Re: [Biofuel] http://www.electricitybook.com
Thanks for the review Hal. Seems like no library in Kansas has the sunshine to dollars, I tried to find a copy through the interlibrary loan. Doug - Original Message - From: hal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:23 PM Subject: [Biofuel] http://www.electricitybook.com Doug, I purchased both the electricity book and the sunshine to dollars book. I was very disappointed in the Sunshine to Dollars book and so told them. I did find the Electricity book informative but feel it could have been ended after the first 38-40 pages instead of continuing on to page 111. Of course these are just my feelings and others may disagree. Check other replies and and see what remarks they have. Hal Galerneau [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/ ___ 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: NaOH source in Canada
Hi Ray I have not been able to keep up with the list, so I missed your first message. I bought my NaOH at a local animal feed store in Smiths Falls On Can . the price was either $25 or $35 for 5 Kg. the price was current a few months ago . I am sure it will be available at most 'feed stores'. If they do not know what you are asking for simply ask for Lye. Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mark manchester Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:28 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] (no subject) Hi Ray, No answers? don't despair. Our dear Darryl must be busy. He's up near you. The lye is not expensive, a Cdn Tire thing, and he told me last year where to get methanol. Erg, I'm looking for it in the old letters. Jesse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:50:48 -0400 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] (no subject) Hello to my fellow brewers from Ontario, Canada: I just tried pricing MeOH and NaOH from Fisher Scientific (via Good Health and Safety in Mississauga). MeOH @ $79CAD for 20L and NaOH @ $267CAD for 5kg both before tax and shipping. That won't do! There must be cheaper sources. I'm near Ottawa. How do you make it economically viable? Diesel is running at about $0.90CAD per litre right now, but at these prices I can only hope to break even. Ray -- Ray or Shiraz Ings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-613-253-1311 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ 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] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments
Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects. I did spend a fair amount of time reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa. My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, that aid projects are generally hopeless. This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss. I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away. I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed. The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid business plan. Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small business loan. If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a better plan. This cuts out the government, which very often cannot resist taking a little (or large) cut. Of course, many other variables apply: some countries do not have the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and many others. As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same thing. We're just more complicit because we don't protest. I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of Finlandization only in a political sense, and apply to the UN. They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation on themselves. But the US could stand a little of this too. -Mike Dale Seto wrote: You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that! It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again. As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to high moral standards. Yeah, right. But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our own way, no matter what that help entails. Thanks for your comments, Dale From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200 Dale, It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country. US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together. US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that they are the largest contributor and Europe do not yet count as a nation in this respect. To be able to get a more peaceful world, it helps if the nations recognize, respect and obey international law. It would help a lot if US recognized and participated in the International Court. US says that they do not want to give anyone else the right to judge US citizens than US courts, the rules for the International court give however the members preferred right to persecute any crimes. It is only if
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hey- Let's all hope the day never comes where our emporer has to be dug out of his fortified underground bunker by the Asian-Russian liberators. D.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima Far from hating the United States, it appears that the Russian people were very favourably disposed toward the U.S. at the end of World War II. Allied aid, mostly from the U.S., was a crucial factor in enabling the U.S.S.R. to stay in the war and defeat the Germans. Thousands of Russian soldiers drove American trucks to supply the Red Army's offensive, for example. I believe that Russians got to eat quite a lot of Spam. George Kennan in his memoirs described a massive spontaneous demonstration of friendship in front of the American embassy in Moscow at the end of the war in Europe and speculated that it must have been very disconcerting for Stalin and his henchmen. The Japanese government was successful in making the surrender stick after the atom bombs, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It would have been very hard without the bombs. My guess is that in an invasion the Allied dead might have been only 100,000 or 150,000 or so, but the losses among Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been several times that number. It's clear that in August 1945 the Japanese would ultimately have been compelled to surrender if the Allies had just waited, for perhaps a year. But the civilians would have been extremely unwilling to wait, and the Russians might have found the temptation to mount their own invasion irresistible. A Russian invasion would likely have killed many more than the atom bombs. The deaths among Japanese civilians on Okinawa caused basically by Japanese forces in the grip of the Bushido cult were considerable. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim [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] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments
Thanks, Mike But don't you think that this hypothetical "2%" could be put into a fund to do just that? A nestegg, so to speak, to give out these low interest loans? But then who would be trustworthy enough to administer these loans and make it transparent enough for all to watchdog it? I guess we are running into the same problem over and over again. See ya.From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and commentsDate: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:49:31 -0400Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htmI was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects.I did spend a fair amount of timereviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa.My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, that aid projects are generally hopeless.This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss.I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away.I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed.The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid business plan.Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small business loan.If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a better plan.This cuts out the government, which very often cannot resist taking a little (or large) cut.Of course, many other variables apply:some countries do not have the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and many others.As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same thing.We're just more complicit because we don't protest.I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of "Finlandization" only in a political sense, and apply to the UN.They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation on themselves.But the US could stand a little of this too.-MikeDale Seto wrote:You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that!It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again.As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to high moral standards. Yeah, right.But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our own way, no matter what that help entails.Thanks for your comments, Dale From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200 Dale, It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country. US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together. US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that they are the largest
Re: [Biofuel] The Neurobiology of Mass Delusion
Keith Addison wrote: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Mass-Delusion-Neurobiology11jan05.htm JASON BRADFORD / Energy Bulletin 11jan05 The Neurobiology of Mass Delusion Holy moly Batman, Where do you find this stuff Keith? Research the "laws of thermodynamics" and compare them to the cultural imperative for "economic growth." See if you can recognize and then resolve the tension between the two in your mind. Do I have to? Can't I just smile and nod? Although my wife and I live on a family ranch in NE New Mexico, we work at our business in the town twenty minutes from here. We spend considerable time exploring human idiosyncrasy surrounding what GW Bush administration calls the non- negotiable American lifestyle. Frankly it makes us sick to think that Illustrious Leader can be so arrogant and even more irritating that most of the people of this country agree with it. However, I applaud your tenacity on posting historical documents and writing your prose. When I say we have given it some thought I mean to say about fifteen minutes every couple of hours. Thats how long our smoke breaks last. One of the things that smacks us sharply is where we take our breaks. We sit in front of our little shop on the main drag of a small town. We watch the endless parade of gas guzzling macho machines cruise up and down the strip. While your articles are interesting reading and for the open minded, quite thought provoking, we here in the good ol boy USA live it day in and day out. The American Lifestyle is not negotiable? How can one look upon a Hummer with two thousand dollars worth of hubcaps and not see the duality of which you speak. We have no delusions about being able to open the eyes of the driver in an $80,000 war wagon that there is an on-going energy crisis. I ask myself (nobody else wants to hear it) if one of these macho-guys would buy $2,000 hub caps if he had to do it with cash or take it out of savings? I doubt it? I dont know about the rest of the counties in the civilized world, but here in the USA credit card companies want consumers to waste money on automobile embellishments. I guess the banks think supporting the auto industry bolsters the economy. My feeling is the extravagant hubcaps bought with credit cards at 18% interest will expedite the collapse of this ridiculous lifestyle. There is a line in a song from a group from your neck of the woods that goes like this: I have these amazing powers of observation The enlightened amongst us can sit back and watch crisis after crisis accumulate on a global scale. These problems may take care of themselves. The inherent flaw in the machine will cause self destruction inevitably. Many Americans are tired of talking about it. My wife and I are learning to become somewhat self sustainable thanks to the information found in this group and others. All my life I have made due with my resourcefulness as opposed to buying in. We had a saying back then: tune in, drop out. Like my line from Pink Floyds The Wall , I can only remember segments at any one time. Anyway, I rarely strayed from the principals of peace and living with Mother Nature. I hope it helps. Brian Rodgers Brian's Nell's computer scanned this baby no viruses were found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/2005 ___ 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] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?
