

Why 'Frankenstorm' Is Just Right for Hurricane Sandy
Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by The Daily Beast
by Bill McKibben
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/29-0

Watching Sandy, Ignoring Climate Change
Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by The New Yorker
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/29-8

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that
make clear who the real enemy is
by: Bill McKibben
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

--0--

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17606-global-warming-systemically-caused-hurricane-sandy

Tuesday, 30 October 2012

Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy

GEORGE LAKOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Yes, global warming systemically caused Hurricane Sandy - and the
Midwest droughts and the fires in Colorado and Texas, as well as
other extreme weather disasters around the world. Let's say it out
loud, it was causation, systemic causation.

Systemic causation is familiar. Smoking is a systemic cause of lung
cancer. HIV is a systemic cause of AIDS. Working in coal mines is a
systemic cause of black lung disease. Driving while drunk is a
systemic cause of auto accidents. Sex without contraception is a
systemic cause of unwanted pregnancies.

There is a difference between systemic and direct causation.
Punching someone in the nose is direct causation. Throwing a rock
through a window is direct causation. Picking up a glass of water and
taking a drink is direct causation. Slicing bread is direct
causation. Stealing your wallet is direct causation. Any application
of force to something or someone that always produces an immediate
change to that thing or person is direct causation. When causation
is direct, the word cause is unproblematic.

Systemic causation, because it is less obvious, is more important to
understand. A systemic cause may be one of a number of multiple
causes. It may require some special conditions. It may be indirect,
working through a network of more direct causes. It may be
probabilistic, occurring with a significantly high probability. It
may require a feedback mechanism. In general, causation in
ecosystems, biological systems, economic systems, and social systems
tends not to be direct, but is no less causal. And because it is not
direct causation, it requires all the greater attention if it is to
be understood and its negative effects controlled.

Above all, it requires a name: systemic causation.

Global warming systemically caused the huge and ferocious Hurricane
Sandy. And consequently, it systemically caused all the loss of life,
material damage, and economic loss of Hurricane Sandy. Global warming
heated the water of the Gulf and Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean,
resulting in greatly increased energy and water vapor in the air
above the water. When that happens, extremely energetic and wet
storms occur more frequently and ferociously. These systemic effects
of global warming came together to produce the ferocity and magnitude
of Hurricane Sandy.

The precise details of Hurricane Sandy cannot be predicted in
advance, any more than when, or whether, a smoker develops lung
cancer, or sex without contraception yields an unwanted pregnancy, or
a drunk driver has an accident. But systemic causation is
nonetheless causal.

Semantics matters. Because the word cause is commonly taken to mean
direct cause, climate scientists, trying to be precise, have too
often shied away from attributing causation of a particular
hurricane, drought, or fire to global warming. Lacking a concept and
language for systemic causation, climate scientists have made the
dreadful communicative mistake of retreating to weasel words.
Consider this quote from Perception of climate change, by James
Hansen, Makiko Sato, and Reto Ruedy, Published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences:

we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme
anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in
2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in
the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.

The crucial words here are high degree of confidence, anomalies,
consequence, likelihood, absence, and exceedingly small. Scientific
weasel words! The power of the bald truth, namely causation, is lost.

This no small matter because the fate of the earth is at stake. The
science is excellent. The scientists' ability to communicate is
lacking. Without the words, the idea cannot even be expressed. And
without an understanding of systemic causation, we cannot understand
what is hitting us.

Global warming is real, and it is here. It is causing - yes, causing
- death, destruction, and vast

[Biofuel] Tens of thousands protest against austerity in Rome

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

On Eve of Austerity Vote, Greek Newspapers Expose Billions in Overseas Banks
Journalist faces jailtime for doing his job
Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/29-3

Fifth of UK workers paid less than living wage, says KPMG
Published: Monday, October 29, 2012
http://www.egovmonitor.com/2012/10/29/fifth-of-uk-workers-paid-less-than-living-wage-says-kpmg

--0--

http://news.yahoo.com/tens-thousands-protest-against-austerity-rome-162315680.html;_ylt=A2KLOzJDE4xQfAcAFgrQtDMD

Tens of thousands protest against austerity in Rome

Reuters - Sat, Oct 27, 2012

ROME (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of people marched through Rome in 
a No Monti Day on Saturday, some throwing eggs and spraying 
graffiti to protest against austerity measures introduced by Italian 
Prime Minister Mario Monti's government.

Appointed in November when Italy risked being sucked into the euro 
zone debt crisis, Monti has pushed through painful tax hikes, 
spending cuts and a pension overhaul.

We are here against Monti and his politics, the same politics as all 
over Europe, that brought Greece to its knees and that is destroying 
half of Europe, public schools, health care, said demonstrator 
Giorgio Cremaschi.

