[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
Hey Vajradhatu, Scientists have found out that a raise of one or two degrees in the 'Average Global Temperature' will wipe out most of the tropical Rainforests and turn them into Grasslands or deserts. Computer simulations also show that Evergreen Rainforests are extremely sensitive to rising temperatures. Much of the Genetic diversity, bio-chemical wealth and medicinal potential will be lost if these Rainforests disappear. Raising temperatures will also cause the Permafrost in high latitudes to thaw and thus releasing CO2 and methane trapped in them into the atmosphere. Tropical diseases will also spread into high Latitudes and Altitudes. Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:33:39 -0400Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the KeyAlso, look at any picture of Chinese industry and they look like Pittsburgh, PA in the 40's. Scary. And it willonly get worse as these countries inherit our old technologies. Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:53 AM, new.morning wrote: Actually, as the article points out, and has been the trend for 20 years, coal is much cleaner than it used to be for traditioanl pollutants: SO2, CO, ozone, No2, PM10 etc. The article says the current [scrubbing] technology makes coal burning cleaner than natural gas -- which if true -- is phenomenal. NG has long been the quite-clean burning fuel of choice for new plants coming on line. And is the by far largest generation fuel in areas like California. But CO2 (not CO) is not a traditional pollutant and is not eliminated / greatly reduced by these modern scubbers. But, again as the article points out, as has been the trend, carbon sequestration technology is advancing. There are experimental plants that pump all CO2 into the ground. So the generation is CO2 neutral. And quite low in traditional pollutants. Some areas, as the article points out cannot pump the CO2 into the ground, but can pipeline it to industrial areas. The latter needs more pipeline infrastructure to be truly viable. Sequestration of carbon is as or more important than i) energy-efficiency -- getting same power out of less energy input, and ii) conservation (consuming less, substituting energy intensive consumption for products and services with lower input. Both would be greatly enhanced, and solved by the market if fuels were priced efficiently and not laden with huge subsidies (direct and indirect -- that is, not including all costs incurred on society. Welfare-energy-consumers are of course resistant to efficient market solutions. Sequestration can be direct, like the coal plant pumping CO2 underground, or indirect, such as reforestation. 95% of CO2 produced on earth (not the same as that escaping to atmosphere) is 95% or so from natural sources. But nature has an abundance of carbom sinks which traditionally have kept CO2 in balance. The 5% man-made carbon had tipped the balance, thus causing a 30% or so increase in atmospheric carbon. By increasing, or even re-establishing, natural carbon sinks -- such as forests -- the greenhouse gas problem looming for future generations could be substantially mitigated. If energy were price to reflect its full costs, and thus sending the correct price signal in all markets -- hugely important to market economies -- large scale sequestration projects could be funded with no increase on regular taxes. Then those who want to drive a lot, and/or drive SUVs, can do so to their hearts content, pay the full cost of such consumption, send the corrrect price signal for energy, and provide for more forests (recretion lands) which could keep CO2 in (or greatly towatds) balance. Drive and create forest recreation lands! Who doesn't love that. Sounds like spin to me. I'd expect to see sequestration used to sell the idea and then some backpedalling as the industry moves to cut costs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an old, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this new concept, obviously (to you and the guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin. http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+sequestrationstart=0ie=utf-8oe=utf-8client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:22 AM, new.morning wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an old, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this "new" concept, obviously (to you and the guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin. Well in the kyoto protocols the whole 'carbon sink as forests' idea was considered rather controversial. Unless somethings changed why should I see it as anything different than then?http://www.sinkswatch.org/ __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
In a message dated 7/5/06 10:23:31 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Somethingjust made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that isyour view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was anold, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this "new" concept, obviously (to you and theguys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin I knew there had been big improvements in burning coal cleaner, but didn't realize it had been so much. Unfortunately many other countries must not be using that technology. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:22 AM, new.morning wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an old, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this new concept, obviously (to you and the guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin. Well in the kyoto protocols the whole 'carbon sink as forests' So does that imply that all the other carbon sequestion / sink technologies / methods other than forests are fine with you? As they appear to be with most climate scientists? (Forests are onlyone offour major sinks.) What is your specific issue with forests? As the SinkWatch group, whose cite is your primary reply against sinks states, Forests, soils, oceans and the atmosphere all store carbon, which moves among those different carbon pools over time; these four different carbon stores form the active carbon pool. If one of these pools absorbs more carbon than it gives off, it is called a 'sink' in the climate jargon, while a source emits more than it absorbs. Destroying forests - turning them from a sink into a source - will shift the balance within the active carbon pool towards higher concentrations in the atmosphere and lower levels of carbon stored in the world's