Just for consideration. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.aspGreg H. ___ 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 New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments
Yes, I do. But first you have to convince the donor countries to do it and that it is in their interest. Look at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/101100-101.htm and look up William Easterly's work. I am afraid I'm kind of pessimistic right now - the whole foreign aid issue, while not intractable, requires both donor and donee to rethink the process. But that is a very difficult notion and the status quo has a lot of momentum right now. I do not see how the US can find money to blow Iraq to bits but can't even follow its commitment to rebuild Afganistan. Mike Dale Seto wrote: Thanks, Mike But don't you think that this hypothetical 2% could be put into a fund to do just that? A nestegg, so to speak, to give out these low interest loans? But then who would be trustworthy enough to administer these loans and make it transparent enough for all to watchdog it? I guess we are running into the same problem over and over again. See ya. From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:49:31 -0400 Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects. I did spend a fair amount of time reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa. My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, that aid projects are generally hopeless. This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss. I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away. I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed. The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid business plan. Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small business loan. If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a better plan. This cuts out the government, which very often cannot resist taking a little (or large) cut. Of course, many other variables apply: some countries do not have the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and many others. As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same thing. We're just more complicit because we don't protest. I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of Finlandization only in a political sense, and apply to the UN. They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation on themselves. But the US could stand a little of this too. -Mike Dale Seto wrote: You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that! It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again. As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to high moral standards. Yeah, right. But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our own way, no matter what that help entails. Thanks for your comments, Dale From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200 Dale, It is difficult and 2% is
Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments
Hello Mike Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects. I did spend a fair amount of time reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa. My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, In some circles it's well known and acknowledged. I'd hope that this could be one of them. that aid projects are generally hopeless. This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss. I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away. I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed. Bilateral aid is generally a dead loss, as I was saying - that is, it's often a dead loss as far as the purported beneficiaries are concerned, the target group, but usually not as far as the real target group is concerned, which far too often is still business interests in the donor country. And of course the Wabenzi along the way. The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid business plan. Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small business loan. If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a better plan. This cuts out the government, which very often cannot resist taking a little (or large) cut. Of course, many other variables apply: some countries do not have the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and many others. Many non-government funding agencies work this way, including many of the church groups. It helps if the recipient groups are as local as possible, and always it needs monitoring. These rules/guidelines or whatever that I put together with material from our friends at Oxfam HK work well: http://journeytoforever.org/community.html Community development http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Community development - poverty and hunger I think what we're both making clear is that there's no mass-production approach to this, throwing money at it just doesn't help and probably makes things worse. That's very inconvenient for people who like to use amounts of money spent (or misspent) as proof of achievement and problems solved, which helps keep the funds rolling in, and it's not welcome news either for the people whose taxes or charity provide the funds, which I guess is why this kind of talk isn't fashionable. It all comes down to the same thing, the one single reason that development and aid are needed in the first place: the reason poverty and hunger exist on such a vast scale in a world of plenty is an inequitable world economic system. Any effort to change that at any level might accomplish more than many bilateral aid programs do. Hence the ongoing worldwide protests, it's a major item on the agenda of the Other Superpower. Best Keith As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same thing. We're just more complicit because we don't protest. I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of Finlandization only in a political sense, and apply to the UN. They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation on themselves. But the US could stand a little of this too. -Mike Dale Seto wrote: You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that! It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again. As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reform in a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge
Re: [Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?
Just for consideration. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp Greg H. The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. Strange place to find it, I doubt it's close to Mr Kristol's heart, nor to Mr Murdoch's, but it's correct nonetheless. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Neurobiology of Mass Delusion
Brian Rodgers wrote: Keith Addison wrote: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Mass-Delusion-Neurobiology11jan05.htm JASON BRADFORD / Energy Bulletin 11jan05 The Neurobiology of Mass Delusion Holy moly Batman, Where do you find this stuff Keith? It finds me, and then it finds you. Research the laws of thermodynamics and compare them to the cultural imperative for economic growth. See if you can recognize and then resolve the tension between the two in your mind. Do I have to? Can't I just smile and nod? And nod off again? You might notice it's from the Energy Bulletin 11jan05, it's about energy, and it's very pertinent. Although my wife and I live on a family ranch in NE New Mexico, we work at our business in the town twenty minutes from here. We spend considerable time exploring human idiosyncrasy surrounding what GW Bush administration calls the non- negotiable American lifestyle. Frankly it makes us sick to think that Illustrious Leader can be so arrogant and even more irritating that most of the people of this country agree with it. However, I applaud your tenacity on posting historical documents and writing your prose. Huh? I'm a journalist, I write for people, whether they're Americans or not or from other OECD nations or not is their problem and not my main concern, at least not this time. This is the paragraph before the one you quoted: Those who know about Peak Oil, monetary debts, climate change, militarism, overpopulation, corporatism, soil loss, aquifer depletion, persistent organic pollutants, deforestation, etc., realize we are at a major historical juncture now. Since we know it is past time to change our culture, the question we have is whether most people will bother to listen and create the necessary transition in a rational, non-violent manner. I'd say that has quite a lot to do with many of the things many of us are trying to do here, wouldn't you agree? When I say we have given it some thought I mean to say about fifteen minutes every couple of hours. That's how long our smoke breaks last. One of the things that smacks us sharply is where we take our breaks. We sit in front of our little shop on the main drag of a small town. We watch the endless parade of gas guzzling macho machines cruise up and down the strip. While your articles are interesting reading and for the open minded, quite thought provoking, we here in the good ol' boy USA live it day in and day out. The American Lifestyle is not negotiable? How can one look upon a Hummer with two thousand dollars worth of hubcaps and not see the duality of which you speak. We have no delusions about being able to open the eyes of the driver in an $80,000 war wagon that there is an on-going energy crisis. I ask myself (nobody else wants to hear it) if one of these macho-guys would buy $2,000 hub caps if he had to do it with cash or take it out of savings? I doubt it? I don't know about the rest of the counties in the civilized world, What other world is there? Would you care to define the uncivilized world? Maybe what's truly uncivilized about the world is the system of economic relationships or mis-relationships and outright exploitation that results in your macho-guys having that $2,000 to waste on hubcaps in the first place, whether in cash or credit, because the other side of the same coin is that maybe 2,000 families elsewhere that are among the billion-odd who have to live on less than $1 a day in a world of abundance didn't get to eat that day as a result. Maybe that's stretching it a little, but not by much, not beyond the truth, and not nearly as much as the comfortable assumption that this kind of waste exists in a vacuum and doesn't have that kind of consequence, or the equally comfortable but more obnoxious assumption that the one who has the $2,000 to waste has it because he deserves it and so he can do whatever he likes with it, because he's a better human being than the one who doesn't have it because he's not smart enough. That's why I write. but here in the USA credit card companies want consumers to waste money on automobile embellishments. I guess the banks think supporting the auto industry bolsters the economy. My feeling is the extravagant hubcaps bought with credit cards at 18% interest will expedite the collapse of this ridiculous lifestyle. There is a line in a song from a group from your neck of the woods I'm living in Japan right now but I don't actually have a neck of the woods. (Not just a quibble, no home, no nation.) that goes like this: I have these amazing powers of observation The enlightened amongst us can sit back and watch crisis after crisis accumulate on a global scale. These problems may take care of themselves. Some hope, without taking everything else with them. Not a good time just to sit back and let it take care of itself, IMHO. ... we are at a major historical juncture now. The inherent flaw in the machine Is it really inherent? It's contrived,
[Biofuel] UK: Biodiesel sellers in Lancashire PLEASE!
