date:20050707



Ken,

There are many samples of orphan babies of one animal, that have been fed 
and raised by the mother of other different animals.


Hakan

At 06:15 AM 7/7/2005, you wrote:

FWIW - My cat drinks milk from cows.

Derek

 -- Original message --
From: Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Keith,

 Your make many points that give me reason for pause.  However, I can
 wait for someone else to do something about the problems that exist or I
 can do something myself - done!  The majority of U.S. citizens will
 continue to eat meat and larger quantities than responsible and probably
 of the cheapest factory farmed variety.  I think that the animals not
 being raised for my personal consumption will benefit everyone more than
 were I to eat meat because of the benefit that it might hold for
 fertilization.  Hopefully,  I can offset the over consuption and
 thoughtless consumption of one other person.  And we all know that we
 can't change anyone else.  I have always thought of this as my
 contribution to the environment - hopefully just one of many.

 A point of interest, though,  I don't know of any animal aside from
 humans that consume the milk of another animal, though, I'm sure there
 probably is at least one.  Can someone name one?  However, the concept
 of consuming the lactic fluids from a bovine seems rather bizarre.
 Those which are intended for its offspring as all milk is.  I'm pretty
 sure that I can do without bovine hormones and antibodies.

 Take care,
 Ken

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

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again



Robert,

We tolerate milk well, as long as we regularly drink it. If one stop to 
drink milk for a long period, it is common that the tolerance goes down and 
often the stomach will react violently against starting again. Often the 
body develop an allergy against milk products, after a long time without it.


Hakan

At 06:23 AM 7/7/2005, you wrote:

Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:


A point of interest, though,  I don't know of any animal aside from 
humans that consume the milk of another animal, though, I'm sure there 
probably is at least one.  Can someone name one?


I have cats that like goat milk.  Dogs will drink just about 
anything.  It's a question of access, really.  I suppose a fish swimming 
near a nursing whale may ingest the milk of another creature, and if you 
leave a bit of milk on the counter, you'll discover an amazing variety of 
small creatures that thrive within it.


 However, the concept of consuming the lactic fluids from a bovine seems 
rather bizarre.

Those which are intended for its offspring as all milk is.


Why is this bizarre?  An adult cow produces more milk than her 
offspring needs, so why shouldn't we benefit from the excess?  The same 
is true of goats and camels.  It's true that some people don't tolerate 
milk very well, but others enjoy it on cereal or in drinks well into 
their senior years.  Humans are opportunistic eaters capable of consuming 
and thriving on an incredibly wide variety of foods. Some people eat the 
gonads of shellfish, and some species of fish have to be carefully cooked 
so that their flesh does not kill the consumer.  (How did we ever figure 
that one out?)  The Masai drink the blood of their animals.  Is that 
better, or worse?  Does it matter?




 I'm pretty sure that I can do without bovine hormones and antibodies.


Perhaps, but do you have any evidence to support the implied 
contention that natural bovine antibodies and hormones are detrimental to 
human health?  Certainly the factory farm system that requires 
antibiotics, growth hormone injections and protein supplements introduces 
potential harm to our food supply.  I know many Canadians who won't drink 
U.S. milk for that reason.


robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/




___
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] Interesting Link

2005-07-07 Thread Robb Hensley

Keith,

I thought the list might enjoy this link from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/04/eco.car/index.html

Kindest Regards,

Robb Hensley
___
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] emissions

2005-07-07 Thread john owens

here's a tought

What will happen if the majority of the waste vegtable oil in the
world is being used for biodiesel which isnt curently being burned and
is absorbing some of the co2 being produced by mineral diesel and
production and mineral oil consumption growes. Will this not cause an
increase in co2 in atmospher!

___
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] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

2005-07-07 Thread Ryan Hall

In the diamond industry, DeBeers Diamonds owns
about 90% of the diamond mines in the world. They do this, and it is no
secret. They give out a vry limited number ofcontracts to
diamond cutters and suppliers. Furthermore, they restrict the number of
diamonds and quality put onto the market in order to control price. Of
course the people who win a contract with them want another one next year, so
they pay well to get it, then they charge well to keep it. It would be
absolutely incomprehensible if the oil industry didn't do this.

how do people swallow this bunk? by the
same reasoning, oil should have surpassed $75/bbl the very day we invaded
iraq.

Good point.

- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 7:29
PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] ASPO on the
Economic near-Future

i've never heard this term of 'the bilderbergers' before,
butidon't find teh notion too farfetched. more likely to me
that their idea of safeguarding supply is simply to make it more expensive,
regardless of whether it provokes economic downturn or depression. take
the fact that oil prices spiked again simply because of this tropical storm in
the gulf right now; the rationale being that it could disrupt supply.

how do people swallow this bunk? by the same reasoning, oil should
have surpassed $75/bbl the very day we invaded iraq.

as far as your last comment is concerned, isn't it interesting that left
wing parties and labor movements were far more widespread and mainstream
*prior to (and during)* the great depression than *after* (this is especially
true of the situation in the u.s.a.).?

-chris b.
-Original Message-From: Ken Provost
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Mon, 04
Jul 2005 17:52:06 -0700Subject: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic
near-Future

From the latest ASPO Newsletter:

http://www.peakoil.net/

Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over
the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard
the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's
hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the
population will be forced to dramatically cut down their
spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to
the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do.

I know, your eyes glaze over when you hear anything about
the Bilderbergers :-) Interesting idea, tho. My Dad was
poor enough in the Great Depression that hey traded with
their Polish neighbors for sauerkraut and potatoes. OTOH,
my Mom was sort of aristocracy, and the same event hardly
even broke their stride! Funny how economic downturn may
even be in the best interest of the world's richest

-K

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___Biofuel mailing
listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel
at Journey to
Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the
combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home ?



Marc,

Bears are dependent on vegetarian food, not salmon. On occasion they do 
feast on salmon, during the short period that the salmon returns to its 
spawning ground. If bears were dependent in any way on the salmon diet, 
they would go hungry most of the year and only exist in very small 
geographic areas.


It is not only the sediments that destroy streams and lakes, more often it 
is a combination of industrial pollution carried by rain and the soil, the 
pollution does not get filtered and goes directly into the streams, which 
make the water polluted and acid, killing all fish.


Hakan

At 07:26 AM 7/7/2005, you wrote:

Hi Joe

Possibly I am blinded by fear mongering and misinformation by folks like 
David Suzuki.  Could you please provide me with some examples and evidence 
of this misinformation.  Here is a link to the David Suzuki 
Foundation.. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Solutions/
Maybe I have misunderstood your opinions, but there doesn't seem to exist 
much of a distinction between your views of current forestry practises and 
that of what David Suzuki preaches(which you do not like).  You cite 
clearcutting as a negative, selective logging as an ecologically 
sustainable method of harvesting, and protecting old growth forests as 
beneficial.  If you choose to use the provided link, you will find the 
same sentiments.
Clearcutting results in a more plentiful food supply for bears... is 
not totally accurate.  What about the percentage of bears that depend on 
salmon for food?  As you previously pointed out, clearcutting causes soil 
erosion.   Sediment is washed into streams and rivers which results in 
disrupted salmon spawning grounds.  I would guess that this has a negative 
effect on bears that rely on salmon as a food source.  Possibly this could 
result in a bear attempting to break into someone's home for food.
I certainly do not want to see all logging in our country put to and 
end.  Just a sustainable system put into place.  Of interest, which many 
are probably aware of, the Forest Stewardship Council provides/sets 
sustainable standards and practises that forestry product manufacturers 
can meet in order to meet FSC certification.  If you will be purchasing 
lumber in the future, investigate FSC's policies.  It may be a better 
option for you.   http://www.fsc.org/en/about


Peace

Marc








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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Bulking out diesel

2005-07-07 Thread John




Is it true you can bulk out dinodiesel with a mix 
of veg oil and white/methylated spirit? Has anybody tried it? Did it 
work?
___
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] Pimentel is at it again


Perhaps of interest:

David Pimentel
Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]

Best wishes

Keith



Hello John

Thanks to a post at TDIclub, I discovered that Pimentel has 
released yet another report on ethanol. Looking at the dates below, 
he's a month ahead of schedule this year.


You're right John, every year I have to do an update on it at our website:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
Is ethanol energy-efficient?

Thanks for the links.


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/Pimentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html

I can't speak to this newest report, but as long time readers of 
this list already know, Pimental's work has been repeatedly 
critiqued, and one of the main compliants it that he uses out of 
date numbers for yield and conversion efficiency. Here's a few 
links:


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn 
alone cannot replace our petroleum addiction


Nothing can replace it, nor should, IMO. It's the addiction that's 
the problem, not the oil, and substitution is not the way to deal 
with it. Unless the addict can prise his attention away from the 
abused substance-of-choice he's just not going to take any notice of 
totally irrelevant stuff like alternatives, nor care. When it's 
backed by such vast resources of money and power and influence as 
petroleum is, it's hard to budge.


Meanwhile it's wrecking the neighbourhood. Sure the other 
industrialised countries are not exactly blameless, but your lot's 
just ridiculous. They're like a bunch of folks sitting on the deck 
of a burning ship saying, Naah, that's not a fire, just a few 
flames, that's all, it's perfectly safe, the ship won't sink, it's 
not leaking. But they're not the only guys on the ship, and they 
won't listen to reason, instead they keep pouring gasoline on the 
fire because they say they're cold or something. We don't have to 
like it.


Best

Keith



jh



___
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] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


Hello Chris

Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now replants more 
trees than it takes.


The only problem with repanting trees, period, that i'm shocked no 
one has mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a 
particular area can only support 4-5 generations of trees before the 
soil is completely exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of the 
soil to grow than just about anything else, and after several 
generations they will NOT grow any longer. So yeah, replanting after 
clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few times at the the soil 
stops growing... anyhting...


I don't think there's any basis for this assumption, quite the 
opposite. Forests can continue indefinitely. Some forests are 30 
million years old. What sort of forests are you talking about? Can 
you provide some references please?


And as far as deforestation goes, i'm more worried about places 
outside developed countries where no one really cares if trees are 
replanted. A lot of the slash and burn 


Some, not most.

taking place in the rainforest is regular old people who are trying 
to grow food or make money, clearing land for cattle and farms.


Mostly they've been marginalised, or they wouldn't need to do it. 
It's worth checking what marginalised them, for a clearer picture. 
They're the most widely blamed, though they're probably the least to 
blame.


In tropical forests most of the nutrients are in the trees, with very 
little in the soil. Slash-and-burn provides some mineral-rich ash 
which fertilises the soil for a couple of years, and then, as the 
fertility levels sink, pioneer weeds invade, their purpose to begin 
restoring the fertility reserves. These weeds are generally very 
tough, very hard to fight, like lalang grass in Southeast Asia. The 
peasants are forced out, and have to slash-and-burn another site, and 
use it for another couple of years. There are initiatives to 
stabilise this cycle, several through agroforestry principles. If the 
leaves and small branches of the trees that are cut down were 
composted instead of burnt the poor forest soils could be maintained 
at much higher fertility levels, with no pioneer weeds invading and 
no need to move on.



Those people don't replant trees,


Quite often they do plant trees.

and they aren't part of a multibnation company with lots of 
enviromental regulations to uphold.


Or ignore.

Best

Keith




_Chris N

- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe Street
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

Hi Hakan;

100% in agreement with all of that.  Clearcutting IS bad, I thought I
made that distinction.  It is also true that clearcutting does not hurt


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/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


Hello Richard


Nitrogen-fixing trees.  Nitrogen, is that part of soil nutrients?


