Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph
Hi all Bjorn Lomborg is, was, or used to be into various shades of global warming denial, depending, I think, on which way the wind's blowing. Recent big winds may have deepened his apparent shade of green. Professional contrarian, author of the infamous The Sceptical Environmentalist. He's a statistician, without environmental qualifications. At a promotional reading of his book in London in 2001 he had a cream pie thrown in his face by none other than Mark Lynas - he who recently changed coats to become a supporter of nuclear power. Maybe they deserve each other. I don't think we deserve either of them. More here: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.orgq=Lomborg All best Keith On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote: The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet, with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open. But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife. It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up their fairly wild claims. And gives a fairly vague sentence about more production agriculture. Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what I was pretty on to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is... Z ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph
A. Good to know Z Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Hi all Bjorn Lomborg is, was, or used to be into various shades of global warming denial, depending, I think, on which way the wind's blowing. Recent big winds may have deepened his apparent shade of green. Professional contrarian, author of the infamous The Sceptical Environmentalist. He's a statistician, without environmental qualifications. At a promotional reading of his book in London in 2001 he had a cream pie thrown in his face by none other than Mark Lynas - he who recently changed coats to become a supporter of nuclear power. Maybe they deserve each other. I don't think we deserve either of them. More here: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.orgq=Lomborg All best Keith On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote: The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet, with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open. But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife. It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels are. then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up their fairly wild claims. And gives a fairly vague sentence about more production agriculture. Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what I was pretty on to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is... Z ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Ecuadorians Win the Right to Pursue Chevron in Canada - Businessweek
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-17/ecuadorians-win-the-right-to-pursue-chevron-in-canada Ecuadorians Win the Right to Pursue Chevron in Canada By Paul M. Barrett December 17, 2013 In a big day for high-stakes oil pollution litigation, Chevron (CVX) lost a round in its campaign to squelch a multibillion-dollar contamination verdict in Ecuador. An appellate court in Ontario ruled that a group of Amazonian rain-forest residents may move ahead with a suit seeking to seize Chevron assets in Canada as a way of enforcing their 2011 victory in Ecuador. Large corporations are trying increasingly aggressive legal tactics to reduce their liability in mass lawsuits. BP (BP), for example, today filed a fraud suit in federal court in New Orleans against a prominent Texas plaintiffs’ attorney in a clash related to tens of thousands of claims from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Separately, in Canada, the Court of Appeal for Ontario said that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs could try their luck in the Canadian judicial system after Chevron flatly refused to pay up on a $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador. The Canadian ruling was not a victory on the merits for the rain-forest residents fighting Chevron. The oil company has vowed never to comply with the 2011 Ecuadorian judgment, which Chevron claims was based on judicial coercion, fabricated evidence, and bribery. In fact, Chevron has sued the main American lawyer for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, Steven Donziger, accusing him of running what amounts to a racketeering conspiracy designed to shake down the company. He denies those allegations, and a federal judge in New York is expected to rule in coming months. If it wins in New York, Chevron has said it will use that finding to argue to courts in Canada and other countries that the Ecuadorian judgment does not deserve to be enforced—anywhere. In May, a Canadian trial judge blocked the Ecuadorian residents from proceeding with their enforcement action in Ontario. The appellate court today said the judge had been mistaken, and the Ecuadorians deserve a chance to make their case that they have a right to seize Chevron assets in Canada. “In these circumstances, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs should have an opportunity to attempt to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment in a court where Chevron will have to respond on the merits,” the appellate court said. “That the plaintiffs in this case may ultimately not succeed on the merits of their recognition and enforcement action, or that they may not succeed in successfully collecting from the judgment debtors