Guys, I make no pretenses about making my own BD - my High School Chemistry classes stand testament to that. But, I would like to start using Methyl Ester BD in both my vehicles - a Toyota 4Runner 3.0Td and a BMW 325TD. Can someone give me some contacts to buy BD from, pls, within the triangle making up Preston/Manchester/Liverpool. Warmest Regards Udhi ___ 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: NaOH source in Canada
Thanks Wes: I also got the following from John Ferguson (who cannot post to the list for some reason), thanks to John as well. This all looks much more doable and cost effective now. ...If you are looking for Lye/Methanol in the Ottawa area, find BSC chemicals on Cyrville Road (they are in the phone book). Last time I bought Methanol there it was $195 Cdn for 205 litres plus a $60 barrel deposit. (I think you can also get 20 litre pails for about $30) 4kg Lye was $20 or so, I forget the exact price. John Ferguson On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:14:35 -0400, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ray I have not been able to keep up with the list, so I missed your first message. I bought my NaOH at a local animal feed store in Smiths Falls On Can . the price was either $25 or $35 for 5 Kg. the price was current a few months ago . I am sure it will be available at most 'feed stores'. If they do not know what you are asking for simply ask for Lye. Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mark manchester Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:28 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] (no subject) Hi Ray, No answers? don't despair. Our dear Darryl must be busy. He's up near you. The lye is not expensive, a Cdn Tire thing, and he told me last year where to get methanol. Erg, I'm looking for it in the old letters. Jesse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:50:48 -0400 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] (no subject) Hello to my fellow brewers from Ontario, Canada: I just tried pricing MeOH and NaOH from Fisher Scientific (via Good Health and Safety in Mississauga). MeOH @ $79CAD for 20L and NaOH @ $267CAD for 5kg both before tax and shipping. That won't do! There must be cheaper sources. I'm near Ottawa. How do you make it economically viable? Diesel is running at about $0.90CAD per litre right now, but at these prices I can only hope to break even. Ray -- Ray or Shiraz Ings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-613-253-1311 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ 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/ -- Ray or Shiraz Ings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-613-253-1311 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ 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] NYTimes.com: Why America Is More Dependent Than Ever on Saudi Arabia
Title: E-Mail This This page was sent to you by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message from sender: fyi BUSINESS / WORLD BUSINESS | August 6, 2005 Why America Is More Dependent Than Ever on Saudi Arabia By JAD MOUAWAD Alternatives to Saudi Arabias oil supplies are fewer today than seemed to be the case just three years ago, adding to Saudi Arabias already impressive clout. 1. Op-Ed Columnist: Design for Confusion 2. Threat to Divest Is Church Tool in Israeli Fight 3. Op-Ed Columnist: Too Much Pork and Too Little Sugar 4. Golf in the Land of the Midnight Tee Time 5. Basics: Just the Right Digital Camera for You Go to Complete List Do you love NY? Get the insiders guide to where to stay, what to do and where to eat. Go to www.nytimes.com/travel for your NYC Guide now. Click here. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy ___ 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] Letters to editor on Cornell story
My letter to the editor on another letter to the editor on the Cornell AP story. Dear Editor, I was born in Southern California I got to see Peak Oil come, then I got to see most of the oilgo. Then I got to see the same happen tooffshore oil, as Long Beach California used their offshore oil money to built grandiose facilities then they had to sell their Spruce Goose. Our goose is cooked, unless we retain enough oil strategic reserve, to provide the energy we need, to convert over to renewable energies. Conversion is not likely, until we have different leadership, or enough people to make it happen, in spite of our leadership. I read the same article from Cornell, that Harvey Alter did, Ethanol proponents are barking up the wrong corn stalk of 4 Aug. But, I noticed Cornell's bias about solar, wind hydrogen energy. Cornell was just unfairly knocking their competition, biofuels ethanol. Hydrogen is one of the least efficient energy carriers. We are unlikely to find a breakthrough are wasting far too much research money there. Cornell is somewhat right that ethanol needs about as much energy to make, as you get, using current production methods. But, good engineering to use solar energy to evaporate the low concentration ethanol cooling from the ground to condense the ethanol right on our farms, could solve today's cost and energy challenges to ethanol. Right now, wind energy can pay back our energy CO2 investments, over enough time andinventive solar designs can heat buildings save energy needed to cool buildings.Growing soybean peanut other oils are an easier energy cost winner. They can be squeezed to produce oils that can run diesel machinery and the residue fed to the animals, right on the farms sell the surplus to us with a net energy gain. Small refinements to what works now, will take far less research money to get into production. Very Respectfully, Michael http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com Publication: Frederick News-Post; Date:2005 Aug 04; Section:Editorial Opinion; Page Number: A-10 Ethanol proponents are barking up the wrong corn stalk HARVEY ALTER Frederick A July 18 story in this newspaper reported Cornell University researchers found that ethanol from corn is an inefficient energy source it takes more energy to turn corn into ethanol than is produced. Old news. Similar research, some from Cornell, during the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s came to the same conclusion. The researchers are barking up the wrong corn stalk. Our country does not have a shortage of energy; it has a shortage of liquid transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel). Ethanol from corn (and other cellulose-based feed stocks) is a useful approach to a short extension of currently short liquid fuel supplies. However, corn cannot extend our natural gas supplies, which are being pinched, something we will see in our gas bills next winter. Both gasoline and natural gas supplies and prices can be alleviated if we extract more from resources in our own country. There is plenty of oil (e.g., in Alaska and in the Outer Continental Shelf), but well-meaning, misguided folks are stopping exploration for these supplies and subsequent extraction. In some areas, such as California, it is OK to drill in state-owned coastal waters, but not further out in federal waters. It is OK to drill on the North Slope of Alaska but not down the road in the mud flats of the Wildlife Refuge. I have been there and attest that people who have not been there over-blow the objections. Americans can do. Lets do and not have shortages and high prices. ___ 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] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?