Yes, the main one. Allegedly. There's a better case for calcium 
though. Soil nutrients aren't quite the same as plant nutrients, 
though they should be - feed the soil, not the plant. The gospel of 
chemical farming, the NPK mentality, is that all you have to do is 
replace the chemicals the previous crop removed from the soil, and 
all it takes is the the six macronutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, 
potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur. Originally just the first 
three were considered important, N, P, and K. There's also a small 
but growing concern about the 40-odd micronutrients. Actually the 
law of the little bit makes the really important nutrient the one 
that isn't there, whether macro or micro. No need to worry about them 
if your humus management is good. Nature's humus management is always 
good, of course. Nitrogen provides itself, via the steady breakdown 
of soil organic matter, and direct from the inexhaustible supplies in 
the atmosphere, via the action of free-living nitrogen-fixing soil 
bacteria such as Azotobacter and the bacteria colonising the root 
nodules of nitrogen-fixing trees and other legumes.


Best wishes

Keith


http://agroforestry.net/overstory/overstory4.htmlhttp://agroforestr 
y.net/overstory/overstory4.html


mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now

replants more trees than it takes.

The only problem with repanting trees, period, that i'm shocked no 
one has mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a 
particular area can only support 4-5 generations of trees before 
the soil is completely exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of 
the soil to grow than just about anything else, and after several 
generations they will NOT grow any longer. So yeah, replanting 
after clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few times at the 
the soil stops growing... anyhting...


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/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Hello Ken


Keith,

Your make many points that give me reason for pause.  However, I can 
wait for someone else to do something about the problems that exist 
or I can do something myself - done!


Quite right! Did you see Darryl's sig? It's your planet.  If you 
won't look after it, who will?


The majority of U.S. citizens will continue to eat meat and larger 
quantities than responsible and probably of the cheapest factory 
farmed variety.


While it lasts. Too much fossil-fuels, for one thing, among many.

I think that the animals not being raised for my personal 
consumption will benefit everyone more than were I to eat meat 
because of the benefit that it might hold for fertilization.


The meat you eat would only have benefitted the soil if it came from 
outside the factory farm / meat industry system, and you'd have to 
make sure of it. That kind of market demand and pressure is most 
important in creating and sustaining the necessary alternatives to 
the factory farm nightmare. In the US, grass-fed beef and dairy have 
come a long way in the last five years, and so have pastured pork and 
poultry. You can even see it in the way attitudes have changed here 
on the list and in what people have said about it over the years. 
Though the overall proportion is minor, it's kept pace with the 
rapidly rising demand and supply of organic food in general.


Along with active and informed opposition to factory farming, 
industrialised farming and the food industry, that might be more 
effective than just condemning meat and meat-eaters. Meat is bad vs 
Do you know where that meat you're eating comes from? That 
particular meat.


Hopefully,  I can offset the over consuption and thoughtless 
consumption of one other person.  And we all know that we can't 
change anyone else.


I know what you mean, but the PR industry wouldn't agree with that, 
to cite an unfortunate example ($30 billion a year in the US, rather 
a lot of it spent on behalf of the food industry). You can change 
people, people change all the time. There are many ways of doing it. 
Perhaps the most important one is changing yourself, which I think 
you're implying.


I have always thought of this as my contribution to the environment 
- hopefully just one of many.


You should fine-tune the meat one Ken, IMHO. Better target selection, 
take better aim.


A point of interest, though,  I don't know of any animal aside from 
humans that consume the milk of another animal, though, I'm sure 
there probably is at least one.  Can someone name one?  However, the 
concept of consuming the lactic fluids from a bovine seems rather 
bizarre.  Those which are intended for its offspring as all milk is. 
I'm pretty sure that I can do without bovine hormones and antibodies.


Which particular cow did it come from? What did it eat?

Drinking bovine milk goes back a very long way, in many traditional 
societies. The health effects have been filtered through very long 
and broad experience over hundreds of generations, and the vast 
majority have long since adapted to what negative health effects 
there were.


When properly produced, dairy products are valuable food. They're an 
important part of sustainable agriculture, without them farming is 
less sustainable.


Check out milk and dairy products at Sally Fallon's website:
http://www.westonaprice.org/

Also:

Why Grassfed is Best!, by New York Times bestselling author Jo 
Robinson, explores the many benefits of grassfed meat, eggs, and 
dairy products. This is the website for the book, with much of 
interest on the nutritional benefits of grass, environmental 
benefits, new research.

http://eatwild.com/index.html

A Campaign for Real Milk -- What's needed today is a return to 
humane, non-toxic, pasture-based dairying and small-scale traditional 
processing. Also in French and German.

http://www.realmilk.com/why.html

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_pasture.html
Pasture for small farmers: Journey to Forever

Best wishes

Keith



Take care,
Ken



___
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] Pimentel is at it again


Hi Robert

snip

The Masai drink the blood of their animals.  Is that better, or 
worse?  Does it matter?


Blood and milk, and it turns out they eat a lot of herbs and stuff 
too. Whether better or worse, it sustained them in superb health 
through many centuries.


You have to read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. 
Price about this, but I think you still demur because some silly 
person told you he supports eugenics, which is atrocious nonsense.


See:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#price
Small Farms Library - Journey to Forever

Damn - the whole book was online at Steve Solomon's site, 
http://www.soilandhealth.org/ but I see he's removed it. Steve's 
much too nervous about copyright infringements even when the book is 
out of print, in which case online reproduction is covered. Actually 
he got the scan from me anyway. Now I'll have to proofread it and 
format it and put it in our library. You should read these two 
chapters especially:

I. Why Seek Wisdom from Primitive Races
IX. Isolated and Modernized African Tribes

You can read Steve's long review instead in the meantime if you like, 
it's good, most of it's quoted directly from the book.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0203CAT/020305ppnf/PPNF.HTML
Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Best wishes

Keith


snip



robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
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] ASPO on the Economic near-Future


Hello Ryan

In the diamond industry, DeBeers Diamonds owns about 90% of the 
diamond mines in the world.


De Beers controls about 60 per cent of the world diamond trade, but 
your point stands nonetheless.


They do this, and it is no secret.  They give out a vry limited 
number of contracts to diamond cutters and suppliers.  Furthermore, 
they restrict the number of diamonds and quality put onto the market 
in order to control price.  Of course the people who win a contract 
with them want another one next year, so they pay well to get it, 
then they charge well to keep it.


And, for a lo-ong time, national governments involved have kept in 
step by making it illegal to own or trade any diamonds that didn't go 
through their official channels. In South Africa, IDB - Illicit 
Diamond Buying - lands you in jail.


The laws were tough, but there was no social stigma to breaking 
them. Honest tradesmen and other pillars of society would get caught 
with uncut diamonds, go to jail, serve their terms and pick up their 
lives again where they'd left off. Nobody thought they'd done 
anything bad, or even dishonest, only illegal. A mayor of a small 
town in the Northern Cape got caught, went to jail, did his term, and 
was elected mayor again.

http://journeytoforever.org/keith_pocket.html
Put it in Your Pocket

There's another side to diamonds that in Africa at any rate give them 
much in common with oil: many of Africa's wars are financed by the 
lucrative trade in illegal diamonds.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3230627.stm
BBC NEWS
31 October, 2003
'Blood diamonds' deal under fire

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3581799.stm
BBC NEWS
30 March, 2004
Conflict diamonds 'still on sale'

http://www.publici.org/dtaweb/icij_bow.asp?Section=ChapterChapNum=6
The Center for Public Integrity
Conflict Diamonds are Forever

Best wishes

Keith



It would be absolutely incomprehensible if the oil industry didn't do this.

how do people swallow this bunk?  by the same reasoning, oil should 
have surpassed $75/bbl the very day we invaded iraq.


Good point.



- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

i've never heard this term of 'the bilderbergers' before, 
but i don't find teh notion too farfetched.  more likely to me that 
their idea of safeguarding supply is simply to make it more 
expensive, regardless of whether it provokes economic downturn or 
depression.  take the fact that oil prices spiked again simply 
because of this tropical storm in the gulf right now; the rationale 
being that it could disrupt supply.


how do people swallow this bunk?  by the same reasoning, oil should 
have surpassed $75/bbl the very day we invaded iraq.


as far as your last comment is concerned, isn't it interesting that 
left wing parties and labor movements were far more widespread and 
mainstream *prior to (and during)* the great depression than *after* 
(this is especially true of the situation in the u.s.a.).?


-chris b.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:52:06 -0700
Subject: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

.AOLPlainTextBody { 	FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; 
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: 
#fff } .AOLPlainTextBody PRE { 	FONT-SIZE: 9pt } 
.AOLInlineAttachment { 	MARGIN: 10px } .AOLAttachmentHeader { 
	BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e9eaeb 2px solid } 
.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title { 	PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 
10px; BACKGROUND: #e9eaeb; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: bold 11px 
Tahoma; COLOR: #66; PADDING-TOP: 3px } .AOLAttachmentHeader 
.FieldLabel { 	PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 9px; 
PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px; FONT: bold 11px Tahoma; COLOR: #66; 
PADDING-TOP: 1px } .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue { 	FONT: 11px 
Tahoma; COLOR: #33 }

From the latest ASPO Newsletter:

http://www.peakoil.net/http://www.peakoil.net/


 Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over
 the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard
 the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's
 hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the
 population will be forced to dramatically cut down their
 spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to
 the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do.



I know, your eyes glaze over when you hear anything about
the Bilderbergers :-)  Interesting idea, tho. My Dad was
poor enough in the Great Depression that hey traded with
their Polish neighbors for sauerkraut and potatoes. OTOH,
my Mom was sort of aristocracy, and the same event hardly
even broke their stride! Funny how economic downturn may
even be in the best interest of the world's richest

-K

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-07 Thread Garth Kim Travis


Greetings,
It is not just the long hiatus that harms our ability to digest milk, but 
the pasteurization which turns milk into a cooked protein.  Raw milk is 
wonderful.  Texas now has legal raw dairies, but the price tag [$8/gal] 
definitely makes owning your own cow look good.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 01:43 AM 7/7/2005, you wrote:


Robert,

We tolerate milk well, as long as we regularly drink it. If one stop to 
drink milk for a long period, it is common that the tolerance goes down 
and often the stomach will react violently against starting again. Often 
the body develop an allergy against milk products, after a long time 
without it.


Hakan

At 06:23 AM 7/7/2005, you wrote:

Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:


A point of interest, though,  I don't know of any animal aside from 
humans that consume the milk of another animal, though, I'm sure there 
probably is at least one.  Can someone name one?


I have cats that like goat milk.  Dogs will drink just about 
anything.  It's a question of access, really.  I suppose a fish swimming 
near a nursing whale may ingest the milk of another creature, and if you 
leave a bit of milk on the counter, you'll discover an amazing variety 
of small creatures that thrive within it.


 However, the concept of consuming the lactic fluids from a bovine 
seems rather bizarre.

Those which are intended for its offspring as all milk is.


Why is this bizarre?  An adult cow produces more milk than her 
offspring needs, so why shouldn't we benefit from the excess?  The same 
is true of goats and camels.  It's true that some people don't tolerate 
milk very well, but others enjoy it on cereal or in drinks well into 
their senior years.  Humans are opportunistic eaters capable of 
consuming and thriving on an incredibly wide variety of foods. Some 
people eat the gonads of shellfish, and some species of fish have to be 
carefully cooked so that their flesh does not kill the consumer.  (How 
did we ever figure that one out?)  The Masai drink the blood of their 
animals.  Is that better, or worse?  Does it matter?




 I'm pretty sure that I can do without bovine hormones and antibodies.


Perhaps, but do you have any evidence to support the implied 
contention that natural bovine antibodies and hormones are detrimental 
to human health?  Certainly the factory farm system that requires 
antibiotics, growth hormone injections and protein supplements 
introduces potential harm to our food supply.  I know many Canadians who 
won't drink U.S. milk for that reason.


robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/




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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bulking out diesel


Hello John

Is it true you can bulk out dinodiesel with a mix of veg oil and 
white/methylated spirit?  Has anybody tried it?  Did it work?


