[Biofuel] Corolla's Fuel Pump
Hello again, I own an Toyota Corolla 2,0D van (1993), I was tolded that diesel fuel pumps, in older diesel vehicles, aren't compatible whith the use of biodiesel. Someone said to me that the rubber parts inside the fuel pump will be damaged and they aren't replaceable. A fuel pump is a very expensive part (hundreds of euros). Can anyone tell me if that's true? Thank you Filipe Paulette __ Continua a preferir gastar mais? Compare o preço da sua ligação à Internet http://acesso.portugalmail.pt/compare ___ 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] Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2171/ In These Times June 21, 2005 Environmentalism is dead. What's next? By Adam Werbach Sidebar The Pig People Don't Talk to the Chicken People When the U.S. Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this past March, a casual observer might have expected the leaders of the environmental movement to curl up into the fetal position and start making plans to build their own personal arks. Instead, within hours, e-mails from the leaders of the nation's environmental groups quickly spread out to their members, announcing their defeat. I am not going to soft-pedal today's defeat, wrote John Adams to the Natural Resource Defense Council's mailing list. It is distressing that pro-oil forces, significantly strengthened by last November's election, were able to pass this terrible bill in the Senate, where we've blocked them before. Similar sentiment was echoed by John Flicker, president of the National Audubon Society, who wrote this to his staff and board: Over the last several years we have faced one challenge after another defending the Refuge, including a similar vote in the last Congress which we won. Decidedly missing from environmental leaders' post-defeat e-mails, however, was any admission that it was time to go back to the drawing board. A vaguely post-coital glow emanated from conservatives in the wake of their 2004 electoral victories, which had given them the leverage to trounce the greatest symbol of America's uncompleted environmental agenda. Since the 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--the 1.5 million acre area that comprises the breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou Herd--had been left in limbo. With the highly symbolic battle over the Arctic Refuge won, conservatives are now free to kick-start America's nuclear power binge, expand coal-bed methane mining in the Rocky Mountain West and ensure that no serious efforts to combat global warming will ever see the light of day. The loss of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is yet one more piece of evidence that environmentalism, as a political movement, is exhausted. The signs of environmentalism's death are all around us. Environmentalists speak in terms of technical policies, not vision and values. Environmentalists propose 20th century solutions to 21st century problems. Environmentalists are failing to attract young people, the physical embodiment of the future, to our cause. Environmentalists are failing to attract the disenfranchised, the disempowered, the dispossessed and the disengaged. Environmentalists treat our rigid mental categories of what is environmental and what is not as things rather than as social and political tools to organize the public. Most of all, environmentalism is no longer capable of generating the power it needs to deal with the world's most serious ecological problem--namely, global warming. Over the past year, I, along with Michael Shellenberger, Ted Nordhaus and Peter Teague, whose work appears on these pages, have made the argument that environmentalism is dead in America. The purpose of describing the environmental movement as dead is to allow the space for a new movement to grow--a new movement that does not set arbitrary limitations for what is considered an environmental issue, in service of building a larger progressive movement. It's time for environmentalists to step outside the limits of an artificially narrow discourse to articulate a more expansive, more inclusive and more compelling vision for the future. In doing so, they will cease to be environmentalists and start to become American progressives. The problems facing environmentalists are not unique to environmentalism. The failure of the environmental movement is symptomatic of the failure of most liberal social movements, including the labor, civil rights and women's movements. All have failed to build an aspirational narrative for America. For at least the last 25 years, environmentalists have joined American liberals in defining themselves according to a set of problems, whether they be class, race, gender or the environment. We have spent far less time defining ourselves according to the values that unite us, such as shared prosperity, social progress, interdependence, fairness, increasing equality and ecological restoration. We can no longer afford to allow the laundry list of liberal -isms to divide our world. I have come to believe that our future successes will come not from our ability to shock, but to inspire. The mother of all environmentalists Modern environmentalism was born in the early '60s in the form of scientist and writer Rachel Carson. Carson offered what was at the time an astounding thesis: The chemicals that were supposed to be protecting us were in fact threatening to kill us. Carson identified
[Biofuel] The Pig People Don't Talk to the Chicken People
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2185/ In These Times Supplementary June 21, 2005 The Pig People Don't Talk to the Chicken People By Peter Teague It was three years ago, when I first came to work in a New York foundation, that I learned that the pig people don't talk to the chicken people. You guys are working on the same problems, with the same root causes, I said. So why don't you work together? The challenges they were tackling seemed similar: factory farming, mountains of waste, the domination of little guys by the big guys. But that's not how they acted. I soon learned that the pig people and the chicken people don't talk to the cow people either, and the cow people have never talked with the people worried about over-grazing, or breast cancer or the war in Iraq. And so it goes in progressive America today. We are oriented towards problems, issues and complaints. Our politics are defined by fragmentation rather than unity. To the extent that we think beyond what and who we are not, we tend to focus on the things that separate us: issues, identities, demographics and geography. We then organize ourselves into ever-narrower fragments with rigid categorical boundaries. Why? I'll venture to name a few reasons: * The mistaken belief that things get more manageable the more narrowly we focus on them. * The mistaken belief that people act in their rational self-interest (as we define it) if given appropriate facts. * Hostility to new ideas. * Failure to question basic assumptions and orthodoxies. * Fear of imagining plausible alternatives. * We have forgotten who we are. We have a pretty great story to tell. The country was founded by progressives and it is progressives who have struggled to make it better. They fought to abolish slavery, enfranchise women and end child labor. The progressive impulse brought down the original robber barons, and reined in corporate greed. Progressives came up with an authentic response to the Great Depression and coaxed the country to confront the dangers