Some protesters threw eggs at bank windows and set off firecrackers, 
but no major incidents were reported.

United with a Europe that is rebelling. Let's get rid of the Monti 
government, read one of the banners held at the demonstration.

Unemployment in Italy has risen to 10.7 percent, its highest since 
monthly records began in 2004, and unions are locked in disputes with 
companies over plant closures and layoffs. The nation's public debt 
is running at 126 percent of output, according to the International 
Monetary Fund.

It's been years that there have been no investments, instead it's 
all outsourced and privatized, we are here to say enough and we hope 
this voice will grow, said another demonstrator, Caterina Fida.

Organizers said more than 100,000 people participated in the demonstration.

Monti says he believes his technocratic government will be remembered 
for having helped Italy pull itself out of a deep economic crisis 
without needing to resort to external aid.

Separately, some 20,000 doctors and nurses, wearing their white 
hospital gowns or uniforms, marked in another section of Rome to 
protest cuts to the national health service.

The entire system risks collapse if the cuts continue, one 
demonstrator said on television.

In another demonstration in northern Italy, a small group of 
protesters scuffled with police near where Monti was addressing a 
rally on the theme of family values.

(additional reporting By James Mackenzie, editing by Rosalind Russell 
and Jason Webb)


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Behind the no-nuclear option - Japan

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

Over a Dozen Nuclear Power Plants in Hurricane Sandy's Path
Eight of these plants have the same design as the Fukushima plant
Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/29-2

--0--

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/nn20121030i1.html

ZERO NUKE POLICY

Behind the no-nuclear option

New energy policy seen as political fig leaf, given option for reversal

By MASAMI ITO

Staff writer

The triple-meltdown crisis that began last year at the Fukushima No. 
1 power plant jarred the public out of its complacent attitude toward 
nuclear power and every other assurance made by the government and 
Japan Inc.

Suddenly, thousands of people were fleeing their homes in the fallout 
zones, possibly never to return again, as everything from fish to 
meat to rice and water joined the list of contamination threats.

Overnight, the public developed a collective voice. Housewives, 
professors, students, salarymen, seniors from all walks of life stood 
up to demand an end to Japan's dependence on atomic power, and its 
dangers.

People came from across the country to participate in rallies each 
Friday night outside the prime minister's office to raise this chorus.

Then finally last month, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and his 
Democratic Party of Japan-led government announced the nation would 
embark on a quest for alternative, green, sustainable forms of energy 
and rid Japan of nuclear power by the 2030s.

But the new policy, besides not being etched in stone, has drawn 
criticism for being ambiguous, unrealistic, a quick kowtow for votes 
- and a way to keep the door back to nuclear power ajar.

What are the key points of the new energy strategy?

The government adopted the Innovative Strategy for Energy and the 
Environment on Sept. 14 to learn from the Fukushima crisis and 
fundamentally change the nation's course away from atomic power.

The main pillar would be the complete shutdown of all reactors by the 
2030s. To achieve this, the government laid out three major goals: to 
limit the working life of reactors to 40 years, to only restart 
reactors that have been given stamped as safe by the new Nuclear 
Regulation Authority, and to ban the construction of new nuclear 
plants.

The government pledged to cover the nation's energy needs by 
diversifying its sources and tripling its use of renewable power by 
2030, advancing the use of thermal power generation, and securing a 
steady supply of inexpensive fossil fuels. It also vowed to slash 
electricity consumption to 100 billion kwh in 2030 from 1.1 trillion 
kwh in 2010 and promote energy-saving measures to the entire public.

What prompted this zero-nuclear goal?

Public opinion.

The government was initially reluctant to renounce atomic energy, 
which before Fukushima was the source of about 30 percent of the 
nation's electricity, because of the difficulty of winding down its 
vast investment in it.

There is also strong resistance from the business community because 
of the extra costs associated with alternative energy and concerns 
that the shift would damage Japan Inc.'s competitiveness.

The business community and the government remain deeply invested in 
nuclear power.

But the overwhelming public opposition prevailed.

Over the summer, the government collected public comments on three 
possible scenarios for nuclear energy use by 2030 - zero percent, 15 
percent, or 20 to 25 percent.

Although experts noted that opinionated people were the most inclined 
to respond to the polls, about 90 percent of the some 89,000 
responses chose the zero percent option.

I think the government is still reluctant to get rid of nuclear 
power completely, but it was forced to listen to the public because 
of the unprecedented number of responses, said Hideyuki Ban, 
codirector of the antinuclear Citizens' Nuclear Information Center. 
The people's strong voices and action pushed the government to 
include the word zero.

The DPJ hopes the hedged proposal will win over voters in the next 
Lower House election to boost its bleak prospects.

What will happen to reactors under construction?

The government plans to let three reactors in the midst of 
construction to be completed.