forests, but it will not increase the overall amount of carbon that interacts with the atmosphere. Another important carbon store are the world's fossil fuel deposits. But this particular carbon store, buried deep inside the earth, is naturally separated from the carbon cycling in the atmosphere, unless humans decide to release it into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil or natural gas. Any releases from this pool of carbon will increase the amount of carbon available to the active carbon pool. This is the crucial difference overlooked by those who advocate carbon sink credits to halt climate change. There keypoint is obvious: Any releases from this pool of carbon will increase the amount of carbon available to the active carbon pool. Not a particularly profound insight. Everyone knows that if you reforest an area, increasing carbon sinks, and then burn the wood, it is no longer a sink. If you leave it as a forest, it remains a carbon sink. Or even if you lumber the wood, its a carbon sink until the wood decays -- perhaps centuries away. While Sinkwatch raises this as apparently their sole concern about the chemical / biological aspects of forest sinks, (and forest sinks are only one of four major classes of sinks,with many sequestration available within eachsink), they raise no examples of the any releases from this forest pools of carbon. Their argument is theoretical, obvious, and not a substantive (or meant to be so, I presume) argument against reforestation. Sink Watch's other concern are the current accounting methods used for carbon credits bought by Kyoto signers to meet their pledges. Of course there are going to be issues, problems and need for refinement in any new accounting and trading system, particularly for new commodity never yet traded in world markets. That hardly implies that the overall approached is fatally flawed. I applaud the role of SinkWatch in monitoring the carbon sequestration industry and credits trading markets for shortcomings and abuses. The aim of SinksWatch is to track and scrutinize carbon sequestration projects related to the Kyoto Protocol, and to highlight their threats to forests and other ecosystems, to forest peoples as well as to the climate. Thats how problems are fixed and systems grow stronger. Their site, your post's sole cite, allegedly against sinks, provides no flaws of great substance - that is things that cannot be corrected. No fatal flaws. Their major concern appears to be that ONLY sequestration will be used, and energy-efficiency and substitution initiatives will be stopped. Thats not going to happen. Nor is it desirable. We need to bapears tourn the candle of atmospheric carbon and global climate change from both ends. So Vaj, do you actually have any issues of substance - those that cannot be corrected, those that are inherently fatal flaws, in either the science or trading aspects of carbon sequestration? Or is it just all squabbling about not liking this or that (correctable) detail? I read your cite. Did you read my 10 + cites? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/5/06 10:23:31 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an old, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this new concept, obviously (to you and the guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin I knew there had been big improvements in burning coal cleaner, but didn't realize it had been so much. Unfortunately many other countries must not be using that technology. Well the scrubbing of traditional pollutants has improved a lot in the last 10 years. While new plants can use such, most coal plants were built prior to this newer technology. And some countries,India and China for example, may not wish to pay the price premium for this newer technology, even for new plants. As far as direct co2 sequestration during coal generation (or gasification) its only being used in smaller-scale and experimental facilities ar this point. But apparently is doing the sequestering (underground) at a reasonably low price. If coal and oil were priced to reflect the correct price signal, total social and explicit costs, then such currently available scrubbing of traditional pollutants and sequestering of CO2, would be paid for by consumers / end-users. And retirement of older more polluting plants would be accelerated. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:36 PM, new.morning wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:22 AM, new.morning wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an old, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this "new" concept, obviously (to you and the guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin.Well in the kyoto protocols the whole 'carbon sink as forests' So does that imply that all the other carbon sequestion / sink technologies / methods other than forests are fine with you? As they appear to be with most climate scientists? (Forests are onlyone offour major sinks.) What is your specific issue with forests? It's not just forests, it's that a sink gives an excuse to emit even more emissions. For every ton of carbon stored in a carbon sink, the Kyoto Protocol allows the release of an additional ton of carbon from fossil fuel!Makes me wonder if, like our national energy policy, this was also written by the energy industry!"The argument to use carbon sink credits to halt climate change is thus based on the faulty assumption that 'carbon is carbon', an assumption that ignores the different interactions of the carbon with the atmosphere, depending on where the carbon is stored."In addition to this basic fallacy, there are further flaws of the concept once we look more closely at the Kyoto Protocol itself. These include the carbon accounting framework of the Kyoto Protocol and environmental and social shortcomings.The following reports also provide additional information about the problems associated with carbon sinks accounting:The role of land carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change. The Royal Society. Policy Document 10/01. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-150.pdfFull Carbon Account for Russia IIASA Interim Report IR-00-02. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-00-021.pdfTaking Credit. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Climate_Change_Reports/default.asp#TakingSinks in the Kyoto Protocol: A dirty deal for forests, forest peoples and the climate http://www.fern.org/pubs/briefs/sinks2.pdfThe Carbon Shop: Planting new problems http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/material/carbon.html __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:36 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:22 AM, new.morning wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. Something just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an old, established approach to GCC. Perhaps read a bit on this new concept, obviously (to you and the guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin. Well in the kyoto protocols the whole 'carbon sink as forests' So does that imply that all the other carbon sequestion / sink technologies / methods other than forests are fine with you? As they appear to be with most climate scientists? (Forests are onlyone offour major sinks.) What is your specific issue with forests? It's not just forests, it's that a sink gives an excuse to emit even more emissions. For every ton of carbon stored in a carbon sink, the Kyoto Protocol allows the release of an additional ton of carbon from fossil fuel! Well, not exactly Vaj. The reduced carbon levels need to be met. After that yes. So what. Stabilizing carbon at acceptable levels is a good thing. And Kyoto is not perfect. Its a first step. However, if one were to imply sequestering of carbon has a fatal flaw because an inital CGC treaty has flaws, the arguement would be so specious, such a sequestering non-sequitar, the laughter would blow alot of atmospheric carbon to the moon. I would be surprised if you raised it. You must be implying otherwise. Makes me wonder if, like our national energy policy, this was also written by the energy industry! The argument to use carbon sink credits to halt climate change is thus based on the faulty assumption that 'carbon is carbon', an assumption that ignores the different interactions of the carbon with the atmosphere, depending on where the carbon is stored. And when are you going to make a point of substance? I already quoted that to you. Saying its obvious. And that the group has not cited any reforestation project that has released its carbon. What would that be Vaj? It would mean burning down the forest. Can you cite any CO2 sequestration reforestation projects that ahve been bruned doswn. there are further flaws of the concept once we look more closely at the Kyoto Protocol itself. Duh. Its a compromise agreement. Lots of room for improvement. See above -- do flaws in Kyoto make sequestering CO2 invalid? What a joke. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
In a message dated 7/5/06 12:06:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And some countries,India andChina for example, may not wish to pay the price premium for thisnewer technology, even for new plants. Mexico also. I had family living in El Paso in the 80's and they said the pollution from Mexican coal burning plants in Juarez was stifling. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/5/06 12:06:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And some countries,India and China for example, may not wish to pay the price premium for this newer technology, even for new plants. Mexico also. I had family living in El Paso in the 80's and they said the pollution from Mexican coal burning plants in Juarez was stifling. Of course, in the 80's everything was dirty. This current relevant question is whether new plants going on line NOW going to use the available (and more costly) scrubbers and sequesters. And when energy is priced to reflect its full social and explicit cost, high polluting existing plants will be retired early (too expensive to pay for offsets) and new efficient low pollution ones will be built in their place. And Kyoto is a huge step in that direction. By both requiring reductions to below 1990 levels, AND allowing trading of carbon credits, it helps enable a market price for carbon. Which, next step, can be directly incorporated into the price of gas, as and when oil suppliers are required to pay for carbon offsets. Then we get three great things: 1) carbon emissions are fixed at below 1990 levels 2) a market price is set for carbon and set into the ened-use price of gas and all fuels 3) the above correct price signal will reduce consumption and promote investment energy efficiency at all levels -- builidngs, homes, industrial processses and transporetation. Why people are bashing Kyoto is almost incomprehensible -- other than they know little of what they speak. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a message dated 7/5/06 12:06:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:And some countries,India andChina for example, may not wish to pay the price premium for thisnewer technology, even for new plants. Mexico also. I had family living in El Paso in the 80's and they said the pollution from Mexican coal burning plants in Juarez was stifling. Also, look at any picture of Chinese industry and they look like Pittsburgh, PA in the 40's. Scary. And it will only get worse as these countries inherit our old technologies. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
In a message dated 7/5/06 1:49:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why people are bashing Kyoto is almost incomprehensible -- other thanthey know little of what they speak. Because the worlds worst polluters are exempted from cleaning up their pollution. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Sequestration is the Key
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/5/06 1:49:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why people are bashing Kyoto is almost incomprehensible -- other than they know little of what they speak. Because the worlds worst polluters are exempted from cleaning up their pollution. Well I was referring to people on the list. While i wish all nations ratified it, the Protocols as ratified by 163 countries is a huge first step towards all nations ratifying it or similar next gneration GHG agreements. And and worlds worst polluter is not exempted from cleaning up their pollution per se. The US refused to ratify it after signing it. China and India have the potential to be the largest, but at .76 and .29 tons of carbon emissions per capita they have a long way to go to gain the black distinction of exceeding the US at 5.37 Does a 5-15 year dealy in China and India agreeing to such accords worth throwing the baby out with the bath water? (Indeed CI may be forced into it earlier by market pressure -- that is world markets refuse to by non-carbon compensated goods.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