of institutionalized racism. Even now, in our weakened state, we are the ones pressing for an economy that works for everyone; a democracy that honors equality and respects human rights; a foreign policy that values global interdependence over unilateralism and peace over war; and for vital communities and the right relationship to the earth that sustains us. But somehow we've lost the narrative thread that ties it all together. We have to learn to tell a better story. We have to be bold and inspiring, to shift our orientation from problems to solutions. We have to understand that the values environment in which we are operating is increasingly hostile to the progressive project. And we have to learn how to navigate in that environment as we seek to transform it over time. We need a politics in which the current parties' agendas become irrelevant and both Democrats and Republicans are forced to govern as progressives, in the same way that both parties are now forced to govern as conservatives. Electoral politics are ultimately an expression of underlying cultural dynamics. Long-term cultural transformation, therefore, must be the first priority, with electoral politics as one vehicle we can use to achieve that goal. This is all achievable, but we don't have much time. Scientists roll out one horrifying scenario after another about the imminent collapse of natural systems. And we can't wish away the fact that a growing number of lunatics have weapons of mass destruction. What's really amazing is that current political discourse--and the media that promote it--carries on as if these facts don't matter. The world could end and we'd still be talking about which politician is more God-fearing, whether Michael Jackson is a pederast, or what GM's share price is on the Dow Jones. And there's the opening. We have the chance to be relevant because no one else is being relevant. When we stop worrying about a lot of seemingly separate problems, we begin to realize that there are people out there who are thinking seamlessly and brilliantly, taking action to transform corporations, coming up with whole new ways of conceptualizing problems and imagining solutions. Civil rights leaders in California, for example, are proposing public investment in a clean energy economy as a solution to the mass imprisonment of young African-American and Latino men and other deeply rooted problems affecting our inner cities. A small but growing number of corporate leaders are coming to understand that the whole system must be turned away from its blind and mechanical drive for profit. And we are building a critical mass of progressives who are re-orienting their work, appealing to shared values, speaking to aspiration and offering solutions instead of problems. Something nascent and powerful is happening out there. We need to keep watching, trusting our
[Biofuel] G-8 weakens draft on global warming -- Bush administration pushed for changes
See also: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8008 U.S. Resists Strong Summit Language on Global Warming June 20, 2005 - By John Heilprin, Associated Press http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2630 Fury over leaked G8 document Monday 20 June 2005 ... Every reference to the urgency of action or the need for real cuts in emissions has been deleted or challenged. Nothing in this text recognises the scale or urgency of the crisis of climate change. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31311/story.htm Climate Change Gains Crucial Ally in US Senate Reuters, USA: June 20, 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-5086008,00.html Climate change needs urgent action Press Association Monday June 20, 2005 11:48 AM ... Words will not be enough. The richest countries of the world as represented by the G8 have a responsibility to help the poorest. This is not just charity but a moral obligation. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=648282 Global warming in Africa: The hottest issue of all 20 June 2005 - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506190070jun19,1,2 440892.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hedctrack=1cset=true Chicago Tribune news : Nation/World G-8 weakens draft on global warming Bush administration pushed for changes By Andrew C. Revkin New York Times News Service Published June 19, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Drafts of a joint statement being prepared for the leaders of the world's major industrial powers show that the Bush administration has succeeded in removing language calling for prompt action to control global warming. The statement is being negotiated in advance of the annual Group of Eight summit, which is to be held next month in Scotland. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, president of the group this year, has sought to focus the summit on aid to Africa and climate change. The statement, first outlined last month by British officials, is meant to reflect the eight countries' shared concerns and plans regarding climate change. Drafts have been batted back and forth since mid-May. A newly disclosed version, the first showing specifically what changes were sought by the Bush administration, was provided to The New York Times on Friday by someone in Europe involved with shaping the British stance on the issue. It is dated May 27, and the revisions, many of which are reflected in a June 14 version, illustrate the broad gulf that has persisted between the U.S. and the group's other members: Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia. Several other drafts, showing changes but not indicating which countries sought them, have been released by environmental groups over the past few weeks. The June 14 draft was described in the European media earlier last week and in The Washington Post on Friday. Among the changes reflected in the May 27 draft was the deletion of an introductory statement, Our world is warming. The annotated U.S. copy of the document also offered comments such as we should avoid the term `targets' and we should leave the definition of what constitutes `ambitious' to each leader, given their respective national circumstances. Steve Sawyer, the climate-policy director for Greenpeace International, said the British might have erred in trying to use a forum like the G-8 to seek movement from President Bush on the issue. We've been telling them since last September, at least, that it's a laudable goal but don't build your strategy for the G-8 on the odds of the U.S. moving, because the odds are vanishingly small, Sawyer said. Bush has said global warming is too uncertain a matter to justify anything more than voluntary measures to slow growth in fossil-fuel emissions. ___ 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] The WSJ on Exxon and the global warming debate