They are reactor 3 at the plant in Matsue, Shimane Prefecture, a 
reactor at the plant in Oma, Aomori Prefecture, and reactor 1 at the 
plant in Higashidori, Aomori Prefecture.

The Shimane reactor is 93.6 percent finished, the Oma unit 37.6 
percent and the Higashidori reactor 9.7 percent, but work on each was 
halted after March 11. Earlier this month, the Oma reactor became the 
first to resume construction.

If the government truly aims to end nuclear power, why is the atomic 
fuel-recycling program continuing?

This continuation cuts to the heart of the ambiguity, experts say. 
The new strategy clearly states that the reprocessing of spent 
nuclear fuel will proceed.

The recycling extracts uranium and plutonium from spent fuel for 
reuse as

[Biofuel] Beyond Recycling: On the Road to Zero Waste

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12369-beyond-recycling-on-the-road-to-zero-waste

Beyond Recycling: On the Road to Zero Waste

Sunday, 28 October 2012 09:57

By Staff, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives | News Analysis

This week Other Worlds launches the blog series Environmental 
Possibilities: Zero Waste, featuring new ways of thinking, acting, 
and shaping government policy. Each week, we highlight a success 
story in the zero waste movement, excerpted from the report On the 
Road to Zero Waste: Successes and Lessons from Around the World by 
the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). GAIA is a 
powerful worldwide alliance of more than 650 grassroots groups, 
non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. 
Their collective goal is a just, toxic-free world without 
incineration. Other Worlds is excited to promote the work of GAIA and 
the organized communities it works with, and hopes that the stories 
inspire you and others to begin moving your home, town or city, 
nation, and planet toward zero waste. This introduction to zero waste 
is the first in a ten-part series on zero waste successes and 
lessons. The following weeks will feature inspiring stories about 
zero waste achievements in San Francisco and waste pickers in India, 
to be followed by additional stories from around the globe.

*** 

Zero waste is both a goal and a plan of action. The goal is to 
protect and recover scarce natural resources by ending waste disposal 
in incinerators, dumps, and landfills. The plan encompasses waste 
reduction, composting, recycling and reuse, changes in consumption 
habits, and industrial redesign. The premise is that if a product 
cannot be reused, composted, or recycled, it just should not be 
produced in the first place.

Just as importantly, zero waste is a revolution in the relationship 
between waste and people. It is a new way of thinking about 
safeguarding the health and improving the lives of everyone who 
produces, handles, works with, or is affected by waste-in other 
words, all of us.

Zero waste strategies help societies to produce and consume goods 
while respecting ecological limits and the rights of communities. The 
strategies ensure that all discarded materials are safely and 
sustainably returned to nature or to manufacturing in place of raw 
materials. In a zero waste approach, waste management is not left 
only to politicians and technical experts; rather, everyone 
impacted-from residents of wealthy neighborhoods to the public, 
private, and informal sector workers who handle waste-has a voice.

Practicing zero waste means moving toward a world in which all 
materials are used to their utmost potential, in a system that 
simultaneously prioritizes the needs of workers, communities, and the 
environment. It is much like establishing zero defect goals for 
manufacturing, or zero injury goals in the workplace.

Zero waste is ambitious, but it is not impossible. Nor is it part of 
some far-off future. Today, in small towns and big cities, in areas 
rich and poor, in the global North and South, innovative communities 
are making real progress toward the goal of zero waste. Every 
community is different, so no two zero waste programs are identical, 
but the various approaches are together creating something bigger 
than the sum of their parts: protection of the earth and the natural 
riches which lie under, on, and over it. Here are a few examples of 
what is working:

* Through incentives and extensive public outreach, San Francisco has 
reduced its waste to landfill by 77 percent-the highest diversion 
rate in the United States-and is on track to reach 90 percent by 2020;

* A door-to-door collection service operated by a cooperative of 
almost 2,000 grassroots recyclers in Pune, India-now part of the 
city's waste management system-diverts enough waste to avoid 640,000 
tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually;

* Aggressive standards and incentives for both individuals and 
businesses in the Flanders region of Belgium have achieved 73 percent 
diversion of residential waste, the highest regional rate in Europe;

* In Taiwan, community opposition to incineration pushed the 
government to adopt goals and programs for waste prevention and 
recycling. The programs were so successful that the quantity of waste 
decreased significantly, even as the population increased and the 
economy grew;

* An anti-incinerator movement in the Spanish province of Gipuzkoa 
led to the adoption of door-to-door waste collection services in 
several small cities, which have since reduced the amount of waste 
going to landfills by 80 percent;

* In the Philippines, a participatory, bottom-up approach has proven 
that communities have the ability to solve their own waste management 
problems;

* A focus on organics in Mumbai, India and La Pintana, Chile has 
produced real value from the cities' largest and most problematic 
portion of municipal waste;

* In Buenos

[Biofuel] Geoengineering: Testing the Waters

2012-10-30 Thread Keith Addison

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/29-1

Published on Monday, October 29, 2012 by The New York Times

Geoengineering: Testing the Waters

by Naomi Klein

For almost 20 years, I've been spending time on a craggy stretch of 
British Columbia's shoreline called the Sunshine Coast. This summer, 
I had an experience that reminded me why I love this place, and why I 
chose to have a child in this sparsely populated part of the world.