At your own risk. Please see:

Three choices
1. Mixing it
2. Straight vegetable oil
3. Biodiesel
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#3choices

A variation on this theme is adding a solvent to the veg oil to 
lower the viscosity -- usually 3% white spirit (a.k.a. mineral 
turpentine, Stoddard solvent, turpentine substitute). This raised a 
lot of interest after it was publicized on a British TV program -- 
just add a spoonful. It also raised a lot of scepticism: 
'experimental' at best was the view of experienced SVO'ers, and 
steer well clear unless you have a 5-cyl IDI Mercedes (in which 
case you don't even need the white spirit). We agree. Work on blends 
of SVO with other solvents, such as butanol and ethanol, is still 
experimental. By all means go ahead and experiment, but there are no 
guarantees.


The experienced SVO'ers were Biofuel list members, and some of them 
were much ruder than that about it.


More detail here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg46086.html
[Biofuel] Biopower - was Re: On-farm biodiesel or ethanol

Best wishes

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] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread Wes Moore


I think I am seeing a pattern here. I have noticed that some folks seem to
think that whatever is being done is bad... end of story .  not just in this
forum, but it seems to be abundant here.  I would like to suggest to anyone
who witnesses this tendency that they withhold criticism until they feel
they can offer a solution.  I try to exercise this method with myself, and I
suggest it may be helpful to others.   You will notice that Keith, for
instance, seems to offer solutions.  Others can only describe what they feel
is wrong with the system. 
This is not a complete solution to a negative personality, but should go a
long way in making life more pleasant for all.   I enjoy the constructive
criticism and solutions offered here, but am slightly frustrated when folks
endlessly tell us that everything in the world is wrong.  
Wes 

Hello Chris

 Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now replants more 
trees than it takes.

The only problem with repanting trees, period, that i'm shocked no 
one has mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a 
particular area can only support 4-5 generations of trees before the 
soil is completely exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of the 
soil to grow than just about anything else, and after several 
generations they will NOT grow any longer. So yeah, replanting after 
clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few times at the the soil 
stops growing... anyhting...

I don't think there's any basis for this assumption, quite the 
opposite. Forests can continue indefinitely. Some forests are 30 
million years old. What sort of forests are you talking about? Can 
you provide some references please?

And as far as deforestation goes, i'm more worried about places 
outside developed countries where no one really cares if trees are 
replanted. A lot of the slash and burn 

Some, not most.

taking place in the rainforest is regular old people who are trying 
to grow food or make money, clearing land for cattle and farms.

Mostly they've been marginalised, or they wouldn't need to do it. 
It's worth checking what marginalised them, for a clearer picture. 
They're the most widely blamed, though they're probably the least to 
blame.

In tropical forests most of the nutrients are in the trees, with very 
little in the soil. Slash-and-burn provides some mineral-rich ash 
which fertilises the soil for a couple of years, and then, as the 
fertility levels sink, pioneer weeds invade, their purpose to begin 
restoring the fertility reserves. These weeds are generally very 
tough, very hard to fight, like lalang grass in Southeast Asia. The 
peasants are forced out, and have to slash-and-burn another site, and 
use it for another couple of years. There are initiatives to 
stabilise this cycle, several through agroforestry principles. If the 
leaves and small branches of the trees that are cut down were 
composted instead of burnt the poor forest soils could be maintained 
at much higher fertility levels, with no pioneer weeds invading and 
no need to move on.

Those people don't replant trees,

Quite often they do plant trees.

and they aren't part of a multibnation company with lots of 
enviromental regulations to uphold.

Or ignore.

Best

Keith



_Chris N

- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe Street
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

Hi Hakan;

100% in agreement with all of that.  Clearcutting IS bad, I thought I
made that distinction.  It is also true that clearcutting does not hurt

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 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] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

Well done. Thanks Wes.

I am often discouraged to the point of being overwhelmed bythe struggle. I'm sure everyone in this forum has felt a wide range of emotions including outrage, guilt, sadness, inadequacy and (sometimes) triumph. Our environment doesn't always facilitate the efforts of those who want to help it (like not having recycling in some areas).

On Tuesday, I interviewed with a company who is a vendor for Coca Cola. Almost exactly a week earlier, I learned of the killings of Coca Cola employeesin Colombia as a reaction to their union activities. (IMO) it puts into perspective the difficult choices we have to make to support ourselves and our families.

If you are aware of your environment and your environment encompasses everything effectingthe quality of life of your fellow human being, then there is a lot to be upset about and a lot of work to be done.

I encourage everyone to embrace the struggle, keep the faith and remember that there is strength in solidarity.

MikeWes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I am seeing a pattern here. I have noticed that some folks seem tothink that whatever is being done is bad... end of story . not just in thisforum, but it seems to be abundant here. I would like to suggest to anyonewho witnesses this tendency that they withhold criticism until they feelthey can offer a solution. I try to exercise this method with myself, and Isuggest it may be helpful to others. You will notice that Keith, forinstance, seems to offer solutions. Others can only describe what they feelis wrong with the system. This is not a complete solution to a negative personality, but should go along way in making life more pleasant for all. I enjoy the constructivecriticism and solutions offered here, but am slightly frustrated when folksendlessly tell us that everything in the world is wrong. Wes Hello
Chris Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now replants more trees than it takes.The only problem with repanting trees, period, that i'm shocked no one has mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a particular area can only support 4-5 generations of trees before the soil is completely exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of the soil to grow than just about anything else, and after several generations they will NOT grow any longer. So yeah, replanting after clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few times at the the soil stops growing... anyhting...I don't think there's any basis for this assumption, quite the opposite. Forests can continue indefinitely. Some forests are 30 million years old. What sort of forests are you talking about? Can you provide some references please?And as far as deforestation goes, i'm more worried
about places outside developed countries where no one really cares if trees are replanted. A lot of the slash and burn Some, not most.taking place in the rainforest is regular old people who are trying to grow food or make money, clearing land for cattle and farms.Mostly they've been marginalised, or they wouldn't need to do it. It's worth checking what marginalised them, for a clearer picture. They're the most widely blamed, though they're probably the least to blame.In tropical forests most of the nutrients are in the trees, with very little in the soil. Slash-and-burn provides some mineral-rich ash which "fertilises" the soil for a couple of years, and then, as the fertility levels sink, pioneer weeds invade, their purpose to begin restoring the fertility reserves. These weeds are generally very tough, very hard to fight, like lalang grass in Southeast Asia. The peasants are forced
out, and have to slash-and-burn another site, and use it for another couple of years. There are initiatives to stabilise this cycle, several through agroforestry principles. If the leaves and small branches of the trees that are cut down were composted instead of burnt the poor forest soils could be maintained at much higher fertility levels, with no pioneer weeds invading and no need to move on.Those people don't replant trees,Quite often they do plant trees.and they aren't part of a multibnation company with lots of enviromental regulations to uphold.Or ignore.BestKeith_Chris N- Original Message -From: Joe StreetTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:55 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] How
many trees were killed to build your home ?Hi Hakan;100% in agreement with all of that. Clearcutting IS bad, I thought Imade that distinction. It is also true that clearcutting does not hurt___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives

Re: [Biofuel] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread Joe Street




Marc DeGagne wrote:


Hi Joe

Possibly I am blinded by fear mongering and misinformation by folks 
like David Suzuki.  Could you please provide me with some examples and 
evidence of this misinformation.  Here is a link to the David Suzuki 
Foundation.. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Solutions/
Maybe I have misunderstood your opinions, but there doesn't seem to 
exist much of a distinction between your views of current forestry 
practises and that of what David Suzuki preaches(which you do not like).  


What I do not like is the alarmist attitude with which he disseminates 
information.  I always get a sense of doom and gloom whenever I see one 
of Suzuki's presentations. For example Suzuki often quotes Stephen 
Herrero who is considered by some an expert on grizzly bears ostensibly 
strengthening his argument that grizzlies are headed for extiction in 
our country but when you really check the facts you find that the claims 
are based on 'unknown populations' and 'potentially declining numbers'.  
I am not the only one apparently who gets this sense of doom and gloom.  
When Suzuki came to lecture on campus here at U. Waterloo, there was a 
clear sentiment among the student body along the lines of 'well it's too 
late for this planet, hopefully we can terraform Mars' following his talk.


You cite clearcutting as a negative, selective logging as an 
ecologically sustainable method of harvesting, and protecting old 
growth forests as beneficial.  If you choose to use the provided link, 
you will find the same sentiments.
Clearcutting results in a more plentiful food supply for 
bears... is not totally accurate.  What about the percentage of 
bears that depend on salmon for food?


Bears are total opportunists and do not depend on salmon.  They 
suplement thier diet of roots shoots and berries with meat of many kinds 
when they can get it.  More of this type of forage is available in a new 
growth area than in a mature forest.  I'm not making this up go check it 
out yourself.  Somehow the number of cubs born to a sow can be 
influenced by how plentiful food has been in her territory.  In areas 
where clearcutting has been done bear populations increase to the point 
where population density stresses begin to result in changes in bear 
behaviour such as an increase in infanticide ( male bears killing bear 
cubs in order that females become available for breeding sooner).  None 
of this is natural of course because clearcutting is not natural.  My 
only point is that it is easy to tell people who do not know the whole 
story that clearcutting threatens the extinction of bears as a result of 
destroying thier natural habitat.  It just aint true.  I'm not a 
proponent of telling lies or twisting the truth in order to achieve 
noble goals.


Suzuki and others are doing a noble job of raising public awareness, I 
just wish he didn't do it in such a negative way. Perhaps my comments 
were a little harsh. We are constantly bombarded by information we are 
supposed to fear.  Many people reach a point where they just get so 
tired of hearing it and give up and say well it looks like things are so 
screwed up I'm just gonna throw in the towel, live for today and not 
worry about it because it is too big a problem and I could just make 
myself sick worrying about it.  None of us would be swimming against the 
current so to speak making our own fuel if we had that attitude.


J


___
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] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-07 Thread robert luis rabello


Keith Addison wrote:

Blood and milk, and it turns out they eat a lot of herbs and stuff too. 
Whether better or worse, it sustained them in superb health through many 
centuries.


	This was my point!  Some people recoil at the idea of eating dairy 
products, but the evidence often cited falls more effectively into the 
realm of opinion than objective, verified information.  I know a lot 
of people who refuse to eat milk, eggs and cheese because they think 
these foods are harmful to their bodies, yet many traditional diets 
contain foods of this nature and the people who consume them live 
long, healthy and productive lives.


	Part of this stems from the perception that we in the Western World 
are somehow intellectually superior, that our economic success 
underscores vaunted capability in every other realm.  This is nothing 
more than racism.


You have to read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price 
about this, but I think you still demur because some silly person told 
you he supports eugenics, which is atrocious nonsense.




	Actually, I downloaded the book quite some time ago and read the 
whole thing.  It's influenced a profound change in my attitude toward 
animal product consumption.  You're right that someone told me Dr. 
Price was a eugenicist, but the only things I found in the book that 
raised my eyebrows were his connections between diet and criminal 
behavior, and diet and Down's Syndrome.  In my view he did not do an 
effective job of establishing the causal linkage he outlined.


	I thought I had it on my computer somewhere, but I've just looked and 
I can't find it!



robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
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] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home?

2005-07-07 Thread Marc DeGagne





Joe, Halkan

I as well have sensed the doom and gloom attitude from Suzuki, there is
no denying it. But I think in recent years it has shifted to a more
positive approach of trying to make a difference by offering solutions.

I think "depend" was maybe the wrong choice of words to describe the
role salmon play in a bears life. I was referring to the
population(percentage) of bears that reside on B.C's coast and islands
such as Haida Gwaii(small geographical area) that feed mainly on
salmon. Below is a snippet of info taken from a parks Canada website
pointing out the importance of salmon in their diet. The importance
lies in the timing of salmon runs that provide much needed fat for
their long hibernation. In my opinion, if these salmon were extirpated
due to industrial logging, many of the bears would go hungry.