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/06/the_wsj_on_exxo.html MoJo Blog: The WSJ on Exxon and the global warming debate Since Mother Jones, in late April, released our exposé on ExxonMobil's funding of global warming naysayers, http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html Exxon has been very much in the news. We learned more about the cozy relationship between the company and the Bush administration when the UK's Guardian revealed that Bush consulted with Exxon http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html before nixing the Kyoto climate change agreement. Next Philip A. Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned after it was revealed he watered down reports to obscure the links between climate change and fossil fuels. Cooney, the former ''climate team leader'' and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, was immediately hired by Exxon http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/06/utterly_discred. html after leaving the White House two weeks ago. Then last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story on how Exxon is still funding global warming skeptics http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/06/the_wsj_on_exxo. html and fighting regulations, even as many corporations have begun to grapple seriously with the implications of man-made climate change. In the midst of all of this, Mother Jones ran an ad in Friday's Washington Post urging Exxon to face the facts about global warming - and stop supporting junk science and fake journalism. The ad highlights the juiciest details of our May/June cover story. The WSJ on Exxon and the global warming debate The May issue of Mother Jones featured a terrific piece of reporting http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html by Chris Mooney on ExxonMobil's strategy on global warming, which has been to deny its reality while funding think tanks that cast doubt on the scientific consensus that climate change is real and largely human-influenced. In the same issue we had a piece by Ross Gelbspan http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/snowed.html scorching the US media for being M.I.A. on global warming. The Wall Street Journal today has a front-page article titled Exxon Chief Makes A Cold Calculation On Global Warming. (Subscribers only, I'm afraid.) It opens thusly: At Exxon Mobil Corp.'s laboratories here, there isn't a solar panel or windmill in sight. About the closest Exxon's scientists get to renewable energy is perfecting an oil that Exxon could sell to companies operating wind turbines. Oil giants such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group are trumpeting a better-safe-than-sorry approach to global warming. They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels. Not Exxon. Openly and unapologetically, the world's No. 1 oil company disputes the notion that fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. Along with the Bush administration, Exxon opposes the Kyoto accord and the very idea of capping global-warming emissions. Congress is debating an energy bill that may be amended to include a cap, but the administration and Exxon say the costs would be huge and the benefits uncertain. Exxon also contributes money to think tanks and other groups that agree with its stance. ... And continues: Exxon's approach to global warming typifies the bottom-line focus of its entire business. It is slogging away to improve the energy efficiency of its refineries -- primarily to cut costs, although this is also shaving global-warming emissions. But it says the business case for making more sweeping changes is still weak. It's a conservative, hard-nosed approach that has helped make Exxon the most profitable oil company in the world, with 2004 net income of $25 billion. ... Here's where it gets really good: Mr. Raymond disagrees [that Exxon should be investing significantly in renewable energy]. Spending shareholders' money to diversify into businesses that aren't yet profitable -- and that aim to solve a problem his scientists believe may not be significant -- strikes the Exxon chief as a sloppy way to run a company. If I were to ask you if you want to buy an insurance policy, you've got to ask yourself a couple questions. No. 1, what are you trying to insure against? And No. 2, what are you willing to pay on the premium? And I haven't heard a very good answer to either one of those, he says. His scientists? Oh yeah, his scientists. http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html Them. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ The Journal piece takes a very even-handed approach to the debate over global warming
Re: [Biofuel] Nice teeth but your leg has to come off..........
And what is the incidence of osteosarcoma compared to dental caries? Anyway. if you search PubMed for bassin eb you'll find Dr Bassin is the lead author on an article from 2004 entitled: Problems in exposure assessment of fluoride in drinking water. The primary conclusion in that 2004 paper was that Researchers need to consider limitations of using a secondary data source to estimate fluoride in drinking water, particularly in studies where exposure to fluoride is the primary exposure of interest. Curious, no? Why would she be first author on a paper that speaks directly to the validity of her dissertation work unless she herself had questions about her findings? With regard to the inability of various interested parties to get a hold of Dr Bassin's dissertation, I can't speak to the specifics of her case but I can speak to how dissertations are published in general. Master's theses and doctoral dissertations are typically bound at the expense of the student, meaning copies are very very rare (on the order of single digits.) For example, when I finished my MS at Cornell, one copy went to the grad school, one went to the rare books collection for archiving, one went to my advisor, and I kept 2 copies. Thus, if you wanted to actually read my bound thesis, you'd need to travel to Cornell yourself and read or photocopy it in the Special Collections reading room. That, or email me personally and hope I have a pdf copy available. Sometimes you can request a microfilm copy via University Microfilms Inc, but that is hit or miss. A quick search of UMI returns no hits for Dr Bessin's dissertation. In short, I don't see anything unseemly with the Fluoride Action Network needing to check out the copy from the Harvard Medical Library's Rare Book Collection. It's likely a simple matter of economics rather than a conspiracy. But that doesn't make for good copy... jh bmolloy wrote: Hi All, 'Specially for those who think good dentition comes with the water Bob. BOYS AT RISK FROM BONE TUMOURS, RESEARCH REVEALS By Bob Woffinden The Observer - UK 12 June 2005 Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls. New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19. In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children. About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water. The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer. Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs. The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase. 'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.' Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones. MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be
safety of sludge slightly crude was Re: [Biofuel] Biogas Bonanza for Third World Development
Greetings Keith, I like the explanation I ran across while researching aquaculture. If raw sewage is bad for the land, then so is the byproduct of methane digestion. Both the human body and the digester produce methane commonly referred to as farts in humans. Both do it at the same temperature and to think that the end product of one system is safer than the other is foolish. Bright Blessings, Kim At 09:12 AM 6/22/2005, you wrote: snip A common delusion (what were we just saying about chemistry and biology?). Valuable nutrients (N, P, K) it may indeed contain, but it's anaerobic - wrong forms of chemicals, wrong types of bugs, and the disease pathogens are not cut off by the anaerobic digestion process. If the soil is already fertile and rich in humus it might be okay, otherwise the sludge needs aerobic composting first, as one component of a compost pile. Anaerobic digestion needs to go together with aerobic (thermophilic) composting. That's the way it's done in Nepal, eg: snip Keith ___ 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] Corolla's Fuel Pump