Well Keith, Your doubt as to what is and isn't close to Mr. Kristol's heart, or Mr. Murdoch's, hasn't been shaken. The article is an effort to dissassemble critical dissent of the traditionalist American view of whether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary means to the end of war with Japan. Same old style as is the norm for the Weekly Standard. Every time they speak it forces legions to go to work to debunk their debunking. All in all, a very efficient method of tieing up valuable human resources. Waste of resources seems to be a specialty in some camps these days (or years). Todd Swearingen Keith Addison wrote: Just for consideration. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp Greg H. The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. Strange place to find it, I doubt it's close to Mr Kristol's heart, nor to Mr Murdoch's, but it's correct nonetheless. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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: NaOH source in Canada
Hello Ray Thanks Wes: I also got the following from John Ferguson (who cannot post to the list for some reason), thanks to John as well. We have no record of a list member named John Ferguson. If he's a member and he can't post I wonder why he hasn't contacted the List administration or the List owner. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner 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] Global Issues Update, August 6, 2005
http://www.globalissues.org/WhatsNew/ Subject: Global Issues Update, August 6, 2005 Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:39:14 +0100 From: Anup Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] In this update: --- 1) G8 Summit Outcome: Very small step forward 2) The London blasts have dominated media reporting in England. Yet, much context has not been covered. 3) Why the $40 billion debt write-off is not historic 4) Tariffs for poor countries can sometimes be beneficial. Will rich countries try to negotiate those away? --- 1) G8 Summit Outcome: Very small step forward. The G8 Summit ended with what seemed to be small progress. While the aid increases and debt write-off were welcome, the spin accompanying it hid how little they really were as inflated figures or subtly misleading phrases were used instead. There is no new progress on trade or climate change. Some small victories were there though, such as progress on some health issues. Despite the huge concerns, perhaps with the increased public awareness, there is a glimmer of hope for the future. A new page had been added to explore these issues. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/g8summit2005/outcome.asp 2) The London blasts have dominated media reporting in England. Yet, much context has not been covered.. How does terrorism fit into the larger global issues? How can causes of terrorism be better addressed? This article explores some of these issues. New article has been created. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/LondonBlasts.asp 3) Why the $40 billion debt write-off is not historic. The spin on the $40 billion debt write-off has been quite marked. It is really about $1 billion per year, and its present net value amounts to about $17 billion. Furthermore, it is not debt forgiveness, even though it may appear as a write-off. The reason is that G8 countries will reimburse the multilateral creditors by reducing the amount of aid they give to foreign countries. In effect, for the long run, poor countries have submitted to more harmful conditions, while losing out on future aid. In return, G8 leaders receive praise as saviors. A small update added regarding this. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/g8summit2005/historic.asp 4) Tariffs for poor countries can sometimes be beneficial. Will rich countries try to negotiate those away?. For up-coming WTO talks, is there a risk that recently raised awareness about unfair rich country subsidies, tariffs, and protectionism will mean that rich countries may attempt to use this as a bargaining chip to get similar scales of reduction from poor countries? One size certainly does not fit all even though it initially may sound fair. For poor countries at various stages of development, it has been shown that some levels of protecting and nurturing is vital for industrialization. After all, practically all of today's industrialized nations did this so why not allow the same for today's developing countries? Updates added to this page to reflect more details about tariffs and development. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/ProtectOrDeregulate.asp ___ 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] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energyefficiencies
Greetings Balaji Sorry for the late reply. Hello Doug, Keith, - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energyefficiencies In the article, Pimentel is shown pumping gas, most likely plain old regular unleaded gas... :) Pimentel seems to be not only pumping gas but pumping for the gas industry as a whole. LOL! And it crossed my mind, How much energy was used to provide a gallon of plain old regular unleaded gas, considering all the energy consumed, not only in drilling and pumping crude, cleaning, separating, transporting, etc., but how much energy did the dinosaur consume, in the way of food, how much energy did earth processes contribute, in the way of pressures and time frames, etc. And how much energy would be consumed to convert a modern-day dinosaur (sort of in short supply) into that same gallon of gas? Consider the food he'd be eating, the fossil fuel based pesticides I'd have to use on the food source for Dino, etc... More likely you will end up with a lot of hot flue gas and some irritaing particulates, on combustion of this dino fuel. LOL. Yeah, sort of silly, but probably worth a government grant to study. doug swanson :-) Sorry to cavil, but dino-fuel is not made from dead dinosaurs as sometimes alleged. It comes from dead forests that grew in the same era, or round about then anyway. Just a clarification. There is evidence to suggest that the bulk of the liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons is derived from marine plankton, both phytoplankton and zoo plankton. Dead forest largely form the basis of bituminous coal. Thankyou! You're right, I was thinking of coal, why did I forget the diatoms? I just found this quote from 1980: Only recently have the oil companies, in their TV ads, begun to imply that the past may not have been so calm and peaceful. They now urge conservation because 'there aren't any more dinosaurs to replenish the supply'. I can't somehow recall the oil companies ever urging conservation, but were there such TV ads? Was it the Seven Sisters themselves who started calling the stuff dino-fuel? And got it wrong? I thought it was the biofuellers. There is also substantial work iniitiated by the Russians and Ukrainians (and rarely reported in the West until recently) of an abyssal, abiogenic origin of petroleum, which postulates a co-eval formation of primordial petroleum with earth about 4.5 bollion years back,much earlier than the conventional era of the dinosaurs, There are some strange offshoots of this, which seem to include the idea that the oil is still being formed *now*, ie it's being replenished even without the dinosaurs, or something like that, followed by this sort of stuff: Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam - While Moscow invests heavily in unlimited oil production for the future, New York squanders America's dwindling oil profits on fast cars and fast women ... Actually even a year ago when that was written I think they were soaring to new heights rather than dwindling, let alone now. Note the unlimited bit. ... unlimited oil reserves do exist inside planet earth, he goes on, and the Russians long ago developed the advanced technology necessary to recover these unlimited oil reserves in an efficient and timely manner. Apart from the conspiracism (not to mention the fast women), what's to be made of this talk of unlimited oil? This site lists pros and cons and looks fairly sane at first glance: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/ Peak Oil v. Sustainable Oil -- Reserves Replenished by Process in Earth's Mantle? ... though listing Matt Savinar's LifeAftertheOilCrash.net as the one and only entry under Theory Opponents doesn't inspire confidence. Soundbyte stuff this Balaji, considering how many people would like to believe it whether it's true or not so they'll believe it anyway: you wouldn't happen to have a mini-memo to hand would you on why the abiotic theory of primordial petroleum formation might imply ongoing formation and replenishment and we all lived happily ever after, or on the other hand why it doesn't and we won't? Personally I think it's just a distraction, I agree with this bit on that Peak Oil v. Sustainable Oil page, or the second and third bits anyway: There is a substantial body of evidence to support this theory. That does not negate, however, the quest for getting away from dependence on fossil fuels. The greenhouse gasses produced by the burning of such will continue to be a pressing matter that must be addressed. But then I think Peak Oil is just a distraction too. I'm not so sure you get the right results when you do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Best wishes Keith Dinosaurs are not currently in short supply, Mike just named one, Monsanto,
Re: [Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?