"Black bear The most important source of food for bears in Haida Gwaii
is salmon. Bears can take from 45% to 80% of the total population of
chum, but the majority of salmon taken by bears are spawned out
females. Bears eat on average 13 salmon a day in Gwaii Haanas." 
http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/toile-web/toile-web3b_E.asp

The idea that clearcutting is beneficial to bears sounds similar to
someone arguing that oil development is beneficial for caribou. In the
long run destroying a large mammals habitat WILL have a negative
impact. More info below that addresses the short term benefits of
clearcuts. 

"The spirit
bear is threatened because much of its home range has already been
logged, and a good portion of the remainder is slated for the same
fate. While logging creates some short-term benefits for bears (for
example, one of bears' foods, berries, grow in clearcuts), the
long-term consequences of industrial logging are very serious. For
example, the loss of big trees that provide dens for bears means they
will not have adequate protection for hibernating through the wet, cold
winters, nor adequate protection from the storms that howl in from the
Pacific Ocean."
http://www.savespiritbear.org/project/spiritbear/about_bear/science_info.html#scientists


Take care 

Marc






___
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] THE CALAMITY HOWLER #60

2005-07-07 Thread john broderick


re: The Calamity Howler

Further to the article in The Economist, and Michael Ignatieff's comments -
there are three actions that are not going to happen, if the United States 
and Americans overseas want to feel more secure:

- Americans are not going to impeach George Bush
- Americans are not going to force the U.S. military to get out of Iraq and 
other countries where

  they are not welcome
- American corporations are not going to stop raping  the natural 
resources of other countries
  around the world. Would you work for an hourly wage that provides a 
monthly income equal to

  the retail price of one pair of Michael Jordan's basketball boots ?

j.

From: Albert Krebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] (by way of Keith Addison)
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] THE CALAMITY HOWLER  #60
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 04:30:13 +0900

THE
CALAMITY HOWLER
July 1, 2005Issue #60

Sometimes an intended epithet can be turned to good advantage.
In the sole surviving issue of the Decatur, Texas TIMES, one finds
the way Populists not only accepted the label `calamity howler'
but insisted that they had ample reason to howl and would continue
to howl until their objectives had been attained.
 - THE POPULIST MIND, edited by Norman Pollack

EDITOR\PUBLISHER; A.V. Krebs
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO RECEIVE: Send name and address


WHO'S SPREADING WHAT ???
BUSH'S DEMOCRATIC HOAX IN IRAQ

ROGER BURBACH AND PAUL CANTOR
June 29, 2005

President George Bush told the nation on Tuesday night that we are in Iraq 
to fight terrorism and spread democracy. Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitlers 
minister of propaganda said, If you tell a lie big enough and keep 
repeating it people will eventually come to believe it.


Goebbels had it right. Bush didnt invade Iraq to fight terrorism and 
promote democracy. He invaded Iraq to establish a military stronghold in 
the oil rich Middle East. But he has repeated that lie often enough that 
more and more people have come to accept it as the truth.


Recently, for example, Michael Ignatieff, the President of Harvard 
Universitys Carr Center of Human Rights bought what has become the Bush 
administrations latest line on why we are in Iraq hook, line and sinker.


In a convoluted article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine on 
June 26, Ignatieff makes the argument that Bush is the first President to 
link fighting terrorism to promoting democracy in the rest of the world and 
suggests that liberals and others on the left should be applauding him for 
it. After all, says Ignatieff, if Bush succeeds he will be remembered as a 
plain- speaking visionary.


Nonsense.

The rhetorical title of Ignatieffs article is: Who are Americans to Think 
that Freedom is Theirs to Spread? Well Thomas Jefferson was one, suggests 
Ignatieff, and Bush is simply picking up the Jeffersonian mantle. That is 
why he went to Iraq: To promote the exercise of reason, the rule of law, 
human rights and democracy. More nonsense.


Well, some might say, even if that wasnt the original intention if that is 
the likely outcome whats the difference?  The answer is that it is not the 
likely outcome. We already know the outcome: a hundred thousand Iraqis 
killed, a country split into warring factions, and a rising tide of hatred 
for our occupying army.


Still we shouldnt be surprised that Bush continues to lie about our 
mission in Iraq. In order to inspire soldiers to fight you must convince 
them that they are fighting for a cause they believe in. Bush often sounded 
like a military recruiter on Tuesday night, hoping to overcome the dramatic 
decline in enlistees for the army. It is not easy to get soldiers to put 
their lives on the line for the Halliburton corporation.


So you tell them that they are fighting to spread freedom to the citizens 
of Iraq and convince them that when they win the battle they can visit the 
Empire State building because no Iraqis will be piloting planes into 
skyscrapers in the United States. Then perhaps they can be sent back to the 
Gulf to fight against the democratically elected government of Iran.


Ignatieff, to give him credit, does point out in his article that President 
Bush heads an administration that has demonstrated the least care for 
consistency between what it says and does of any administration in modern 
times. But then he makes no effort to explore why that is true. Had he 
done so he might have come to understand that the Bush administration 
represents the interests of wealthy plutocrats, reactionary 
fundamentalists, and corporate executives. In attempting to further those 
interests democracy and the rule of law are violated left and right.


The examples are by now legion:

The invasion of Iraq despite United Nations opposition; the torture of 
prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan; the promotion of key 
officials connected with torture; the use of doctors to assist in that 
torture; the holding of

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-07 Thread Mecánica Agrícola

Hakan
This is a good point, remember Rómulo and Remo!!!
Sven

___
   Mecánica Agrícola
 Fac. Cs. Agrarias - UNCuyo
  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
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] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread John Wilson

ANSWER:

None! My house is over one hundred years old. The orginal trees, if left
would have been all killed by bark beetle or worse fire. The land they came
from is still forest and has probably been cut several times since the house
was built.. The paved road in front of the house has killed a lot of trees.
There hasn't been a tree there since the road was paved.  The lot on which
the house was built was field so the trees that were there were killed for
different reason than building the house.
Yours truly
John Wilson
***
Wilsonia Farm Kennel Preserve
Goldens
Ph-Fax (902)665-2386)
Web:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/new.htm
 Pups:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/pup.htm
Politics: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/elect.htm
 http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/c68.htm

In Nova Scotia smoking permitted in designated areas only until 9:00 PM .
After 9:00 it is okey to kill everyone.
^
Nova Scotia going smoke-free in public by 2006 (FANTASTIC)


___
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] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread john broderick


Hi:

I don't know where Keith got his information about trees depleting soil 
nutrients after 4 or 5 generations of trees.
I suggest that if you check with a silviculturalist, you may find that when 
trees drop their leaves in the fall, the leaves start to decompose in the 
next spring. The progression of biological deterioration eventually produces 
the litter, fermentation and humus layers of vegetative matter on top of the 
mineral soil. The leaching of nutrients from the L, F and H layers helps to 
enrich the mineral soil and allows tree growth to continue for all the 
generations of trees that have grown since the last ice age and glaciers 
retreated. The process is somewhat similar, no matter whether the trees are 
deciduous or conifers. The biggest interruption in natural processes is when 
careless humans start forest wildfires by throwing cigarette butts out of 
car windows, or forget to see that they have completely drowned a campfire 
by stirring the wet ashes with their hands. If you can't stand the heat in 
the wet ashes, the campfire isn't completely out, and the water you use to 
wash the ashes off your hands should be used to finish putting out the 
campfire.
Please note that a forest wildfire is completely opposite from a prescribed 
burn set by a professional forester to act as a forest regeneration tool.

j.

From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT)

Well done. Thanks Wes.

I am often discouraged to the point of being overwhelmed by the struggle. 
I'm sure everyone in this forum has felt a wide range of emotions including 
outrage, guilt, sadness, inadequacy and (sometimes) triumph. Our 
environment doesn't always facilitate the efforts of those who want to help 
it (like not having recycling in some areas).


On Tuesday, I interviewed with a company who is a vendor for Coca Cola. 
Almost exactly a week earlier, I learned of the killings of Coca Cola 
employees in Colombia as a reaction to their union activities. (IMO) it 
puts into perspective the difficult choices we have to make to support 
ourselves and our families.


If you are aware of your environment and your environment encompasses 
everything effecting the quality of life of your fellow human being, then 
there is a lot to be upset about and a lot of work to be done.


I encourage everyone to embrace the struggle, keep the faith and remember 
that there is strength in solidarity.


Mike

Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I think I am seeing a pattern here. I have noticed that some folks seem to
think that whatever is being done is bad... end of story . not just in this
forum, but it seems to be abundant here. I would like to suggest to anyone
who witnesses this tendency that they withhold criticism until they feel
they can offer a solution. I try to exercise this method with myself, and I
suggest it may be helpful to others. You will notice that Keith, for
instance, seems to offer solutions. Others can only describe what they feel
is wrong with the system.
This is not a complete solution to a negative personality, but should go a
long way in making life more pleasant for all. I enjoy the constructive
criticism and solutions offered here, but am slightly frustrated when folks
endlessly tell us that everything in the world is wrong.
Wes

Hello Chris

 Trees are renewable and the lumber industry now replants more
trees than it takes.

The only problem with repanting trees, period, that i'm shocked no
one has mentioned (unless i missed it), is that the earth in a
particular area can only support 4-5 generations of trees before the
soil is completely exhausted. Trees take more nutrients out of the
soil to grow than just about anything else, and after several
generations they will NOT grow any longer. So yeah, replanting after
clear cutting is nice and all, but after a few times at the the soil
stops growing... anyhting...

I don't think there's any basis for this assumption, quite the
opposite. Forests can continue indefinitely. Some forests are 30
million years old. What sort of forests are you talking about? Can
you provide some references please?

And as far as deforestation goes, i'm more worried about places
outside developed countries where no one really cares if trees are
replanted. A lot of the slash and burn

Some, not most.

taking place in the rainforest is regular old people who are trying
to grow food or make money, clearing land for cattle and farms.

Mostly they've been marginalised, or they wouldn't need to do it.
It's worth checking what marginalised them, for a clearer picture.
They're the most widely blamed, though they're probably the least to
blame.

In tropical forests most of the nutrients are in the trees, with very
little in the soil. Slash-and-burn provides some mineral-rich ash
which fertilises the soil for a couple of

[Biofuel] Exposure to Depleted Uranium

"...Patricia Dillon, D-New Haven, the Connecticut author of the bill."

I live in New Haven but, haven'tmet Ms. Dillon (yet).

Mike
___

Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by The Vermont Guardian

Collateral Risk: DU Research Gap Could Impact Vermont Troops

by Kathryn Casa

By the end of June, more than 600 Vermont National Guard members will be deployed in and around heavy combat areas in Iraq, where battlefield exposure to depleted uranium a highly toxic and radioactive battlefield poison widely used by the United States in combat zones has now become routine, military watchdogs say.
During the recent legislative session, Vermont lawmakers and state leaders turned aside a modest proposal to assess the impact of Vermont National Guard members deployed in dangerous and highly stressful war zones. However, other legislatures have been aggressively pursuing measures aimed at safeguarding their troops.

They have used hundreds of tons of DU over there. We are overwhelmed with phone calls from people who have just returned from Iraq who are not getting treatment.

Joyce RileyAmerican Gulf War Veterans AssociationLouisiana last week became the first state to require returning troops to be tested for exposure to depleted uranium. And, like both the Louisiana House and Senate, the Connecticut House unanimously passed similar legislation earlier this month. That bill, which has broad bipartisan co-sponsorship, is now before the state's Senate. Lawmakers from at least seven other states interested in drafting similar legislation have contacted Rep. Patricia Dillon, D-New Haven, the Connecticut author of the bill.
Ninety Vermonters are currently serving in combat zones, including 25 assigned to a military police company based in the Sunni stronghold of Tikrit, the hometown of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein; and 65 are attached to a Mississippi National Guard unit in Najaf, according to Lt. Veronica Saffo, a National Guard spokeswoman in Colchester.
Twenty Vermont soldiers are in Iraq working as support staff; 600 are based in Kuwait, where they rotate in and out of combat; and 65 are guarding civilian security contractors in Saudi Arabia.
Continued:Go to: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-06.htm___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Galloway claims Africa deception


See also:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51518.html
[Biofuel] Bards of the Powerful

-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4654447.stm
BBC NEWS |

Tuesday, 5 July, 2005

Galloway claims Africa deception

Ministers are using aid for Africa to cover up for the disaster of 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, MP George Galloway has claimed.