Filipe, The short answer is yes, there are compatability issues at the gas station pump. The long answer is that many C-Stores are indepedently owned but use the brand name of their petroleum supplier. Thus they sorta have to comply with the parent company guidelines. The parent company has guidelines as to which kind of fuel they can offer. In many cases the old motor is only covered by the engine manufacturers warranty AND the warranty only works if you use the recommended fuel in the owners manual. Thus, if any warranty issues are at risk because you are using a fuel (biofuel) that is not in the owners manual then there is a compatability issue albeit up for debate because the biofuel has many lubricants. In the year 2000-2003, I worked for a major petroleum company and handled energy conservation programs for their C-Store Gas Stations. Many C-Store Gas Stations are independently owned but use the parent company logo and brands. In my case, the ownder wanted to offer biodiesel at one of his pumps. But the parent company preferred he not do that because the engine manufacturers warranty would not cover if biofuel used in the cusotmers fuel tank. However, this was three years ago and things may be completely different in 2005. I recommend you read other Biofuel answers to your inquiry. Thank you. Phillip Wolfe --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello again, I own an Toyota Corolla 2,0D van (1993), I was tolded that diesel fuel pumps, in older diesel vehicles, aren't compatible whith the use of biodiesel. Someone said to me that the rubber parts inside the fuel pump will be damaged and they aren't replaceable. A fuel pump is a very expensive part (hundreds of euros). Can anyone tell me if that's true? Thank you Filipe Paulette __ Continua a preferir gastar mais? Compare o preço da sua ligação à Internet http://acesso.portugalmail.pt/compare ___ 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/ __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ 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] Corolla's Fuel Pump
Hello Filipe Hello again, I own an Toyota Corolla 2,0D van (1993), I was tolded that diesel fuel pumps, in older diesel vehicles, aren't compatible whith the use of biodiesel. Someone said to me that the rubber parts inside the fuel pump will be damaged and they aren't replaceable. A fuel pump is a very expensive part (hundreds of euros). Can anyone tell me if that's true? I doubt it very much. Okay, no, it's not true. By 1993 Japanese fuel pumps did not contain any rubber, especially not those exported to Europe - compatability issues with the European ULSD diesel fuel had already ensured that. Our Toyota diesel is dated 1990, it's been running on nothing else but 100% biodiesel for two and a half years and there is no problem with the injector pump seals, nor with anything else. In fact we've never heard of a real, certifiable, genuine problem with biodiesel causing failure of injector pump seals. Fuel line problems are rare enough, and seal problems apparently non-existent - an industry myth, we think. Well, perhaps they have to be over-cautious. We can afford to be more realistic (and to both make and wash our fuel properly, which the biodiesel industry certainly doesn't always do). Also I don't think it's true that the pump seals aren't replaceable. Go ahead and do it Filipe, I'm sure you'll be just fine, and so will the Corolla. Best wishes Keith Thank you Filipe Paulette ___ 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: safety of sludge slightly crude was Re: [Biofuel] Biogas Bonanza for Third World Development
Greetings Kim Greetings Keith, I like the explanation I ran across while researching aquaculture. If raw sewage is bad for the land, then so is the byproduct of methane digestion. Both the human body and the digester produce methane commonly referred to as farts in humans. Both do it at the same temperature and to think that the end product of one system is safer than the other is foolish. Indeed! I also like that explanation. However, I did say you can get away with it if the soil is already fertile - rich in humus with very high counts of a balanced soil flora, and no other problems like poor drainage and so on (in which case there won't be very high counts of a balanced soil flora). Such soil is more or less an active compost pile in itself - anything dead vanishes rather fast, and pathogens do not thrive. The old way in, eg, England, and here in Japan as well as many other places, was to move the Thunderbox (the backyard privy) over the garden, successively covering up the hole beneath with fresh soil; crops followed a bit later. The results can be very good, as I've seen for myself quite a few times. George Vivian Poore researched all this in England in 1894, with rather conclusive results. See the section on his book Essays on Rural Hygiene at our Humanure page: http://journeytoforever.org/compost_humanure.html Humanure Another book that's in the scanning queue for uploading to the Small Farms Library. But all this is a different matter to using biogas sludge as a fertiliser, or indeed raw manure slurry of any kind. Asking for trouble. I've seen farm fields in England covered in dead worms the day after the slurry truck from the local pig factory farm had called. The farmer didn't think it mattered. The truck driver, who was a friend of mine, just looked embarrassed and changed the subject. And sewage sludge is not just humanure, would that it were. It's much nastier than that. http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy.html Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton Best wishes Keith Bright Blessings, Kim At 09:12 AM 6/22/2005, you wrote: snip A common delusion (what were we just saying about chemistry and biology?). Valuable nutrients (N, P, K) it may indeed contain, but it's anaerobic - wrong forms of chemicals, wrong types of bugs, and the disease pathogens are not cut off by the anaerobic digestion process. If the soil is already fertile and rich in humus it might be okay, otherwise the sludge needs aerobic composting first, as one component of a compost pile. Anaerobic digestion needs to go together with aerobic (thermophilic) composting. That's the way it's done in Nepal, eg: snip Keith ___ 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] Corolla's Fuel Pump