Hi Todd Well Keith, Your doubt as to what is and isn't close to Mr. Kristol's heart, or Mr. Murdoch's, hasn't been shaken. :-) Do they have hearts? The article is an effort to dissassemble critical dissent of the traditionalist American view of whether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary means to the end of war with Japan. Hm, that wasn't very clear, sorry - I read the whole thing but I was surprised to see such views even acknowledged, and quite succinctly too. I thought it was more easily dismissed, just brush it aside as lunatic ravings, no need to spell it out like that. It must have been getting some exposure. It was very marginal in previous years when we went through all this wasn't it? Same old style as is the norm for the Weekly Standard. Every time they speak it forces legions to go to work to debunk their debunking. Quite a lot of it here too. Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch All in all, a very efficient method of tieing up valuable human resources. Isn't it just. While the people who matter get on with business-as-usual. Waste of resources seems to be a specialty in some camps these days (or years). Last 30 years or so especially, and reaching something of a crescendo these days. All best Keith Todd Swearingen Keith Addison wrote: Just for consideration. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp Greg H. The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. Strange place to find it, I doubt it's close to Mr Kristol's heart, nor to Mr Murdoch's, but it's correct nonetheless. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?
I see it more as some Japan's of leaders wanted to surrender on their terms, which kept those that started the war in power, and were willing to fight to the last man ( including the civilians ) to stay in power, we know what happened in Okinawa was just a precursor of what the invasion of Japan would have been like. The bombs convinced them otherwise. From the decoded messages the higher up, knew that we were facing a real bad invasion, and few wanted to invade.So what was it going to be, 1)Leave the militant government that started the war in place. 2)A bad invasion, with millions of casualties.( an estimated 1 million from the allies alone ) 3)Wipe out two cities. #1 was totaly unacceptable.Treaty agreements between the Allies dictated that unconditional surrender was the only type of surrender that was going to be accepted. #2 was in some cases worst than #1, but would have achieved. #3 while distasteful, did hold down the casualties to a under 300,000. As it ended up 2 cities were totaly trashed, while if Japan was invaded, then I would bet that most cities would have ended up like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, through conventional means. I know that everyone would have been allot happier had Japan surrendered unconditionally allot sooner. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 11:08 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk? The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. Strange place to find it, I doubt it's close to Mr Kristol's heart, nor to Mr Murdoch's, but it's correct nonetheless. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ 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 myths of Hiroshima
look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. that would be four times the american combat deaths in the entire war. the landing at omaha beach is usually described as one of the most horrifically deadly battlefield environments of the conflict, because of the difficult terrain and the very dense defenses. roughly a thousand american soldiers were killed, just shy of 3% of the forces that landed there which is pretty high. if you were to assume similarly difficult conditions for an invasioin of japan (which is by no means a given), more than 30 million troops would have to be involved. . . . -chris b. ___ 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] Fwd: PANUPS: Rethinking Roundup
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:23:57 GMT From: Pesticide Action Network North America [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PANUPS: Rethinking Roundup Rethinking Roundup August 5, 2005 A recent study of Roundup presents new evidence that the glyphosate-based herbicide is far more toxic than the active ingredient alone. The study, published in the June 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, reports glyphosate toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The researchers also tested glyphosate and Roundup at lower concentrations for effects on sexual hormones, reporting effects at very low levels. This suggests that dilution with other ingredients in Roundup may, in fact, facilitate glyphosate's hormonal impacts. Roundup, produced by Monsanto, is a mixture of glyphosate and other chemicals (commonly referred to as inerts) designed to increase the herbicide's penetration into the target and its toxic effect. Since inerts are not listed as active ingredients the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)does not assess their health or environmental impacts, despite the fact that more than 300 chemicals on EPA's list of pesticide inert ingredients are or were once registered as pesticide active ingredients, and that inert ingredients often account for more than 50% of the pesticide product by volume. The evidence presented in the recent study is supported by earlier laboratory studies connecting glyphosate with reproductive harm, including damaged DNA in mice and abnormal chromosomes in human blood. Evidence from epidemiological studies has also linked exposure to the herbicide with increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and laboratory studies have now begun to hone in on the mechanism by which the chemical acts on cell division to cause cancer. A Canadian study has linked glyphosate exposure in the three months before conception with increased risk for miscarriage and a 2002 study in Minnesota connected glyphosate exposure in farm families with increased incidence of attention deficit disorder. Studies have also documented glyphosate's toxicity to wildlife and especially to amphibians. Recently, studies conducted in small ponds with a variety of aquatic populations have presented evidence that levels of glyphosate currently applied can be highly lethal to many species of amphibians. Glyphosate is the world's most commonly used agricultural pesticide, and the second most-applied residential pesticide in the U.S. Recent evidence notwithstanding, glyphosate is considered less hazardous than other herbicides, an attitude that has increased the pesticide's use and desensitized policymakers to its impacts. The spraying program in Colombia to eradicate coca and opium poppy-the raw materials for cocaine and heroin-is one example. A mixture of glyphosate and several inerts has been sprayed aerially over more than 1.3 million acres of farm, range and forest lands in that biologically diverse nation for five years. The U.S. Drug Czar recently noted that despite the spraying, which is funded by the U.S. government, the number of hectares in coca production has remained essentially unchanged. A report on the impacts of the spraying produced for the Organization of American States has been sharply criticized by AIDA, an environmental organization, because the analysis failed to assess the impacts of deforestation resulting from movement of illicit crops into previously forested areas, adverse effects on endangered and endemic species, substantial collateral loss of food crops, livestock and fish, and human health effects. Authorization of next year's funding for the spray program is now underway in the U.S. Congress, where the Senate Appropriations Committee complained in a non-binding narrative report, The Committee is increasingly concerned ... that the aerial eradication program is falling far short of predictions and that coca cultivation is shifting to new locations. The herbicide is used in forestry in North America to reduce grasses, shrubs and trees that compete with commercial timber trees. Glyphosate is also widely introduced into the environment and the human food chain through cultivation of transgenic, or genetically engineered crops that are tolerant to the herbicide and contain glyphosate residues. Roundup Ready crops have been responsible for increased use of the herbicide in recent years. Monsanto's sales of glyphosate have expanded approximately 20% each year through the 1990s, accounting for 67% of the company's total sales as of 200l. EPA estimates glyphosate use in the U.S. is 103-113 million pounds annually. Sources: Sophie Richard, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, and Gilles-Eric Seralini, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 6 June 2005, http://ga4.org/ct/Bp1KITK1WzfS/http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005
[Biofuel] guns
Greetings, I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. I do know that passing a law to allow concealed weapons in Texas really cut the drive by shootings and random violence to where we rarely hear about it now. What I find amazing is that a mere 1500 permits have been issued, not many in a population of 30 million+. While I will admit that being a old hippie and carrying a gun may sound like an oxymoron, I do have wild hogs on my land as well as water moccasins, both good reasons to go armed. Bright Blessings, Kim GUNS Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 %; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 %; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 % (yes, 44 %!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 %. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!). While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [ I DID ] DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY. BE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A ~ ___ 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] guns