Mr Galloway told MPs the government was cynically trying to turn 
around its international reputation on the sea of bodies caused by 
poverty.


In a Commons debate on this week's G8 summit, the Respect MP said the 
G8 system itself had to be overturned.


But minister Kim Howells accused him of self-righteous paranoia.

Deception charge

Mr Galloway called Tuesday's adjournment debate and delivered his 
first speech since winning Bethnal Green and Bow from Labour at the 
election.


He said Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had been rumbled by Make 
Poverty History campaigners.


The MP argued the government was wrongly suggesting it was pushing 
for all debts from developing countries to be written off.


They had reduced poverty problems to a question of heavily 
conditional cancellation of some countries' debts, he said.


The government are engaged in a carefully calculated deception of 
public opinion to try and draw a veil over the disaster in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, he said.


Status Quo

Ministers were trying to scramble up at least the foot hills of the 
moral high ground on the greatest issue facing the world today, said 
Mr Galloway.


He said: For me [Blair and Brown] are not the Lennon and McCartney 
of world development issues.


They are the Status Quo and it's a mangy status quo which will do 
nothing to resolve the ocean of misery and poverty that exists in the 
world.


He said the privatisations and the IMF, World Bank, venture 
capitalists and the robber barons of globalised corporations had 
left poor countries strangled by free market reforms.


We won't make poverty history until we make the G8 and their system 
history, he said, pointing to unfair trade rules.


Sloganising

Mr Galloway added: The poor countries are poor because the rich 
countries became rich in part through making them and keeping them 
poor.


Until a seismic shift of wealth is transferred to the people we 
robbed then justice will not be done.


But Foreign Office Minister Mr Howells said Mr Galloway was using 
easy political sound bites and slogans as a substitute for proper 
argument.


He said he could not pre-empt the talks taking place at this week's 
Gleneagles summit, chaired by the UK Government.


But he promised the negotiations were detailed and were not a sham.

Mr Howells said: Our G8 agenda is deliberately ambitious. This 
government believes that future generations would not understand if 
we failed to take this opportunity for progress.


The minister argued a real difference could be made through the 
existing international machinery.


Attempts to encourage a revolution against capitalism had only 
brought poverty and war, he suggested.


We have got to work with what we have got, he said, admitting it 
was not perfect.


Mr Howells said dicatators in Africa had not just come from the 
right-wing but included left-wingers such as Robert Mugabe in 
Zimbabwe.


They're not just American puppets, they were Soviet puppets, he added.


___
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] US citizens back action to curb greenhouse emissions


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2cbfab24-ed7b-11d9-ac0d-0e2511c8.html
FT.com /

International Economy / G8 summit

US citizens back action to curb greenhouse emissions
By Scott Heiser in Washington
Published: July 5 2005 18:46 | Last updated: July 5 2005 18:46

Americans overwhelmingly support the US joining other members of the 
Group of Eight leading industrialised nations in limiting greenhouse 
gas emissions, according to an opinion survey.


The poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa), the 
Washington-based research group, found that 94 per cent of 
respondents said the US should make efforts to limit greenhouse gas 
emissions, in line with other developed nations.


Three-quarters of respondents said that global warming was a problem 
that should be addressed by world governments.


This is a common pattern among Americans in this debate, said 
Steven Kull, Pipa director. They want the US to do its share.


Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, is hoping that this week's G8 
summit will reach an agreement on global warming, with a text that 
describes a broad scientific concurrence about the contributing 
factors to climate change including the burning of fossil fuels. But 
the statement is unlikely to commit the US to specific actions. The 
US is the only G8 country that has not signed the Kyoto protocol, the 
international agreement that seeks to establish international 
emissions standards to address global warming.


However, the Pipa study found that 73 per cent felt the US should 
participate in Kyoto. President George W. Bush said on Monday that 
the US would not agree to any G8 statement that was similar to the 
Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, he 
said.


The Pipa poll found that there was growing confidence among Americans 
on the scientific evidence supporting global warming claims, with 52 
per cent saying they believed there was a scientific consensus on the 
matter, up 9 points from the previous year's study.


The study also showed that 56 per cent of respondents would be 
willing to incur significant economic costs to address climate 
change, if there was agreement in the scientific community on global 
warming.


Large majorities support tax incentives for companies and individuals 
to reduce emissions, and believe these more efficient energy 
consumption will make the US economy more competitive.


The survey also found that 70 per cent supported requiring cars to 
use high fuel efficiency technology, such as hybrid-electric power. 
The poll did not ask about the politically unpopular idea of a tax on 
petrol.


More than 80 per cent said they supported legislation to require 
large companies to reduce greenhouse emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 
and to 1990 levels by 2020.


The poll of 812 voting age adults was carried out by the surveying 
firm Knowledge Networks, in conjunction with Pipa, with a margin of 
error of 3.5 per cent.



___
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] It's imperialism, stupid


See also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9394.htm
Terror Attacks Near 3,200 in 2004 Count



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9387.htm

It's imperialism, stupid

By Noam Chomsky

07/05/05 ICH - - IN his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted 
that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of a global war 
against terror that the United States is waging. In reality, as 
anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps 
significantly.


Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised 
official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very 
beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand 
out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and 
threatens the region and indeed the world.


In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq 
because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the 
single question, as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister 
Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush 
received congressional authorisation to resort to force. 

The answer to the single question was given shortly after the 
invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely 
missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted 
new pretexts and justifications for going to war.


Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw 
aggression is what took place in Iraq, national security and 
intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, 
extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book 
Hoodwinked. 

Prados describes the Bush scheme to convince America and the world 
that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent as a case study in 
government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public 
statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence. The Downing 
Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along 
with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the 
record of deceit.


The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, 
in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, 
made the now-notorious assertion that the intelligence and facts 
were being fixed around the policy of going to war in Iraq. 

The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying 
that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure 
on the regime.


British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, 
has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. 
The spikes of activity apparently included a coalition air campaign 
meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what 
the memo calls a casus belli.


Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 - 10 tons that 
month, according to British government figures. A special spike 
started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons). 

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as 
everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before 
Congress approved military action against Iraq, Smith wrote. 

The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition 
planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but 
didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners, 
invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the war on terror. 
That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence 
agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by 
the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's 
center for strategic thinking, predicted that an American-led 
invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would 
result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal 
conflict, Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York 
Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks 
later, the NIC warned that Iraq and other possible conflicts in the 
future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills 
and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 
'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in 
itself. The willingness of top planners to risk increase of 
terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such 
outcomes. Rather, they are simply not a high priority in comparison 
with other objectives, such as controlling the world's major energy 
resources. 

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the 
more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the 
journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East 
gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European 
and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from 
the region. If the United States can maintain its control over Iraq, 
with the world's

[Biofuel] Agriculture without Farmers


The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

ISIS Press Release 06/07/05

Agriculture without Farmers

The WTO and EU agricultural policies are sweeping farmers off the 
land in droves and threatening world food security. 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala


References to this paper are posted on 
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/AWFFull.phpISIS members website. 
http://www.i- sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here


Farming has evolved over thousands of years with the farm as the 
basic unit of local community and culture. Its practice was shaped 
everywhere by geography and the creative skills of the farmer to be 
optimally productive. Since the arrival of the tractor and the 
industrial green revolution of the 1940s, small family farms have 
lost out to big industrial farms, and much of the local knowledge 
accumulated over the millennia has disappeared


Trade policies benefit agribusiness: Small farmers everywhere are impoverished

In industrialized countries like the UK where the population is 
largely urban, 200 000 farms have disappeared between 1966 and 1995 
[1]. The annual UK Common Agricultural Policy budget of £3bn gives 20 
percent of farmers (large agribusinesses) 80 percent of subsidies. 
Government figures show that 17 000 farmers and farm-workers left the 
land in the year 2003, having failed to make a living [2].


While only 5 percent of the population in the European Union (EU) are 
still farming [3], at least half a million farm-workers were still 
leaving the land annually before the EU was enlarged by 15 new 
members in May 2004. It is now likely that Poland alone will lose up 
to two million agricultural livelihoods as a result of joining the EU 
[1]. EU figures suggest that half of north European agriculture will 
disappear within a generation [4], as it continues to be squeezed out 
by the institutions that claim to give it support.


In the US, between 1950 and 1999, the number of farms decreased by 64 
percent to less than two million, and farm population has declined to 
less than 2 percent. Ninety percent of agricultural output is 
produced by only 522 000 farms [5]. Canadian statistics similarly 
reveal that farm numbers have decreased by 10 percent between the 
1996 census and 2001; there were less than 247 000 farms in the 
country in 2001 [6].


This relentless process of consolidation drives the heart out of the 
countryside, causing social and economic decay, and replaces it with 
an intensive industry that cares nothing about plant or animal 
diversity, quality or compassion in farming, but is solely interested 
in bringing down prices [1,7].


Free trade policies made by and for the rich countries of the North 
not only destroy the livelihood of small-farmers at home, they also 
encourage the dumping of subsidized goods (selling at less than the 
cost of production) from the North onto the markets of the poor 
South, distorting local markets, and leaving farmers in developing 
countries also unable to compete [1, 7, 8].


This has become a global scandal, as 75 percent of the population in 
China, 77 percent in Kenya, 67 percent in India, and 82 percent in 
Senegal still depend on farming for their living [3]. These numbers 
are plummeting, however, as families dispossessed of their land are 
driven to the cities, where they may find themselves unable to afford 
to pay for the food they used to grow.


Agribusiness degrades the environment while governments do nothing

Free trade policies of World Trade Organization (WTO) promote 
overproduction of agricultural commodities causing damage to 
wildlife, depleting soil, water, and fossil fuels; and at the same 
time compromising food quality, with substantial repercussions on 
public health [1,7]. They also greatly exacerbate global warming in 
many ways, not least the millions of unnecessary food-miles added to 
agricultural commodities. Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University 
estimated that the total external costs for conventional agriculture 
in the UK, paid for by the taxpayer, added up to £2.34bn for the year 
1996 [9].


The UK government remains a chief obstacle in the fight against 
international poverty and environmental degradation, despite its 
seemingly green credentials on climate change, and its recent high 
profile in tackling poverty in Africa. That is because the UK 
continues to espouse an economic model that promotes privatisation 
and trade liberalisation as the key to reducing poverty and 
protecting the environment, although that model has proved to have 
the opposite effects. The UK has been at the forefront of EU efforts 
to push through an aggressive free trade agenda at the WTO [10].


Transnational corporations (TNCs) have been allowed to gain control 
of supply chains and exert a stranglehold on global food security 
through a process of ownership of seed, proprietary chemicals, and 
other inputs, as well as virtual monopoly of food

john broderick - RE: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?


john broderick wrote:


Hi:

I don't know where Keith got his information about trees depleting 
soil nutrients after 4 or 5 generations of trees.


Aarghhh!!!

Do you mind? That was NOT my information, Chris N  posted that and I 
strongly disagreed and countered it.


Please be more careful who you attribute things to!

:-(

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/


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/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread Chris




That was me, not Keith. I was told by a good friend 
andwildlife ecologistthat this was true, and assumed it to be as 
they were very passionate about deforestation and our consumption of paper 
products. Forgive me if I'm wrong, when I see her again I'll ask her to clarify, 
I might simply have misunderstood. I think it was also solely targeted at pine 
forests planned in our area for lumber. the same small plot of land is used over 
and over again for the exact same types of tress in the same quantity. 