Keith Addison wrote: Hello Filipe I doubt it very much. Okay, no, it's not true. By 1993 Japanese fuel pumps did not contain any rubber, especially not those exported to Europe - compatability issues with the European ULSD diesel fuel had already ensured that. Our Toyota diesel is dated 1990, it's been running on nothing else but 100% biodiesel for two and a half years and there is no problem with the injector pump seals, nor with anything else. In fact we've never heard of a real, certifiable, genuine problem with biodiesel causing failure of injector pump seals. Fuel line problems are rare enough, and seal problems apparently non-existent - an industry myth, we think. Well, perhaps they have to be over-cautious. We can afford to be more realistic (and to both make and wash our fuel properly, which the biodiesel industry certainly doesn't always do). Also I don't think it's true that the pump seals aren't replaceable. Go ahead and do it Filipe, I'm sure you'll be just fine, and so will the Corolla. Best wishes Keith I've spent weeks since my first batch of corn-based BD came out of the processor trying to determine what will need to be done to my Datsun pickup before I get to use B-100 in it. It's a 1981, and although it's running alright on B-20, I have gotten the lengths of fuel line I'll need to replace to run on 100%. I do have the manual for this vehicle, but only sketchy information on the fuel pump, and seals aren't mentioned. It's my only vehicle, so I will have difficulty removing the seals for comparison at the auto parts store, unless I disassemble it in their parking lot. Has anyone else out there done a conversion on the same engine (vintage) as I'm dealing with? What parts are needed to complete? Do I just need a new pump? Are there rubber impeller seals inside it? (manual says that the pump should not be disassembled by anyone less than a certified Datsun Diesel mechanic. and I'm not one of those...) The manual indicates that I have a Diesel KIKI-Bosch In-line type and gives a somewhat cut-away diagram of it, but no exploded view, and very few of its parts are labeled or numbered... Anyone with experience on this, or knows of a connection to Datsun that can give me the answer I need will be greatly appreciated, and sought after! doug swanson ___ 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] Supreme Court Upholds State Eminent Domain Rules
It would appear to me that the final nail is being driven into the coffin of the old Republic."The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. Supreme Court Upholds State Eminent Domain Rules NewsMax.com WiresTuesday, June 21, 2005 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property cannot count on federal courts for help. Land rights is a major issue at the high court this year, and so far the justices have made it tougher for people to win lawsuits claiming that local and state laws amount to an unconstitutional "taking." The biggest of three cases dealing with government authority to seize properties will be decided in the next week, before the Supreme Court begins a three-month break. In Monday's decision, the justices ruled against a historic San Francisco hotel that wanted to convert rooms - previously designated for permanent residents - to accommodate tourists. The city had restrictions on hotel changes, as part of an ordinance intended to preserve housing for the poor, disabled and elderly. When the San Remo Hotel was ordered to pay $567,000, it sued in state court and narrowly lost at the California Supreme Court in 2002. Then-California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown supported the hotel and wrote a strongly worded dissent, used by some senators in opposing her recent elevation to a federal appeals court. "Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she wrote. "Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves, it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government." There were no harsh words in Monday's 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that found the 62-room hotel could not pursue a federal case because state courts had already addressed all the issues. "This is a big victory for local governments," said Nicole Garnett, a Notre Dame law professor. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in a rare admission, wrote in a concurring opinion that he and his colleagues may have made a mistake 20 years ago when they told people in such property fights that they must exhaust state court options before filing federal suits. Rehnquist, who has cancer and is expected to retire soon, seemed to encourage a challenger to step forward and give the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider. Joined by three other conservative justices, Rehnquist said, "Further reflection and experience lead me to think that the justifications for its state-litigation requirement are suspect, while its impact on takings plaintiffs is dramatic." Eric Claeys, a former Rehnquist clerk who is now a law professor at Saint Louis University, said state court fights in takings claims can last for years. In some states, it would be quicker and better strategy to go straight to federal court, if the Supreme Court allows it, he said. The ruling was the second in a land rights case. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii did not overstep its authority in putting caps on the rent paid by dealer-run gas stations, part of an effort to control gas costs. The one pending land rights case will determine when local officials may take people's homes and businesses through eminent domain to make way for economic development projects like shopping malls. The government is likely to win that case too. The Monday case is San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 04-340. © 2005 The Associated Press ___ 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] Corolla's Fuel Pump
Hello Doug Keith Addison wrote: Hello Filipe I doubt it very much. Okay, no, it's not true. By 1993 Japanese fuel pumps did not contain any rubber, especially not those exported to Europe - compatability issues with the European ULSD diesel fuel had already ensured that. Our Toyota diesel is dated 1990, it's been running on nothing else but 100% biodiesel for two and a half years and there is no problem with the injector pump seals, nor with anything else. In fact we've never heard of a real, certifiable, genuine problem with biodiesel causing failure of injector pump seals. Fuel line problems are rare enough, and seal problems apparently non-existent - an industry myth, we think. Well, perhaps they have to be over-cautious. We can afford to be more realistic (and to both make and wash our fuel properly, which the biodiesel industry certainly doesn't always do). Also I don't think it's true that the pump seals aren't replaceable. Go ahead and do it Filipe, I'm sure you'll be just fine, and so will the Corolla. Best wishes Keith I've spent weeks since my first batch of corn-based BD came out of the processor trying to determine what will need to be done to my Datsun pickup before I get to use B-100 in it. It's a 1981, and although it's running alright on B-20, I have gotten the lengths of fuel line I'll need to replace to run on 100%. I do have the manual for this vehicle, but only sketchy information on the fuel pump, and seals aren't mentioned. It's my only vehicle, so I will have difficulty removing the seals for comparison at the auto parts store, unless I disassemble it in their parking lot. Has anyone else out there done a conversion on the same engine (vintage) as I'm dealing with? What parts are needed to complete? Do I just need a new pump? Are there rubber impeller seals inside it? (manual says that the pump should not be disassembled by anyone less than a certified Datsun Diesel mechanic. and I'm not one of those...) The manual indicates that I have a Diesel KIKI-Bosch In-line type and gives a somewhat cut-away diagram of it, but no exploded view, and very few of its parts are labeled or numbered... Anyone with experience on this, or knows of a connection to Datsun that can give me the answer I need will be greatly appreciated, and sought after! doug swanson If you have a parts number for the pump you should be able to get Viton seals for it. Have you looked for KIKI-Bosch information online? I think any good diesel workshop should be able to do the job for you, shouldn't need to be specifically Datsun, though of course they'd say that. Maybe not if all they've ever seen is Stanadynes, but that probably wouldn't be the case. BUT there are plenty of old Japanese diesels that people have used and are using B100 in, and we still don't hear of a rotten pump seal except in fairytales. Why don't you just do it? In the apparently unlikely event that you actually do succeed in producing a failed pump seal after all this time it's unlikely to be a sudden catastrophe, you should have warning enough to take remedial action. Does anyone here disagree with this? Pipe up, if so, please do - if you think I'm being too optimistic please say so (and why). All best Keith ___ 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] Corolla's Fuel Pump