FYI: Subject: Dust OffFirst I'm going to tell you a little about me and my family. My name is Jeff. I am a Police Officer for a city which is known nationwide for its crime rate. We have a lot of gangs and drugs. At one point we were # 2 in the nation in homicides per capita. I also have a police K-9 namedThor. He was certified in drugs and general duty. He retired at 3 years old because he was shot in the line of duty. He lives with us now and I still train with him because he likes it. I always liked the fact that there was no way to bring drugs into my house. Thor wouldn't allow it. He would tell on you. The reason I say this is so you understand that I know about drugs. I have taught in schools about drugs. My wife asks all our kids at least once a week if they used any drugs. Makes them promisethey wont.I like building computers occasionally and started building a new one in February 2005. I also was working on some of my older computers. They were full of dust so on one of my trips to the computer store I bought a3 pack of DUST OFF. Dust Off is a can of compressed air to blow dust off a computer. A few weeks later when I went to use one of them they were all used. I talked to my kids and my two sons both said they had usedthem on their computer and messing around with them. I yelled at them for wasting the 10 dollars I paid for them. On February 28 I went back to the computer store. They didn't have the 3 pack which I had bought on sale so I bought a single jumbo can of Dust Off. I went home and set it down beside my computer. On March 1st, I left for work at 10 PM. Just before midnight my wife went down and kissed Kyle goodnight.At 530 am the next morning Kathy went downstairs to wake Kyle up for school, before she left for work. He was propped up in bed with his legs crossed and his head leaning over. She called to him a few times to get up. He didn't move. He would sometimes tease her like this and pretend he fell back asleep. He was never easy to get up. She went in and shook his arm. He fell over. He was pale white and had the straw from the Dust Off can coming out of his mouth. He had the new can of Dust Off in his hands. Kyle was dead. I am a police officer and I had never heard of this.My wife is a nurse and she had never heard of this. We later found out from the coroner, after the autopsy, that only the propellant from the can of Dust off was in his system. No other drugs. Kyle had died between midnight and 1 AM. I found out that using Dust Off is being done mostly by kids ages 9 through 15. They even have a name for it. It's called dusting. A take off from the Dust Off name. It gives them a slight high for about 10 seconds. It makes them dizzy. A boy who lives down the street from usshowed Kyle how to do this about a month before. Kyle showed his best friend. Told him it was cool and it couldn't hurt you. Its just compressed air. It cant hurt you. His best friend said no. Kyle was wrong. It's not just compressed air. It also contains a propellant called R2. Its a refrigerant like what is used in your refrigerator. It is a heavy gas. Heavier than air. When you inhale it, it fills your lungs and keeps the good air, with oxygen, out. That's why you feel dizzy, buzzed. It decreases the oxygen to your brain, to your heart. Kyle was right. It cant hurt you. IT KILLS YOU. The horrible part about this is there is no warning. There is no level that kills you. It's not cumulative or an overdose; it can just go randomly, terribly wrong. Roll the dice and if your number comes up you die. ITS NOT AN OVERDOSE. Its Russian Roulette. You don't die later.Or not feel good and say I've had too much. You usually die as your breathing it in. If not you die within 2 seconds of finishing "the hit." That's why the straw was still in Kyle's mouth when he died. Why his eye's were still open. The experts want to call this huffing. The kids don't believe its huffing. As adults we tend to lump many things together. But it doesn't fit here. And that's why its more accepted. There is no chemical reaction, no strong odor. It doesn't follow the huffing signals. Kyle complained a few days before he died of his tongue hurting. Itprobably did. The propellant causes frostbite. If I had only known.Its easy to say hey, its my life and I'll do what I want. But it isn't. Others are always effected. This has forever changed our family's life. I have a hole in my heart and soul that can never be fixed. The pain is so immense I cant describe it. There's nowhere to run from it. I cry allthe time and I don't ever cry. I do what I'm supposed to do but I don't really care. My kids are messed up. One wont talk about it. The other will only sleep in our room at night. And my wife, I cant even describe how bad she istaking this. I thought we were safe because of Thor. I thought we were safe because we knew about drugs and talked to our kids about them. After Kyle died
Re: [Biofuel] guns
Hi, I am an Aussie. I think the email (that I clipped) is b/s. Even the name sounds a hoax... (Ed is not a commonly used name in Aust, usually Edward is shortened to Ted). To my knowledge, firearm offences have dropped in Aust since the firearms laws were introduced. There has possibly not been a decrease in violence: but it is generally less lethal to be hit or stabbed takes a more considered (if you take my meaning..) approach than pulling a trigger. Can you please explain to me how owning a gun makes you feel safer? Before the gun buy-back, we had a number of accidental shootings, and family related murders (eg family argument: someone picks up gun: gun goes off etc..). This has now largely stopped. Gun associated death in Australia was never a really high percentage anyway (unlike the US). We do have a Gun lobby in Australia, that I suspect is part financed by the US gun manufacturers. So please, before you post emails such as that one, please check the facts. I feel the group is largely pacificist in nature, particularly the non US contingent. regards Doug On Sunday 07 August 2005 8:35, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. .. Bright Blessings, Kim Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms... ___ 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 New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments
Joseph Stiglitz (and my father, who is a development economist) make the following points: Globalization is not going away, nor can we wish it away. I think the most realistic approach is to work hard to put as human a face as possible on it. Work to make it more equitable, and keep track of companies who do not follow reasonabley socially and environmentally responsible business practices. Think Nike and their sweatshop problem. I personally boycott a number of companiesL Walmart, Exxon and others - I just can't stomach their business ethics. One of the reasons I home brew is that I don't want make the oil situation worse, support the petroluem system, perpetuate a world where we have to import insanely expensive oil from people who finance those whom want to kill us. Also I'm a cheapskate and 46 mpg on near-free fuel appeals to me! Lower emmisions too! -Mike Keith Addison wrote: Hello Mike Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects. I did spend a fair amount of time reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa. My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, In some circles it's well known and acknowledged. I'd hope that this could be one of them. that aid projects are generally hopeless. This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss. I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away. I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed. Bilateral aid is generally a dead loss, as I was saying - that is, it's often a dead loss as far as the purported beneficiaries are concerned, the target group, but usually not as far as the real target group is concerned, which far too often is still business interests in the donor country. And of course the Wabenzi along the way. The best model I have observed is to make long term, low or no interest loans directly to well-organized groups that have prepared a solid business plan. Treat the project the same as a bank would view a small business loan. If there is a solid business idea, it will work, if not, then the funds would go to a project with a better plan. This cuts out the government, which very often cannot resist taking a little (or large) cut. Of course, many other variables apply: some countries do not have the social infrastructure - I don't believe I would pour money into Congo or Zimbabwe right now, but others do, such as Botswana, Ghana, Uganda and many others. Many non-government funding agencies work this way, including many of the church groups. It helps if the recipient groups are as local as possible, and always it needs monitoring. These rules/guidelines or whatever that I put together with material from our friends at Oxfam HK work well: http://journeytoforever.org/community.html Community development http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Community development - poverty and hunger I think what we're both making clear is that there's no mass-production approach to this, throwing money at it just doesn't help and probably makes things worse. That's very inconvenient for people who like to use amounts of money spent (or misspent) as proof of achievement and problems solved, which helps keep the funds rolling in, and it's not welcome news either for the people whose taxes or charity provide the funds, which I guess is why this kind of talk isn't fashionable. It all comes down to the same thing, the one single reason that development and aid are needed in the first place: the reason poverty and hunger exist on such a vast scale in a world of plenty is an inequitable world economic system. Any effort to change that at any level might accomplish more than many bilateral aid programs do. Hence the ongoing worldwide protests, it's a major item on the agenda of the Other Superpower. Best Keith As for corruption, I don't think the US is in any position to start screaming about it - call it what you will - but sweetheart deals with hallibuton, giveaways to the oil industry - it amounts to the same thing. We're just more complicit because we don't protest. I agree w/ the UN comments - I think we should appropriate the notion of Finlandization only in a political sense, and apply to the UN. They DO need to clean up their act - they've brought most of their reputation on themselves. But the US could stand a little of this too. -Mike Dale Seto wrote: You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford
Re: [Biofuel] guns
Have a look at: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Doug Foskey wrote: Hi, I am an Aussie. I think the email (that I clipped) is b/s. Even the name sounds a hoax... (Ed is not a commonly used name in Aust, usually Edward is shortened to Ted). To my knowledge, firearm offences have dropped in Aust since the firearms laws were introduced. There has possibly not been a decrease in violence: but it is generally less lethal to be hit or stabbed takes a more considered (if you take my meaning..) approach than pulling a trigger. Can you please explain to me how owning a gun makes you feel safer? Before the gun buy-back, we had a number of accidental shootings, and family related murders (eg family argument: someone picks up gun: gun goes off etc..). This has now largely stopped. Gun associated death in Australia was never a really high percentage anyway (unlike the US). We do have a Gun lobby in Australia, that I suspect is part financed by the US gun manufacturers. So please, before you post emails such as that one, please check the facts. I feel the group is largely pacificist in nature, particularly the non US contingent. regards Doug On Sunday 07 August 2005 8:35, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. .. Bright Blessings, Kim Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms... ___ 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] guns
Hoax Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. I do know that passing a law to allow concealed weapons in Texas really cut the drive by shootings and random violence to where we rarely hear about it now. What I find amazing is that a mere 1500 permits have been issued, not many in a population of 30 million+. While I will admit that being a old hippie and carrying a gun may sound like an oxymoron, I do have wild hogs on my land as well as water moccasins, both good reasons to go armed. Bright Blessings, Kim *GUNS *Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 %; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 %; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 % (yes, 44 %!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 %. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!). While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [ I DID ] DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY. BE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A ~ ___ 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] guns
Greetings, I did check and it is not listed as an internet hoax, yet anyway. I did state this at the beginning of the message. I know this is an international list and one of the easiest ways of learning the truth, since I can hardly trust the TV news in the US. grin How do I feel safer with a gun, easy. Ever had a wild boar take a run at you? How about an aggressive poisonous snake? Both make good diner and if you know what to do with a gun, that is what happens when they attack. A better solution than getting injured in my books. No, I do not carry my gun off the farm, but I do work by myself. I grew up with guns, and have never had the temptation to pick one up in an argument, but arguments are real rare at my place and never violent. Bright Blessings, Kim At 07:12 PM 8/6/2005, you wrote: Hi, I am an Aussie. I think the email (that I clipped) is b/s. Even the name sounds a hoax... (Ed is not a commonly used name in Aust, usually Edward is shortened to Ted). To my knowledge, firearm offences have dropped in Aust since the firearms laws were introduced. There has possibly not been a decrease in violence: but it is generally less lethal to be hit or stabbed takes a more considered (if you take my meaning..) approach than pulling a trigger. Can you please explain to me how owning a gun makes you feel safer? Before the gun buy-back, we had a number of accidental shootings, and family related murders (eg family argument: someone picks up gun: gun goes off etc..). This has now largely stopped. Gun associated death in Australia was never a really high percentage anyway (unlike the US). We do have a Gun lobby in Australia, that I suspect is part financed by the US gun manufacturers. So please, before you post emails such as that one, please check the facts. I feel the group is largely pacificist in nature, particularly the non US contingent. regards Doug On Sunday 07 August 2005 8:35, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. .. Bright Blessings, Kim Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms... ___ 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] guns
Well... that email forward is older than and about as silly as both the blue and the red state email forwards. Generally a shovel id enough to take care of rattlesnakes. I used to keep a 12 gauge single shot snake gun in my personal pick up. I used to go to Wichita, KS quite often. After watching the 10 PM news one night I walked out to the truck and brought the shot gun in house. As a situation could possibly develop in where I was breaking the law, even if I was minding my own business. And yes I would want more than that shovel in case of boar attack, but the wild boars have yet to make it this far North and West. Doug ___ 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] guns
A well armed society is a polite society. People are much nicer when they don't know who has a gun.God bless Texas!!! - Original Message - From: Garth Kim Travis To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 5:35 PM Subject: [Biofuel] guns Greetings,I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. I do know that passing a law to allow concealed weapons in Texas really cut the drive by shootings and random violence to where we rarely hear about it now. What I find amazing is that a mere 1500 permits have been issued, not many in a population of 30 million+.While I will admit that being a old hippie and carrying a gun may sound like an oxymoron, I do have wild hogs on my land as well as water moccasins, both good reasons to go armed.Bright Blessings,Kim GUNS Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from "Down Under". It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 %;Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 %; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 % (yes, 44 %!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 %. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!). While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [ I DID ] DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY. BE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A ~ ___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] The myths of Hiroshima
I don't think that you are looking at the picture in the same light as the planners were. Yes, Omaha beach was bad.But lets look at more realistic numbers that planners from the invasion were looking at: In 2 months 38,000 Americans wounded, 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 enemy killed, and perhaps 100,000 civilians perished, in the invasion of a tiny little island called Okinawa.( That is more causalities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - an estimated 103,000 ) Over 26,000 Allied causalities and over 21,800 Japanese causalities for an island less than 8 sq miles in size, in little over 1 month.The name of that island - Iwo Jima. It was with these casualty numbers, that the planners were figuring 1,000,000 from the off shore bombardment to the final surrender. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 14:30 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. that would be four times the american combat deaths in the entire war. the landing at omaha beach is usually described as one of the most horrifically deadly battlefield environments of the conflict, because of the difficult terrain and the very dense defenses. roughly a thousand american soldiers were killed, just shy of 3% of the forces that landed there which is pretty high. if you were to assume similarly difficult conditions for an invasioin of japan (which is by no means a given), more than 30 million troops would have to be involved. . . . -chris b. ___ 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] guns