And I'm not trying to be cynical, if that previous 
email was directed at me. I always thought "well, can't we just keep replanting 
the trees" until I was told very sternly be afore-mentioned person that no, its 
not that simple and doesn't quite work that way. I was just sharing whatI 
had been told. 

And Keith, certainly, the people conducting the 
slash and burn agriculture in the rainforests are the ones least to blame. An 
economic system was imposed upon them that forced them into this style of 
supporting themselves and their families. At least that's my understanding. 



Chris N 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  john broderick 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:40 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Biofuel] How many trees 
  were killed to build your home ?
  Hi:I don't know where Keith got his information about 
  trees depleting soil nutrients after 4 or 5 generations of trees.I 
  suggest that if you check with a silviculturalist, you may find that when 
  trees drop their leaves in the fall, the leaves start to decompose in the 
  next spring. The progression of biological deterioration eventually 
  produces the litter, fermentation and humus layers of vegetative matter on 
  top of the mineral soil. The leaching of nutrients from the L, F and H 
  layers helps to enrich the mineral soil and allows tree growth to continue 
  for all the generations of trees that have grown since the last ice age 
  and glaciers retreated. The process is somewhat similar, no matter whether 
  the trees are deciduous or conifers. The biggest interruption in natural 
  processes is when careless humans start forest wildfires by throwing 
  cigarette butts out of car windows, or forget to see that they have 
  completely drowned a campfire by stirring the wet ashes with their hands. 
  If you can't stand the heat in the wet ashes, the campfire isn't 
  completely out, and the water you use to wash the ashes off your hands 
  should be used to finish putting out the campfire.Please note that a 
  forest wildfire is completely opposite from a prescribed burn set by a 
  professional forester to act as a forest regeneration tool.j.From: 
  Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: 
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: 
  RE: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?Date: 
  Thu, 7 Jul 2005 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT)Well done. Thanks 
  Wes.I am often discouraged to the point of being overwhelmed 
  by the struggle. I'm sure everyone in this forum has felt a wide range 
  of emotions including outrage, guilt, sadness, inadequacy and 
  (sometimes) triumph. Our environment doesn't always facilitate the 
  efforts of those who want to help it (like not having recycling in 
  some areas).On Tuesday, I interviewed with a company who is a 
  vendor for Coca Cola. Almost exactly a week earlier, I learned of the 
  killings of Coca Cola employees in Colombia as a reaction to their 
  union activities. (IMO) it puts into perspective the difficult choices 
  we have to make to support ourselves and our 
  families.If you are aware of your environment and your 
  environment encompasses everything effecting the quality of life of 
  your fellow human being, then there is a lot to be upset about and a 
  lot of work to be done.I encourage everyone to embrace the 
  struggle, keep the faith and remember that there is strength in 
  solidarity.MikeWes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:I think I am seeing a pattern here. I have noticed that 
  some folks seem tothink that whatever is being done is bad... end of 
  story . not just in thisforum, but it seems to be abundant here. I 
  would like to suggest to anyonewho witnesses this tendency that they 
  withhold criticism until they feelthey can offer a solution. I try to 
  exercise this method with myself, and Isuggest it may be helpful to 
  others. You will notice that Keith, forinstance, seems to offer 
  solutions. Others can only describe what they feelis wrong with the 
  system.This is not a complete solution to a negative personality, but 
  should go along way in making life more pleasant for all. I enjoy the 
  constructivecriticism and solutions offered here, but am slightly 
  frustrated when folksendlessly tell us that everything in the world is 
  wrong.WesHello Chris  Trees 
  are renewable and the lumber industry now replants more trees than 
  it takes.  The only problem

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid




Thanks Kieth.After reading the article by Naom Chomsky, Two things stood out in my mind and two statements keep me from forgetting them.
"That (the existence of WMD's) was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force."
"Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."
1.) There is no length to which an American president will go to make a case for war.
2.) There is no length to which an American president will go to perpetuate conflict "in the name of..."
As an American citizen, I must believe that there are people in the world who understand that not all Americans stand by this president and that there is a difference between a people and its government.
Considering the circumstances oflast two elections, the overwhelming cash flow and the influence it bought through the use corporate resources, many of us know who won the last two elections and why. Themost disturbing aspectof the last two elections is that under our current duopoly, the victory would not have changed, irrespective of who finally moved into White House.
George Bush: Every life is preciousthats what distinguishes us from the enemy.The irony is incredible!100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Studyhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
See also: http://www.restructures.net/chicago/Iraq.htm
Impeachable offenses committed without a formal investigation or serious media coverage.
...but don't you dare get caught with a girlfriend in the Oval Office.
Peace,
Mike___
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] Re: How many trees were killed to build your home?

Marc,

I wanted to get away from the bear discussion, because clear cuttings are a
major menace for nature and the major contributor to dead lakes. Not
because the clear cuttings per say, but because of the combination with
industrial pollution.

The humans are quite stupid, at a time when the need the major filter of
the nature, they do the best to disable it by clear cuttings. You do not
need many holes in a filter, to render it as useless.

We all know that good forest management came from Germany and we also know
that large forest machinery are made by US corporations. The clear cutting
practises, is an other idea that was fostered by US, to maintain sales by
US products. Sweden and Finland have thousands of dead lakes that proves
the point. To even discuss the clear cuts as positive, as a food source for
bears and other animals, is a stupid smoke screen.

The subject How many trees were killed to build your home? is ridiculous
and irrelevant, if you compare it with the clear cutting idea. We have
trees enough to build, assuming that we manage our resources in a proper
way. In the same way as energy efficiency would create ample cushions of
time to develop a more sustainable living.

The idea of that US can continue with their practises and energy waste,
because China and India should lead the way. Is so utterly stupid, that we
get into the limits of the possibility to describe it in existing languages.

I have no milk allergy, but I get the symptoms whenever I see, or worse,
hear Bush and his Masters.

Hakan

At 08:55 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:

Joe, Halkan

I as well have sensed the doom and gloom attitude from Suzuki, there is no
denying it. But I think in recent years it has shifted to a more positive
approach of trying to make a difference by offering solutions.

I think depend was maybe the wrong choice of words to describe the role
salmon play in a bears life. I was referring to the
population(percentage) of bears that reside on B.C's coast and islands
such as Haida Gwaii(small geographical area) that feed mainly on
salmon. Below is a snippet of info taken from a parks Canada website
pointing out the importance of salmon in their diet. The importance lies
in the timing of salmon runs that provide much needed fat for their long
hibernation. In my opinion, if these salmon were extirpated due to
industrial logging, many of the bears would go hungry.

Black bear· The most important source of food for bears in Haida Gwaii is
salmon. Bears can take from 45% to 80% of the total population of chum,
but the majority of salmon taken by bears are spawned out females. Bears
eat on average 13 salmon a day in Gwaii Haanas.

http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/toile-web/toile-web3b_E.asphttp://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/toile-web/toile-web3b_E.asp

The idea that clearcutting is beneficial to bears sounds similar to
someone arguing that oil development is beneficial for caribou. In the
long run destroying a large mammals habitat WILL have a negative
impact. More info below that addresses the short term benefits of clearcuts.

The spirit bear is threatened because much of its home range has already
been logged, and a good portion of the remainder is slated for the same
fate. While logging creates some short-term benefits for bears (for
example, one of bears' foods, berries, grow in clearcuts), the long-term
consequences of industrial logging are very serious. For example, the loss
of big trees that provide dens for bears means they will not have adequate
protection for hibernating through the wet, cold winters, nor adequate
protection from the storms that howl in from the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.savespiritbear.org/project/spiritbear/about_bear/science_info.html#scientistshttp://www.savespiritbear.org/project/spiritbear/about_bear/science_info.html#scientists

Take care

Marc

___
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] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

2005-07-07 Thread capt3d

hi hakan.

i don't know the figures, but the oil production in iraq since desert storm has been a very small piece of the pie, much diminished from what it had been. i can't argue, though, with the impactof bothincreased demand from emerging economies and the decline in the value of the $u.s.

but in my view, this only underscores my point. becauseadding a major military conflict (it doesn't matter how brief or easy they thought it would be: an invasion of a country by a force in excess of 15 personnel is a major conflict, no matter how you care to dissect it) smack in the midst of the world's primary oil production area, to this already volatile economic situation should only have had a much greater impact on oil prices than a single storm. a storm which *might* afffect one of the lesser oil-producing areas by disruptingsome of its production.

the point i'm trying to make is that they--those who control the oil/energy industry--will stubbornly refuse to view the iraq situation as putting a large part of world supply at risk.if you were to apply this rationale, the price of oil would spike in a manner that would provoke public outrage and a dramatic change of the american public's attitude regarding the iraq war.

chris b.

-Original Message-From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:43:31 +0200Subject: Re: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

Chris b,The fact is that the oil price has gone up very much thanks to the Iraq venture. The oil production in Iraq, before the occupation, was almost as large as what they call the "swing production", or with other words the cushion that evened out production and demand. The biggest problem andreason, has also been the US filling up their strategic storage, which was going down due to the war. Bush has been filling up, independent of the price of the day.With the "swing production" gone and higher demand from China and India, the price have moved up in a steady way and will continue to do so. It is also interesting to note that the high oil price is mainly a US problem and countries that pegged their currencies to the greenback. In many other currencies, the oil price has not gone up that much. This because the dollar lost significantly in value, 0.89 dollar for one Euro, before the war, has changed to 1.25 to 1.35. This mean that EU is less effected by the higher oil price in dollar.One reason for the low response at the time of the war, was the general opinion that US would gain and be able to stabilize the oil supplies rapidly. This has not happened and in combination with that, it was discovered that a large part of the "general oil reserves" was paperwork. It is much worse times to come and maybe a serious US lead depression will be necessary to establish lower oil demand levels. On the other hand, it might nor help, since the growth in China and India, will outstrip the effects of a depression. A depression will probably hit US, but it has more to do with adjustments to a new world economic balance.The forgiveness of the African debts, is necessary and sound adjustments of the books, not our leaders sudden rebirth and alter egoistic mood.HakanAt 03:29 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:i've never heard this term of 'the bilderbergers' before, but i don't find teh notion too farfetched. more likely to me that their idea of safeguarding supply is simply to make it more expensive, regardless of whether it provokes economic downturn or depression. take the fact that oil prices spiked again simply because of this tropical storm in the gulf right now; the rationale being that it could disrupt supply.how do people swallow this bunk? by the same reasoning, oil should have surpassed $75/bbl the very day we invaded iraq.as far as your last comment is concerned, isn't it interesting that left wing parties and labor movements were far more widespread and mainstream *prior to (and during)* the great depression than *after* (this is especially true of the situation in the u.s.a.).?-chris b.-Original Message-From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:52:06 -0700Subject: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future From the latest ASPO Newsletter:http://www.peakoil.net/http://www.peakoil.net/ Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do.I know, your eyes glaze over when you hear anything aboutthe Bilderbergers :-) Interesting idea, tho. My Dad waspoor enough in the Great Depression that hey traded withtheir Polish neighbors for sauerkraut and potatoes. OTOH,my Mom was sort of aristocracy, and the same event hardlyeven

Re: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future



Chris b,

When we talk about oil prices, we are talking on the prices and trading on 
the spot market, which are relatively small volumes. Most large supplies 
are contracted and not bought on the spot market, but the contractual 
prices are regulated by the spot market, This means that the prices are 
dependent on demand and supply, at the ultimate levels and margins. Before 
the war, the total Iraq production was near the swing (extra) production 
capacity, which is what was needed to maintain a low oil price. There are 
only two price regulating factors, the swing production and the US 
purchases to its strategic inventory reserves. The latter was introduced 
after the first oil crises, 35 years ago, to give US a pricing tool for 
managing any new crises.