against whom they bring this action,” aren’t relevant factors in deciding whether to allow them to present their claims against Chevron, the court added. In an e-mailed statement, Donziger called the decision “a stunning reversal of fortune” for Chevron. In its press release, Chevron said it “is evaluating next steps, including a possible appeal of today’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.” -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager, Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] What A Year: 45 Fossil Fuel Disasters The Industry Doesn't Want You To Know About | ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/17/3056321/year-fossil-fuel-disasters/ [multiple images, links and videos in on-line article) What A Year: 45 Fossil Fuel Disasters The Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know About By Emily Atkin on December 17, 2013 at 1:26 pm What A Year: 45 Fossil Fuel Disasters The Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know About While coal, oil, and gas are an integral part of everyday life around the world, 2013 brought a stark reminder of the inherent risk that comes with a fossil-fuel dependent world, with numerous pipeline spills, explosions, derailments, landslides, and the death of 20 coal miners in the U.S. alone. Despite all this, our addiction to fossil fuels will be a tough habit to break. The federal Energy Information Administration in July projected that fossil fuel use will soar across the world in the come decades. Coal — the dirtiest fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions — is projected to increase by 2.3 percent in coming years. And in December, the EIA said that global demand for oil would be even higher than it had projected, for both this year and next. Here is a look back at some of the fossil fuel disasters that made headlines in 2013, along with several others that went largely unnoticed. Pipelines In this photo taken Saturday, July 27, 2013, a cleaning vessel clears the oil after about 50 tons of crude oil that was leak from a pipe spilled into the sea off Rayong province, eastern Thailand. In this photo taken Saturday, July 27, 2013, a cleaning vessel clears the oil after about 50 tons of crude oil that was leak from a pipe spilled into the sea off Rayong province, eastern Thailand. March 29: An ExxonMobil pipeline carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands ruptures and spills thousands of barrels of oil in Mayflower, Arkansas. The ruptured pipeline gushed 210,000 gallons of heavy Canadian crude into a residential street and forced the evacuation of 22 homes. Exxon was hit with a paltry $2.6 million fine by federal pipeline safety regulators for the incident in November — just 1/3000th of its third quarter profits. May 20: Underground tar sands leaks start popping up in Alberta, Canada, and do not stop for at least five months. In September the company responsible was ordered to drain a lake so that contamination on the lake’s bottom can be cleaned up. As of September 11, the leaks had spilled more than 403,900 gallons — or about 9,617 barrels — of oily bitumen into the surrounding boreal forest and muskeg, the acidic, marshy soil found in the forest. Worst Alberta July 30: About 50 tons of oil spills into the sea off Rayong province of Thailand from a leak in the pipeline operated by PTT Global Chemical Plc. It was the fourth major oil spill in the country’s history. August 13: An ethane and propane pipeline belonging to Tesoro Corp. running beneath an Illinois cornfield ruptures and explodes. Residents heard a massive blast and then saw flames shooting 300 feet into the air, visible for 20 miles. September 29: A North Dakota farmer winds up discovering the largest onshore oil spill in U.S. history, the size of seven football fields. At least 20,600 barrels of oil leaked from a Tesoro Corp-owned pipeline onto the Jensens’ land, and it went unreported to North Dakotans for more than a week. An AP investigation later discovered that nearly 300 oil spills and 750 “oil field incidents” had gone unreported to the public since January 2012. Worst Tesoro October 7: An Oil and Natural Gas Corp. pipeline that carries crude from the offshore Mumbai High fields to India ruptures and spills at an onshore facility, but oil winds up flowing into the Arabian sea because of rainfall. October 9: A natural gas pipeline explodes in northwest Oklahoma, sparking a large fire and prompting evacuations. No injuries or deaths were reported. October 30: 17,000 gallons of crude oil spill from an eight-inch pipeline owned by Koch Pipeline Company in Texas. The spill impacted a rural area and two livestock ponds near Smithville and was discovered on a routine aerial inspection. November 14: A Chevron natural gas pipeline explodes in Milford, Texas, causing the town of 700 people to evacuate. The flames could reportedly be seen for miles. November 22: An oil pipeline explodes in Qingdao, China, killing 62 and setting ocean on fire. The underground pipeline’s explosion opened a hole in the road that swallowed at least one truck, according to Reuters, and oil seeped into utility pipes under Qingdao. November 29: A 30-inch gas gas pipeline in a rural area of western Missouri ruptures and explodes, sending a 300 foot high fireball into the air. Coal Mines February 11 An explosion in a coal mine in northern Russia kills at least 17 miners in a shaft saturated with methane gas. Rescue workers said 23 people had been in the shaft at the time. The blast occurred about 2,500