Check out this site on Assie gun control. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp - Original Message - From: Garth Kim Travis To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 18:35 Subject: [Biofuel] guns Greetings,I received the following email and I have not been able to find that it is a hoax, yet. I do know that passing a law to allow concealed weapons in Texas really cut the drive by shootings and random violence to where we rarely hear about it now. What I find amazing is that a mere 1500 permits have been issued, not many in a population of 30 million+.While I will admit that being a old hippie and carrying a gun may sound like an oxymoron, I do have wild hogs on my land as well as water moccasins, both good reasons to go armed.Bright Blessings,Kim GUNS Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from "Down Under". It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 %;Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 %; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 % (yes, 44 %!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 %. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!). While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late! FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [ I DID ] DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY. BE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A ~ ___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] guns
On Sunday 07 August 2005 10:42, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, How about an aggressive poisonous snake? Bright Blessings, Kim Hi, I live in the country with more poisonous snakes than the US. (The Eastern Brown is more poisonous than the rattlesnake for instance). I have found that if you respect them, they respect you. You just use ordinary common sense. Snakes are protected in Australia. You only kill them if they are an immediate danger. We do not have Boars, but there are wild pigs in the bush. I have never heard of an attack that would require a gun. regards Doug (Guns: I can live without them!) ___ 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] guns
On Sunday 07 August 2005 10:38, Mike Weaver wrote: Have a look at: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Doug Foskey wrote: Hi, I am an Aussie. I think the email (that I clipped) is b/s. Even the Yep, Snopes pretty much lines up with my statements. There are also figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, but they tend to be at least 18 months old. There is an increase in some types of crime in Australia, (eg the old, due to the baby boomers retiring, causing an increase in the elderly population), but overall, (except for our stupid involvement in the US lead invasion of Iraq) we are a safe country. regards Doug ___ 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] guns
Criminals, are just that, criminals. While we read humorous accounts of mistakes made by the dumbest of the lot, but as group they would have the average intelligence as society as a whole when it comes to personal survival. I had figured at some point they would adopt a shoot first Method of Operating, as they see more and more of their comrades foiled by concealed carrying honest citizens. I could be wrong as I have yet to read of that MO becoming common place. Doug, N0LKK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Justice and Liberty for all* * Restrictions apply: see the PATRIOT act for details. - Original Message - From: Jeremy Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] guns A well armed society is a polite society. People are much nicer when they don't know who has a gun. God bless Texas!!! ___ 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 New Blue States/Country - Tobin tax and comments
Hello Mike Joseph Stiglitz (and my father, who is a development economist) make the following points: Globalization is not going away, nor can we wish it away. I don't know of anybody who does wish it away. I don't know why you might think that I'd like to - because I said this? It all comes down to the same thing, the one single reason that development and aid are needed in the first place: the reason poverty and hunger exist on such a vast scale in a world of plenty is an inequitable world economic system. Any effort to change that at any level might accomplish more than many bilateral aid programs do. Hence the ongoing worldwide protests, it's a major item on the agenda of the Other Superpower. The Other Superpower, when it protests at WTO or G8 meetings, is invariably dubbed anti-globalisation by the mainstream media, though that is not their message, they're not anti-globalisation, they're anti corporate globalisation, a very different matter, not an inevitability, and it will indeed go away. There's quite a lot about Stiglitz in the list archives, including this: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8835 TomPaine.com - The Way Ahead From Globalization and Its Discontents, by Joseph E. Stiglitz Today, globalization is being challenged around the world. There is discontent with globalization, and rightfully so. Globalization can be a force for good: the globalization of ideas about democracy and of civil society have changed the way people think, while global political movements have led to debt relief and the treaty on land mines. Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher standards of living, beyond what they, or most economists, thought imaginable but a short while ago. The globalization of the economy has benefited countries that took advantage of it by seeking new markets for their exports and by welcoming foreign investment. Even so, the countries that have benefited the most have been those that took charge of their own destiny and recognized the role government can play in development rather than relying on the notion of a self-regulated market that would fix its own problems. But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their democracies undermined, their cultures eroded. If globalization continues to be conducted in the way that has been in the past, if we continue to fail to learn from our mistakes, globalization will not only not succeed in promoting development but will continue to create poverty and instability. Without reform, the backlash that has started will mount and discontent with globalization will grow... [more] I think the most realistic approach is to work hard to put as human a face as possible on it. Work to make it more equitable, and keep track of companies who do not follow reasonabley socially and environmentally responsible business practices. Think Nike and their sweatshop problem. I personally boycott a number of companiesL Walmart, Exxon and others - I just can't stomach their business ethics. One of the reasons I home brew is that I don't want make the oil situation worse, support the petroluem system, perpetuate a world where we have to import insanely expensive oil from people who finance those whom want to kill us. Are you quite sure that's the way it is? A bit context-free isn't it? Keith Also I'm a cheapskate and 46 mpg on near-free fuel appeals to me! Lower emmisions too! -Mike Keith Addison wrote: Hello Mike Have a look at http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/factsheet.htm I was in and out of the development world for years, though never as a program manager nor direct architect of projects. I did spend a fair amount of time reviewing and visiting projects, almost all in Africa. My thoughts are, and it is still not fashionable to say it, In some circles it's well known and acknowledged. I'd hope that this could be one of them. that aid projects are generally hopeless. This is not to say that for instance building a well or constructing a road is a bad idea, it is not, but simply handing out money to the governments of developing countries is a loss. I have also observed that when simply handing out funds as a grant many times results in the group collecting a salary until the grant runs out, then the projects fade away. I would hasten to say this is not always the case and some projects do take root ans succeed. Bilateral aid is generally a dead loss, as I was saying - that is, it's often a dead loss as far as the purported beneficiaries are concerned, the target group, but usually not as far as the real target group is concerned, which far too often is still business interests in the donor country. And of course
PLEASE READ - MODERATOR'S MESSAGE - was Re: [Biofuel] guns
No more guns, thankyou. This is a subject that, on a global list with quite a large (and vocal) American contingent, can only end in flames and breakdown, as it's done here a few times before, with nothing achieved. What was achieved on the previous occasions was that the US pro-gun lobby was left without a case and no legs to stand on, and it made no difference at all, they went right on believing what they want to believe. It's the same with the abortion debate in the US (we've just narrowly avoided another bout of that) and with several other such highly polarised but peculiarly US issues: arguing about it is pointless, nothing is gained, it just makes a lot of noise, and it turns people off. So let's drop this thread now, if you please, and even if you don't please. One more thing - there's one good destination for emails that come with footnotes such as these: FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. ... everyone who receives this email forward it to everyone in their address book. TRASH THEM! Thankyou. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner ___ 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/