Hello Filipe, Keith, Doug all. If your BioD is properly made (i.e. a complete reaction) , more importantly well washed (typically 3 or 4 washes) I see no reason to fear pump failure even in early pumps. The car companies say otherwise to cover their backs, likewise the oil companies want you to keep buying their diesel. Having the pump rebuilt with a Viton kit in my mind is not necessary. I had a bosch pump for a ford transit rebuilt (at a cost of £150 on the cheap I provided the kit) so it would take bioD, that van then failed its mot on a badly corroded chassis, I then got another van in the meantime that had not been converted that's been running fine for 2 years nearly, admittedly not on B100, but approx B30. (I hope to use the old engine with the rebuilt pump as a co-gen system running on B100 - but thats a project I'm still trying to make time for - where have we heard that before..lol) If you choose to have your pump rebuilt with a Viton kit you will have to take it to a diesel specialist you may have to get your rebuild kit from the USA (no one here in the UK had heard of Viton but I guess that may have changed now, I don't know. It's not a job for the DIY'er - once rebuilt the pump has to be calibrated on a special machine. Without calibration the pump will either over fuel, under fuel or be mistimed. Hope that helps good luck with it, let us know how you get on. Best regards Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 June 2005 19:18 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Corolla's Fuel Pump Hello Doug Keith Addison wrote: Hello Filipe I doubt it very much. Okay, no, it's not true. By 1993 Japanese fuel pumps did not contain any rubber, especially not those exported to Europe - compatability issues with the European ULSD diesel fuel had already ensured that. Our Toyota diesel is dated 1990, it's been running on nothing else but 100% biodiesel for two and a half years and there is no problem with the injector pump seals, nor with anything else. In fact we've never heard of a real, certifiable, genuine problem with biodiesel causing failure of injector pump seals. Fuel line problems are rare enough, and seal problems apparently non-existent - an industry myth, we think. Well, perhaps they have to be over-cautious. We can afford to be more realistic (and to both make and wash our fuel properly, which the biodiesel industry certainly doesn't always do). Also I don't think it's true that the pump seals aren't replaceable. Go ahead and do it Filipe, I'm sure you'll be just fine, and so will the Corolla. Best wishes Keith I've spent weeks since my first batch of corn-based BD came out of the processor trying to determine what will need to be done to my Datsun pickup before I get to use B-100 in it. It's a 1981, and although it's running alright on B-20, I have gotten the lengths of fuel line I'll need to replace to run on 100%. I do have the manual for this vehicle, but only sketchy information on the fuel pump, and seals aren't mentioned. It's my only vehicle, so I will have difficulty removing the seals for comparison at the auto parts store, unless I disassemble it in their parking lot. Has anyone else out there done a conversion on the same engine (vintage) as I'm dealing with? What parts are needed to complete? Do I just need a new pump? Are there rubber impeller seals inside it? (manual says that the pump should not be disassembled by anyone less than a certified Datsun Diesel mechanic. and I'm not one of those...) The manual indicates that I have a Diesel KIKI-Bosch In-line type and gives a somewhat cut-away diagram of it, but no exploded view, and very few of its parts are labeled or numbered... Anyone with experience on this, or knows of a connection to Datsun that can give me the answer I need will be greatly appreciated, and sought after! doug swanson If you have a parts number for the pump you should be able to get Viton seals for it. Have you looked for KIKI-Bosch information online? I think any good diesel workshop should be able to do the job for you, shouldn't need to be specifically Datsun, though of course they'd say that. Maybe not if all they've ever seen is Stanadynes, but that probably wouldn't be the case. BUT there are plenty of old Japanese diesels that people have used and are using B100 in, and we still don't hear of a rotten pump seal except in fairytales. Why don't you just do it? In the apparently unlikely event that you actually do succeed in producing a failed pump seal after all this time it's unlikely to be a sudden catastrophe, you should have warning enough to take remedial action. Does anyone here disagree with this? Pipe up, if so, please do - if you think I'm being too optimistic please say so (and why). All best Keith ___
RE: [Biofuel] Brazil's ethanol effort
What you sagest is harmful to the bush family and most of the politicians that are so heavily evolved in dino products. You know what will happen if you have the weasel watching the hen house. I have recently done some reading on the ethanol as a fuel of choice. But it seems that those in tropical climates have an advantage. It seems that gas engines run better and start in a hotter climate. And those of us that live in a varying climate could have some difficulty with ethanol in the colder time of year. Do you think I am wrong? What is you opinion. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MH Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:33 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Brazil's ethanol effort Brazil's ethanol effort helping lead to oil self-sufficiency By Marla Dickerson Los Angeles Times June 17, 2005 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002339093_brazilfuel17.ht ml Top producers 2004 ethanol production (in billions of gallons) 4.0 Brazil 3.4 USA 1.0 China 0.5 India 0.2 France Source: F.O.Licht, Renewable Fuels Assn. SÃO PAULO, Brazil While Americans fume at high gasoline prices, Carolina Rossini is the essence of cool at the pump. Like tens of thousands of her fellow citizens, she is running her zippy red Fiat on pure ethanol extracted from Brazilian sugar cane. On a recent morning in Brazil's largest city, the clear liquid was selling for less than half the price of gasoline, a sweet deal for the 26-year-old lawyer. You save money and you don't pollute as much, said Rossini, who paid about $18 to fill her nearly empty tank. And it's a good thing that the product is made here. Three decades after the first oil shock rocked its economy, Brazil has nearly shaken its dependence on foreign oil. More vulnerable than even the United States when the 1973 Middle East oil embargo sent gas