By taking out the swing capacity, the oil price get truly dependent on 
demand, since there are no more cushions, other than US purchases to its 
strategic inventory reserves. If the demand rises more than expected, as 
the non foreseeable demands from China and India, the market get very 
sensitive and without extra production capacity, the price will be the only 
regulating factor. It does not help that US continued to fill up their 
reserves at higher price, which are larger volumes than the rises from 
China and India together. Bush did in fact completely control the price 
with the purchases to the inventory reserve and by that guaranteed a high 
price and large profits for his buddies. Despite this, he has the nerve to 
blame China and India for the high prices. It seems to be no limits on how 
you can fool the American public with a little propaganda.


I do not in any way want to claim that the American public is stupid, I 
know better than making that kind of generalizations. That many are a bit 
naive and still belive in the tooth fairy, is an other issue. It seems 
however that the American public already are in the process of changing the 
attitude to the Iraq war, if one should belive the recent polls. Bush is 
aware of it and has admitted that he has to do more explaining in 
public appearances, so the American people will understand him. -:)


Hakan


At 01:55 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote:

hi hakan.

i don't know the figures, but the oil production in iraq since desert 
storm has been a very small piece of the pie, much diminished from what it 
had been.  i can't argue, though, with the impact of both increased demand 
from emerging economies and the decline in the value of the $u.s.


but in my view, this only underscores my point.  because adding a major 
military conflict (it doesn't matter how brief or easy they thought it 
would be:  an invasion of a country by a force in excess of 15 
personnel is a major conflict, no matter how you care to dissect it) smack 
in the midst of the world's primary oil production area, to this already 
volatile economic situation should only have had a much greater impact on 
oil prices than a single storm. a storm which *might* afffect one of the 
lesser oil-producing areas by disrupting some of its production.


the point i'm trying to make is that they--those who control the 
oil/energy industry--will stubbornly refuse to view the iraq situation as 
putting a large part of world supply at risk. if you were to apply this 
rationale, the price of oil would spike in a manner that would provoke 
public outrage and a dramatic change of the american public's attitude 
regarding the iraq war.


chris b.

-Original Message-
From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:43:31 +0200
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

Chris b,

The fact is that the oil price has gone up very much thanks to the Iraq 
venture. The oil production in Iraq, before the occupation, was almost as 
large as what they call the swing production, or with other words the 
cushion that evened out production and demand. The biggest problem and
reason, has also been the US filling up their strategic storage, which was 
going down due to the war. Bush has been filling up, independent of the 
price of the day.


With the swing production gone and higher demand from China and India, 
the price have moved up in a steady way and will continue to do so. It is 
also interesting to note that the high oil price is mainly a US problem 
and countries that pegged their currencies to the greenback. In many other 
currencies, the oil price has not gone up that much. This because the 
dollar lost significantly in value! , 0.89 dollar for one Euro, before the 
war, has changed to 1.25 to 1.35. This mean that EU is less effected by 
the higher oil price in dollar.


One reason for the low response at the time of the war, was the general 
opinion that US would gain and be able to stabilize the oil supplies 
rapidly. This has not happened and in combination with that, it was 
discovered that a large part of the general oil reserves was paperwork. 
It is much worse times to come

Re: [Biofuel] ASPO on the Economic near-Future

2005-07-07 Thread Ken Provost

on 7/7/05 6:15 PM, Hakan Falk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 Bush did in fact completely control the price with the purchases
 to the inventory reserve and by that guaranteed a high price and
 large profits for his buddies. Despite this, he has the nerve to
 blame China and India for the high prices. It seems to be no limits
 on how you can fool the American public with a little propaganda.
 
 I do not in any way want to claim that the American public is
 stupid, I know better than making that kind of generalizations.



I don't consider MYSELF stupid, of course :), but I've never heard
before that Bush's additions to the strategic petroleum reserve
exceed the consumption of China + India. I do read many accounts
of how those two nations' increased consumption is a main cause
of the high prices, and I don't mean TV news and my local paper.
I get my news from AlterNet, CommonDreams, Smirking Chimp, Energy
Bulletin.net, AlJazeera (english version), and HuffingtonPost.

Still, you can only make so much effort to be informed, and if even
THOSE sources are tainted (ie, controlled), then the propaganda
efforts are successful. Where shall we Google next?

-K


___
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] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-07 Thread Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com


Keith,

Along with active and informed opposition to factory farming, 
industrialised farming and the food industry, that might be more 
effective than just condemning meat and meat-eaters. Meat is bad vs 
Do you know where that meat you're eating comes from? That 
particular meat.


First, I never said Meat is bad.  What I did say was Frankly, I can't 
imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as it is just not a 
sustainable food source.  What I should have said is Frankly, I can't 
imagine meat remaining a staple for much longer as it is just not a 
sustainable food staple.  Humans can eat meat sustainably when, as we 
both have stated, it is eaten in moderation and is carefully farmed.  As 
a matter of fact, my children eat meat and dairy as well.  My choice to 
not eat meat is exactly that - my choice.  I am careful about where it 
comes from, though, when they do eat it.  The point being, from the 
beginning, that we Americans need to learn to eat less meat and less 
dairy.  I'm not sure what the conditions are where you live but, where I 
live, try finding anything that doesn't contain either meat or dairy at 
a restaurant.


In regards to the lack of traditionally vegetarian societies, isn't the 
Hindu community primarily meat-free?  In fact aren't there many Asian 
cultures that incorporate little to no meat in their diets and have so 
for centuries if not longer?  I have come to understand that meat as a 
food, has in many cultures, been more of a matter of convience for 
ages.  A goat is food that could transport itself and also remains fresh 
without refrigeration until you are ready to eat it.  I may not 
understand your meaning of a traditional vegetarian society or maybe I'm 
just wrong.


When properly produced, dairy products are valuable food. They're an 
important part of sustainable agriculture, without them farming is 
less sustainable.


What exactly, makes dairy products more valuable than other foods?  Lets 
say grains for instance?  How much wheat could be grown with the same 
water that is required to produce a gallon of milk?  I have read quite a 
bit on this subject.  My findings seem to keep indicating that the 
yields of grains are much higher with same water inputs.  And as we all 
know water is one of our very most valuable resources.  Likewise, I have 
read many times that dairy cattle tend to require a considerable amount 
of medication and I see no indication that cattle raised for organic 
milk are immune to that trend.  I suppose that you might be correct 
about in that without dairy, agriculture becomes less sustainable.  That 
is assuming that by this statement you mean that the milk would be 
wasted or that it is a resource left unexploited but, I think that a 
tremendous amount of research would need to be completed to determine 
the validity of that statement.  A lactating cow's manure contains less 
nutrients to be returned to the soil because she is putting every 
possible nutrient into her milk to nurture her young.  So her value to 
soil fertilization is reduced.  Additionally, when considering the 
additional water consumed by the cow to produce the milk, is the milk of 
a greater value than the grain that you might be storing for the 
winter?  How do you quantify these factors?


I am pretty sure that our thinkings on these issues are fairly well in 
line with one another.  For the record, I never said that milk was bad 
either, only that Americans in general consume entirely too much of it.  
Ultimately, this is a decision for the person making it, not me..


Take care,
Ken

___
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] Exposure to Depleted Uranium

2005-07-07 Thread glenne1949

This item from American Free Press. More items can be seen by googling "Deleted uranium/ ingestion/ damage.

Glenn

Explaining How Depleted Uranium Is Killing Civilians, Soldiers, Land

Nano-particles pinpointed

By Christopher Bollyn

Depleted uranium weapons, and the untold misery they wreak on mankind, are taboo subjects in the mainstream media. This exclusive report should break the media embargo imposed on the American people.
Despite being a grossly under-reported subject in the mainstream, there is intense public interest in depleted uranium (DU) and the damage it inflicts on humankind and the environment.
While American Free Press is actively investigating DU weapons and how they contribute to Gulf War Syndrome, the corporate-controlled press ignores the illegal use of DU and its long-lasting effects on the health of veterans and the public.
In August 2004 American Free Press published a ground-breaking four-part series on DU weapons and the long-term health risks they pose to soldiers and civilians alike. Information provided to AFP by experts and scientists, some of it published for the first time in this paper, has increased public awareness of how exposure to small particles of DU can severely affect human health.
Leuren Moret, a Berkeley-based geo-scientist with expertise in atmospheric dust, corresponds with AFP on DU issues. Recently Moret provided a copy of her letters to a British radiation biologist, Dr. Chris Busby, about how nanometer size particles—less than one-tenth of a micron and smaller—of DU once inhaled or absorbed into the body, can cause long-term damage to one’s health.
Busby is one of the founders of Green Audit, a British organization that monitors companies “whose activities might threaten the environment and health of citizens.”
Moret’s writings were meant to assist Busby in a legal case being heard in the High Court in London where a former defense worker, Richard David, 49, is suing Normal Air Garrett, Ltd., an aircraft parts company now owned by Honeywell Aerospace, claiming exposure to DU on the job has made his life a “living hell.”
David worked as a component fitter on fighter planes and bombers but had to quit due to health problems. He says he developed a cough within weeks of starting work.
Today, David suffers from a variety of symptoms like those known as Gulf War Syndrome, including respiratory and kidney problems, bowel conditions and painful joints. Medical tests reveal mutations to his DNA and damage to his chromosomes, which, he says, could only have been caused by ionizing radiation. He has also been diagnosed with a terminal lung condition.
Honeywell denies DU was ever used at the plant in Yeovil, Somerset, where David worked for 10 years until 1995. David claims that DU’s existence at the plant was denied because it is an official secret.
David has asked the High Court for more time to gather evidence. The hearing is due to resume in April. “I don’t have any legal representation,” David said, “so I am representing myself. It is a real David versus Goliath case.
“I am confident I will win. I hope to set a precedent for other cases of people who have suffered from the effects of depleted uranium,” he said.
Moret’s letters on the particle effect of DU is based on research done by Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist and former scientist with the Manhattan Project and the National Laboratory at Livermore, Calif. Fulk, who has developed a “particle theory” about how DU nano-particles affect human DNA, donates his time and expertise to help bring information about DU to the public.
Asked about Fulk’s particle theory, Busby said it is “quite sound.”
“DU is much more dangerous than they say,” Busby added. “I’ve always said that it contributes significantly to Gulf War Syndrome.”
When Moret’s correspondence to Dr. Busby was posted on the Internet over the New Year’s holiday under the title “How Depleted Uranium Weapons Are Killing Our Troops,” some 6,000 people read the letter in the first two days. The following Monday, a producer from BBC’s Panorama program contacted Moret to arrange an interview.
If the BBC follows up with an investigation on the health effects of DU, it may be hard for the U.S. media to maintain their cover-up. More than 500,000 “Gulf War Era” vets currently receive disability compensation, many of them for a variety of symptoms generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Experts blame DU for many of these symptoms.
“The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media Services wrote in an article about DU weapons entitled “Silent Genocide.”
“DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”
U.S. GOVERNMENT KNOWS
The U.S.

Re: Wes - RE: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread Ryan Hall




Keith wrote:

And there are people who demand to 
know: "What's all this off-topic political crap got to do with BIOFUELS???", 
which usually turns out to be another way of saying they disagree with it and 
want it censored.

Keith, I for one will put in my 2 cents and say quite honestly that I 
wouldn't be glued to my computer reading email updates of this list if it 
weren't for the political discussion. I live in the South Dakota, 
USA. Most people here are Red state type of people who don't want change 
as long as there is a conservative in office pretending he/she cares. I 
love that we can all speak freely, and I especially love that I can read what 
people from around the world think, especially about America...I agree with most 
of them. I am also thankful that you post so many articles, I would not be 
exposed to this information otherwise. This list has changed my world view 
for the better. Thank you for your hard work, and thank you to all the 
contributers.

Ryan
___
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] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-07 Thread Ryan Hall




Michael

As an American citizen, I must believe that there are people in the 
world who understand that not all Americans stand by this president and that 
there is a difference between a people and its government

There are quite a few of us out there.