It was 5 a.m. and my husband and I were up with our 3-week-old son. 
Looking out at the ocean, we spotted two towering, black dorsal fins: 
orcas, or killer whales. Then two more. We had never seen an orca on 
the coast, and never heard of their coming so close to shore. In our 
sleep-deprived state, it felt like a miracle, as if the baby had 
wakened us to make sure we didn't miss this rare visit.

The possibility that the sighting may have resulted from something 
less serendipitous did not occur to me until two weeks ago, when I 
read reports of a bizarre ocean experiment off the islands of Haida 
Gwaii, several hundred miles from where we spotted the orcas swimming.

There, an American entrepreneur named Russ George dumped 120 tons of 
iron dust off the hull of a rented fishing boat; the plan was to 
create an algae bloom that would sequester carbon and thereby combat 
climate change.

Mr. George is one of a growing number of would-be geoengineers who 
advocate high-risk, large-scale technical interventions that would 
fundamentally change the oceans and skies in order to reduce the 
effects of global warming. In addition to Mr. George's scheme to 
fertilize the ocean with iron, other geoengineering strategies under 
consideration include pumping sulfate aerosols into the upper 
atmosphere to imitate the cooling effects of a major volcanic 
eruption and brightening clouds so they reflect more of the sun's 
rays back to space.

The risks are huge. Ocean fertilization could trigger dead zones and 
toxic tides. And multiple simulations have predicted that mimicking 
the effects of a volcano would interfere with monsoons in Asia and 
Africa, potentially threatening water and food security for billions 
of people.

So far, these proposals have mostly served as fodder for computer 
models and scientific papers. But with Mr. George's ocean adventure, 
geoengineering has decisively escaped the laboratory. If Mr. George's 
account of the mission is to be believed, his actions created an 
algae bloom in an area half of the size of Massachusetts that 
attracted a huge array of aquatic life, including whales that could 
be counted by the score.

When I read about the whales, I began to wonder: could it be that the 
orcas I saw were on their way to the all-you-can-eat seafood buffet 
that had descended on Mr. George's bloom? The possibility, unlikely 
though it is, provides a glimpse into one of the disturbing 
repercussions of geoengineering: once we start deliberately 
interfering with the earth's climate systems - whether by dimming the 
sun or fertilizing the seas - all natural events can begin to take on 
an unnatural tinge. An absence that might have seemed a cyclical 
change in migration patterns or a presence that felt like a 
miraculous gift suddenly feels sinister, as if all of nature were 
being manipulated behind the scenes.

Most news reports characterize Mr. George as a rogue geoengineer. 
But what concerns me, after researching the subject for two years for 
a forthcoming book on climate change, is that far more serious 
scientists, backed by far deeper pockets, appear poised to actively 
tamper with the complex and unpredictable natural systems that 
sustain life on earth - with huge potential for unintended 
consequences.

In 2010, the chairman of the House Committee on Science and 
Technology recommended more research into geoengineering; the British 
government has begun to spend public money in the field.

Bill Gates has funneled millions of dollars into geoengineering 
research. And he has invested in a company, Intellectual Ventures, 
that is developing at least two geoengineering tools: the 
StratoShield, a 19-mile-long hose suspended by helium balloons that 
would spew sun-blocking sulfur dioxide particles into the sky and a 
tool that can supposedly blunt the force of hurricanes.

THE appeal is easy to understand. Geoengineering offers the 
tantalizing promise of a climate change fix that would allow us to 
continue our resource-exhausting way of life, indefinitely. And then 
there is the fear. Every week seems to bring more terrifying climate 
news, from reports of ice sheets melting ahead of schedule to oceans 
acidifying far faster than expected. At the same time, climate change 
has fallen so far off the political agenda that it wasn't mentioned 
once during any of the three debates between the presidential 
candidates. Is it any wonder that many are pinning their hopes on a 
break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency option that scientists have been 
cooking

[Biofuel] Testing the new list

2012-10-30 Thread Chip Mefford

Okay list;

We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. 

I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the 
new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. 

Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than 
@sustainability.org) isn't
filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is 
being archived as of yet. Which is fine. 

I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the
email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. 

And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So
we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and
is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things
are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

38 matches

Mail list logo