prices soaring, Brazil vowed to kick its import habit. Now the country that once relied on outsiders to supply 80 percent of its crude is projected to be self-sufficient within a few years. Developing its own oil reserves was crucial to Brazil's long-term strategy. Its domestic petroleum production has increased sevenfold since 1980. But the Western Hemisphere's second-largest economy also has embraced renewable energy with a vengeance. Today about 40 percent of all the fuel that Brazilians pump into their vehicles is ethanol, known in Brazil as alcohol, compared with about 3 percent in the United States. No other nation is using ethanol on such a scale. The change wasn't easy or cheap. But 30 years later, Brazil is reaping the return on its investment in energy security while the United States writes checks for $50-a-barrel foreign oil. Much of Brazil's ethanol usage stems from a government mandate requiring all gasoline to contain 25 percent alcohol. Vehicles that ran solely on ethanol fell out of favor in Brazil in the 1990s because of an alcohol shortage that pushed drivers back to gas-powered cars. But thanks to a new generation of vehicles that can run on gasoline, ethanol or any combination of those two fuels, more motorists such as Rossini are filling up with 100 percent alcohol again to beat high gas prices. Economic benefits The exploding popularity of these flex-fuel vehicles is reverberating across Brazil's farming sector. Private investors are channeling billions of dollars into sugar and alcohol production, creating much-needed jobs in the countryside. Environmentalists support the expansion of this clean, renewable fuel that has helped improve air quality in Brazil's cities. Consumers are tickled to have a choice at the filling station. Officials from other nations are flocking to Brazil to examine its methods. Most will find Brazil's sugar-fuel strategy impossible to replicate. Few countries possess the acreage and climate needed to produce sugar cane in gargantuan quantities, much less the infrastructure to get it to the pump. Still, some Brazilians say their government's commitment to ditching imports and to jump-starting homegrown energy industries were the real keys to Brazil's success. It's a combination of strong public policy and the free market, said Mauricio Tolmasquim, president of a federal energy-research agency based in Rio de Janeiro. That's the Brazilian secret. Brazil's fortunes have been tied to sugar since the Portuguese conquerors found that their tropical colony boasted ideal conditions for cultivating the tall, grassy plant. Brazilians produce and eat more cane sugar than any people on the planet, so the notion of using it to power their vehicles was a natural. After all, Henry Ford once viewed ethanol, which can be made from corn, barley and other crops, as a strong contender to fuel the Model T. A matter of life and death Like much of the rest of the world, Brazil guzzled imported crude until the 1970s
[Biofuel] Datsun pump rebuild options
Thanks for all the replies! I guess, being the cautious type that I am, I will try upping the percentage of Bio to Dino ratio, and keep the spare filter and tools required to access it handy. As far as what might happen if the pump goes out, guess I'll coast to a stop and ride the thumb back. Perhaps it won't catastrophically fail suddenly, give me enough warning and time to turn around and get home. (I have this vivid imagination of what it might do... spraying fuel everywhere under the hood... ) Thanks for the encouraging words and comments, and I'll keep you apprised of the progress. Thanks again for the advice, doug swanson ___ 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] Brazil's ethanol effort
Assuming that the problem in cool conditions is fuel vapourization and mixture formation, I expect that inlet injection (fairly common now) would work, and that if it didn't, direct injection would work. I don't know how ethanol and injection pumps get along, but I think that if there is a problem it could be beaten. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, DERICK GIORCHINO wrote: I have recently done some reading on the ethanol as a fuel of choice. But it seems that those in tropical climates have an advantage. It seems that gas engines run better and start in a hotter climate. And those of us that live in a varying climate could have some difficulty with ethanol in the colder time of year. Do you think I am wrong? What is you opinion. [snip] ___ 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] Bards of the Powerful
Hi All, Firstly thanks to John Hayes for clarifying what is involvedaccessingresearch sources (Posted under: "Nice teeth but your leg might have to come off"). On another tack, here's an interesting angle on the political impact ofrock stars Bob. Published on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 by the Guardian/UK Bards of the PowerfulFar from Challenging the G8's Role in Africa's Poverty, Geldof and Bono are Giving Legitimacy to Those Responsible by George Monbiot 'Hackers bombard financial networks", the Financial Times reported on Thursday. Government departments and businesses "have been bombarded with a sophisticated electronic attack for several months". It is being organized by an Asian criminal network, and is "aimed at stealing commercially and economically sensitive information". By Thursday afternoon, the story had mutated. "G8 hackers target banks and ministries", said the headline in the Evening Standard. Their purpose was "to cripple the systems as a protest before the G8 summit." The Standard advanced no evidence to justify this metamorphosis. This is just one instance of the reams of twaddle about the dark designs of the G8 protesters codded up by the corporate press. That the same stories have been told about almost every impending public protest planned in the past 30 years and that they have invariably fallen apart under examination appears to present no impediment to their repetition. The real danger at the G8 summit is not that the protests will turn violent - the appetite for that pretty well disappeared in September 2001 - but that they will be far too polite. Let me be more precise. The danger is that we will follow the agenda set by Bono and Bob Geldof. The two musicians are genuinely committed to the cause of poverty reduction. They have helped secure aid and debt-relief packages worth billions of dollars. They have helped to keep the issue of global poverty on the political agenda. They have mobilized people all over the world. These are astonishing achievements, and it would be stupid to disregard them. The problem is that they have assumed the role of arbiters: of determining on our behalf whether the leaders of the G8 nations should be congratulated or condemned for the decisions they make. They are not qualified to do so, and I fear that they will sell us down the river. Take their response to the debt-relief package for the world's poorest countries that the G7 finance ministers announced 10 days ago. Anyone with a grasp of development politics who had read and understood the ministers' statement could see that the conditions it contains - enforced liberalization and privatization - are as onerous as the debts it relieves. But Bob Geldof praised it as "a victory for the millions of people in the campaigns around the world" and Bono pronounced it "a little piece of history". Like many of those who have been trying to highlight the harm done by such conditions - especially