The problem is that many of the people who didn't 
like what this administration stood for, also didn't vote. The Bush 
campaign did a marvelous job of making their constituency happy come campaign 
time and also made sure that the things their constituency cared about 
(abortion, gay marriage etc.) got on the ballot. This spurred them to go 
vote so that them gay baby killin' librils won't take the country from 
'em. 
The Dems did a terrible job of rallying support. 
Dean was doing great with the youth, but of course he screamed into a 
microphone and apparantly that makes him unfit to be president...hey, at least 
he could speak, right.

Ryan

___
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] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-07 Thread capt3d

todd,

you make an excellent point.  i still remember how stunned i was when i first 
heard how much feed/grain/meal goes into each unit of meat purchased at the 
supermarket.

also, i understand there are aspects of chemistry involved which limit this 
to some degree (especially when it comes to converting the oil to biod), but 
there are lots of oils used in processed foods, such as palm kernel and 
cottonseed.  i suspect large quantities of these oils would be freed up for 
other uses 
in a more sane food industry (lol, sane food industry = oxymoron?).

-chris b.


In a message dated 7/6/05 9:38:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Reduce 

the meat centered diet to one that treats meat as a delicacy rather than 

a mainstay and vast acreages could be diverted to liquid fuel production 

and cellulosic ethanol production rather than feed meal. 


___
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] It's imperialism, stupid

Thanks Ryan. I'm with you on everything you said.

You mentioned the Dems. Nader called Democrats and Republicans part of a vast duopoly and I tend to agree. Theplatforms of both Bush and Kerry were strikingly similar.Ironically (or maybe not),the Nader campaign received very little air time in the media and was shut out of political debates. I'm not sure how much you know about Nader but, based on hiscredentials and the credentials of his running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, there was a real opportunity to have a legitimate president in the White House. I have no doubt that both of themwould havedemonstratedtheir feelingstowardthe sanctity of life with legitimate and peaceful solutions to poverty, hunger and civil liberties (among other things).

Here is some biographical information on Camejo. His background makes Bush and Kerry look pretty inadequate. Despite that, the media and political maneuvering by Bush and Kerry shut them out.

Peter Miguel Camejo: He marched in Selma, Alabama with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., rallied for migrant farm workers and was active against the war in Vietnam. He was admitted to MIT after receiving a perfect score on the Math SAT test. He attended UC Berkeley where he studied history. In 1967, after winning a student council election at UC Berkeley he was suspended for "using an unauthorized microphone" protesting the Vietnam War. When he was 20 he competed in the Olympics in Italy as a yachtsman.

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=80

Put that alongsideour presidents academic record and failed business attempts. Hell,just getting him to speak a coherent and complete sentence would be a step in the right direction.

Mike
Ryan Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Michael

As an American citizen, I must believe that there are people in the world who understand that not all Americans stand by this president and that there is a difference between a people and its government

There are quite a few of us out there.

The problem is that many of the people who didn't like what this administration stood for, also didn't vote. The Bush campaign did a marvelous job of making their constituency happy come campaign time and also made sure that the things their constituency cared about (abortion, gay marriage etc.) got on the ballot. This spurred them to go vote so that them gay baby killin' librils won't take the country from 'em.
The Dems did a terrible job of rallying support. Dean was doing great with the youth, but of course he screamed into a microphone and apparantly that makes him unfit to be president...hey, at least he could speak, right.

Ryan
___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] How many trees were killed to build your home ?

2005-07-07 Thread capt3d

hi, keith.

i have my own 'issues' with the big enviro groups.  but i have been quite 
impressed with one group as i learn more about them.  that would be 'the nature 
conservancy'.  (although, i should point out there was some sort of unsavory 
business a few years back wherein certain members of their board profited in 
some way from a particular land set-aside; but i gather they instituted more 
rigorous auditing/oversight procedures as a result).

i bring this up because i wondered, have there been any critiques of this 
group?

-chris b.

In a message dated 7/6/05 9:45:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 We don't hold any brief for the big environment groups and we've said 
so quite often. 


___
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] ASPO on the Economic near-Future



Ken,

My English is bad. I know that and I am sorry if it was not clear.

What I thought I said, was that the rise of the consumption in China or
India, was comparable to the Bush purchases to the strategic petroleum
reserve and I also thought that I was safe in this statement.

US uses 25.4 (2003) and 25.1% (2004) of the total yearly oil production in
the world and if I am not wrong, the strategic reserve has a capacity of 6
month of US petroleum use, or 12% of the world's yearly production. If Bush
has replenish 20+% of the reserve, he must have bought around 1.2% of the
world production for this purpose.

China uses 7.0% of world production and India 2.8% in 2003 and 7.6% and
3.1% in 2004. The rise is 0.6% and 0.3% and together 0.9%. Together they
have around 8 times the population of USA and use 60% less total energy.

This means that Bush purchases to the strategic reserve, which according
to the rules should be done in times of low prices, had larger effect on 
prices,

than the rise of use in China and India. Bush have continued in 2005, to
aggressively buy to the reserves. I can however understand that it had to
be slower, to pick up the slack of the rise in China and India, this is 
probably

one of the reasons behind his aggravations and  fixations on them. What
rights do they have to buy US oil? -:)

Hakan



At 03:46 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote:

on 7/7/05 6:15 PM, Hakan Falk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 Bush did in fact completely control the price with the purchases
 to the inventory reserve and by that guaranteed a high price and
 large profits for his buddies. Despite this, he has the nerve to
 blame China and India for the high prices. It seems to be no limits
 on how you can fool the American public with a little propaganda.

 I do not in any way want to claim that the American public is
 stupid, I know better than making that kind of generalizations.



I don't consider MYSELF stupid, of course :), but I've never heard
before that Bush's additions to the strategic petroleum reserve
exceed the consumption of China + India. I do read many accounts
of how those two nations' increased consumption is a main cause
of the high prices, and I don't mean TV news and my local paper.
I get my news from AlterNet, CommonDreams, Smirking Chimp, Energy
Bulletin.net, AlJazeera (english version), and HuffingtonPost.

Still, you can only make so much effort to be informed, and if even
THOSE sources are tainted (ie, controlled), then the propaganda
efforts are successful. Where shall we Google next?

-K




___
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] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-07 Thread Jerry Turner

NOWHERE in Mr. Noam Chomsky post is mentioned that over 2600 AMERICANS lost 
their lives and did so on AMERICAN soil!!

IMO you would have to be a total moron to even think that the terrorist 
would have been satisfied taking down the WTC!  Hell no they would have kept 
on killing AMERICANS at every opportunity.

  If Clinton would have had the guts to run this country instead of getting 
blows jobs in the oval office, 9/11 would have never happenedyou know it 
and I know it.

Jerry Turner

- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:44 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


See also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9394.htm
Terror Attacks Near 3,200 in 2004 Count



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9387.htm

It's imperialism, stupid

By Noam Chomsky

07/05/05 ICH - - IN his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted
that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of a global war
against terror that the United States is waging. In reality, as
anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps
significantly.

Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised
official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very
beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand
out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and
threatens the region and indeed the world.

In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq
because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the
single question, as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister
Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush
received congressional authorisation to resort to force.

The answer to the single question was given shortly after the
invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely
missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted
new pretexts and justifications for going to war.

Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw
aggression is what took place in Iraq, national security and
intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful,
extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book
Hoodwinked.

Prados describes the Bush scheme to convince America and the world
that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent as a case study in
government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public
statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence. The Downing
Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along
with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the
record of deceit.

The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002,
in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence,
made the now-notorious assertion that the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy of going to war in Iraq.

The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying
that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure
on the regime.

British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo,
has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles.
The spikes of activity apparently included a coalition air campaign
meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what
the memo calls a casus belli.

Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 - 10 tons that
month, according to British government figures. A special spike
started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as
everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before
Congress approved military action against Iraq, Smith wrote.

The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition
planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but
didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners,
invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the war on terror.
That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence
agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by
the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's
center for strategic thinking, predicted that an American-led
invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would
result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal
conflict, Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York
Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks
later, the NIC warned that Iraq and other possible conflicts in the
future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills
and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are
'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in
itself. The willingness of top planners to risk increase of
terrorism does not of course

Re: [Biofuel] emissions

2005-07-07 Thread the skapegoat

yes, burning biodiesel creates carbon dioxide. Any internal combustion engine will produce carbon dioxide. But WVO, or even SVO is a renewable resource, unlike petrol. Biodiesel is not the holy grail, just one very tiny step along the way to being responsible.
john owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here's a toughtWhat will happen if the majority of the waste vegtable oil in theworld is being used for biodiesel which isnt curently being burned andis absorbing some of the co2 being produced by mineral diesel andproduction and mineral oil consumption growes. Will this not cause anincrease in co2 in atmospher!___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.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/

RE: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-07 Thread Neil Goatman




sir
on the 
country we of the rest of the world think all americans are as their leaders 

they 
let him in (not elected )
so 
they are all tared with the same bush till they get smart and get rid of him and 
actually elect someone 
the 
world does not see as a bozo war monger ruled by corporations 

I do 
not condone terrism but nor do i support the dirty little wars the yanks have 
caused (list to long to mention )
the 
money they spend could rid the world of all poverty forever 
yanky 
go home was a cry that still applies 
Neil

  -Original Message-From: Michael Redler 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, 8 July 2005 9:35 
  AMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] 
  It's imperialism, stupid
  
  
  
  Thanks Kieth.After reading the article by Naom Chomsky, Two things 
  stood out in my mind and two statements keep me from forgetting them.
  "That (the existence of WMD's) was 
  the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair 
  and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received 
  congressional authorisation to resort to force."
  "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide 
  recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a 
  new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political 
  violence becomes an end in itself."
  1.) There is no length to which an American president will go to make a 
  case for war.
  2.) There is no length to which an American president will go to perpetuate 
  conflict "in the name of..."
  As an American citizen, I must believe that there are people in the world 
  who understand that not all Americans stand by this president and that there 
  is a difference between a people and its government.
  Considering the circumstances oflast two elections, the overwhelming 
  cash flow and the influence it bought through the use corporate resources, 
  many of us know who won the last two elections and why. Themost 
  disturbing aspectof the last two elections is that under our current 
  duopoly, the victory would not have changed, irrespective of who finally moved 
  into White House.
  George Bush: "Every life is precious-that's what distinguishes 
  us from the enemy."The 
  irony is incredible!100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - 
  Studyhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
  See also: http://www.restructures.net/chicago/Iraq.htm
  Impeachable offenses committed without a formal investigation or serious 
  media coverage.
  ...but don't you dare get caught with a girlfriend in the Oval Office.
  Peace,
  Mike

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by 
MailMarshal - For more information 
please visit www.marshalsoftware.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/

[Biofuel] Help!

2005-07-07 Thread Jschwabop

Greetings to you bio-fuelers,

I am new to this list serve and signed up hoping to find some advice.  I recently heard the end of the NPR (National Public Radio) program that featured Mike Pelly.  Through that program I became VERY interested in biodiesel.  I have been doing some reading on the net and I now have some questions for you all.  Here they are:
1) Where can I learn first hand the "how to's" in preparing SVO and Used Vegetable Oil as a diesel fuel to be used in a vehicle.  Are there workshops out there somewhere?  I live in NE Iowa.  I have read the step-by-step directions on the net, but I would still like to witness this procedure so that I can feel comfortable with it.

2) I would like to buy a small diesel-burning pick-up that gets good gas mileage and can burn SVO.  Any suggestions?  

3) Since I am not a mechanic, where can I get VERY CLEAR information on what needs to be done to my diesel vehicle so that it can burn SVO?

I would appreciate any help you could give me regarding my questions.

Gratefully,

J. Schwab
___
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] It's imperialism, stupid