the African campaigners I know - I feel betrayed by these statements. Bono and Geldof have made our job more difficult. I understand the game they're playing. They believe that praising the world's most powerful men is more persuasive than criticizing them. The problem is that in doing so they turn the political campaign developed by the global justice movement into a philanthropic one. They urge the G8 leaders to do more to help the poor. But they say nothing about ceasing to do harm. It is true that Bono has criticized George Bush for failing to deliver the money he promised for Aids victims in Africa. But he has never, as far as I can discover, said a word about the capture of that funding by "faith-based groups": the code Bush uses for fundamentalist Christian missions that preach against the use of condoms. Indeed, Bono seems to be comfortable in the company of fundamentalists. Jesse Helms, the racist, homophobic former senator who helped engineer the switch to faith-based government, is, according to his aides, "very much a fan of Bono". This is testament to the singer's remarkable powers of persuasion. But if people like Helms are friends, who are the enemies? Is exploitation something that just happens? Does it have no perpetrators? This, of course, is how George Bush and Tony Blair would like us to see it. Blair speaks about Africa as if its problems are the result of some inscrutable force of nature, compounded only by the corruption of its dictators. He laments that "it is the only continent in the world over the past few decades that has moved backwards". But he has never acknowledged that - as even the World Bank's studies show - it has moved backwards partly because of the neoliberal policies it has been forced to follow by the powerful nations: policies that have just been extended by the debt-relief package Bono and Geldof praised. Listen to these men - Bush, Blair and their two bards - and you could forget that the rich nations
Re: [Biofuel] Corolla's Fuel Pump
while on the subect of fuel pumps and rubber i run a 1993 b5.9 cummins turbo diesel ime just starting out on bio diesel,but remember reading somewhere a statement that cummins do not reccomend use of bio in this motor,does anyone know why or if its true terry ___ 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] Environmentalism is dead. What's next?
why should the yanks care they will have killed all the rest of the world in a few years anyway . they don't even elect their president he just pays the judges off and he is in . any country that does this at the top has no hope for the people . unless there is a ground swell of change this corruption will continue . the rest of the world will suffer a horrific end . no wonder the world hates the yanks they even do acts of terror on their own people . get a gripe guys and rise up and make a change for good . good luck Neil -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:13 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Environmentalism is dead. What's next? http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2171/ In These Times June 21, 2005 Environmentalism is dead. What's next? By Adam Werbach Sidebar The Pig People Don't Talk to the Chicken People When the U.S. Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this past March, a casual observer might have expected the leaders of the environmental movement to curl up into the fetal position and start making plans to build their own personal arks. Instead, within hours, e-mails from the leaders of the nation's environmental groups quickly spread out to their members, announcing their defeat. I am not going to soft-pedal today's defeat, wrote John Adams to the Natural Resource Defense Council's mailing list. It is distressing that pro-oil forces, significantly strengthened by last November's election, were able to pass this terrible bill in the Senate, where we've blocked them before. Similar sentiment was echoed by John Flicker, president of the National Audubon Society, who wrote this to his staff and board: Over the last several years we have faced one challenge after another defending the Refuge, including a similar vote in the last Congress which we won. Decidedly missing from environmental leaders' post-defeat e-mails, however, was any admission that it was time to go back to the drawing board. A vaguely post-coital glow emanated from conservatives in the wake of their 2004 electoral victories, which had given them the leverage to trounce the greatest symbol of America's uncompleted environmental agenda. Since the 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--the 1.5 million acre area that comprises the breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou Herd--had been left in limbo. With the highly symbolic battle over the Arctic Refuge won, conservatives are now free to kick-start America's nuclear power binge, expand coal-bed methane mining in the Rocky Mountain West and ensure that no serious efforts to combat global warming will ever see the light of day. The loss of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is yet one more piece of evidence that environmentalism, as a political movement, is exhausted. The signs of environmentalism's death are all around us. Environmentalists speak in terms of technical policies, not vision and values. Environmentalists propose 20th century solutions to 21st century problems. Environmentalists are failing to attract young people, the physical embodiment of the future, to our cause. Environmentalists are failing to attract the disenfranchised, the disempowered, the dispossessed and the disengaged. Environmentalists treat our rigid mental categories of what is environmental and what is not as things rather than as social and political tools to organize the public. Most of all, environmentalism is no longer capable of generating the power it needs to deal with the world's most serious ecological problem--namely, global warming. Over the past year, I, along with Michael Shellenberger, Ted Nordhaus and Peter Teague, whose work appears on these pages, have made the argument that environmentalism is dead in America. The purpose of describing the environmental movement as dead is to allow the space for a new movement to grow--a new movement that does not set arbitrary limitations for what is considered an environmental issue, in service of building a larger progressive movement. It's time for environmentalists to step outside the limits of an artificially narrow discourse to articulate a more expansive, more inclusive and more compelling vision for the future. In doing so, they will cease to be environmentalists and start to become American progressives. The problems facing environmentalists are not unique to environmentalism. The failure of the environmental movement is symptomatic of the failure of most liberal social movements, including the labor, civil rights and women's movements. All have failed to build an aspirational narrative for America. For at least the last 25 years, environmentalists have joined American liberals in defining themselves according to a set of problems, whether they be class, race, gender or the
[Biofuel] VW Diesel
Has anyone ever converted a VW diesel to run on leftover oil from restaurants or fast foods like Krispy Kreeme and McDonalds etc... I'm about to do it and want to follow the lead of someone else who's done it. Thanks. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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/
