Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
A reply to this came through to me last night. There seems to be a delay of several hours. -D From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012, 14:54 Subject: [Biofuel] Testing the new list Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
Working: all fine -D From: Dawie Coetzee dawie_coet...@yahoo.co.uk To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 8:04 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list A reply to this came through to me last night. There seems to be a delay of several hours. -D From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012, 14:54 Subject: [Biofuel] Testing the new list Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
even in Sunny Australia. regards Doug On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:01:41 Alex Rodriguez wrote: Got your message down in Mexico. Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:55, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.
Test works fine, thanks for adding me to the new list :) Sent using iMail. Optimised for iOS. On 30/10/2012, at 5:17 AM, Chip Mefford c...@daviswv.net wrote: Sorry for the inconvenience. --chipper ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
.. and here in a small town which a friend just described as the middle of nowhere. Best Keith even in Sunny Australia. regards Doug On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:01:41 Alex Rodriguez wrote: Got your message down in Mexico. Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:55, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
Ok from sunny Arizona -Original Message- From: Chip Mefford Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:54 AM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Testing the new list Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
Ok from California Michael AZ Cox michael_wagner...@cox.net 10/31/2012 1:37 PM Ok from sunny Arizona -Original Message- From: Chip Mefford Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:54 AM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Testing the new list Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Testing the new list
And from the wetlands, at the heart of South America, I read you loud and clear. Best Juan -- Keith Addison escribió: .. and here in a small town which a friend just described as the middle of nowhere. Best Keith even in Sunny Australia. regards Doug On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:01:41 Alex Rodriguez wrote: Got your message down in Mexico. Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:55, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: Okay list; We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than @sustainability.org) isn't filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is being archived as of yet. Which is fine. I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Sandy Hurricane view from space
Sandy Hurricane. The latest from NASA's Earth Observatory (30 October 2012) Animation using pictures taken from space in time lapse. I hope all listmembers there are ok. http://www.youtube.com/NASAEarthObservatory?src=eoa-ann ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] More list problems
Chip, I appreciate all the work you are doing. Thank you. Chip Mefford c...@well.com 10/29/2012 4:22 PM I'm sorry everyone, I've found another typo in the list information (my fault) I'm going to dump and re-create the list. Please pardon all these administrative issues as I get the new list sorted. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.
I got it. Chip Mefford c...@well.com 10/29/2012 3:55 PM Okay, Another test. having some teething issues with the new list. - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:58:10 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete. Hey Dave; Yeah, pretty good presumption. :) - Original Message - From: Dave Hajoglou dhajog...@gmail.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:53:47 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete. On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Chip Mefford c...@daviswv.net wrote: Sorry for the inconvenience. I feel so inconvenienced. I presume this is the new list? -dave hojo ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Predicting natural disasters remains a very risky business
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121031gd.html Predicting natural disasters remains a very risky business By GWYNNE DYER LONDON - Six years in jail and an average fine of over a million dollars: that was the punishment given to six Italian scientists on Oct. 22 for getting their earthquake advice wrong. So what will the expert geologists and vulcanologists in Italy say the next time they are asked about the likelihood of an earthquake? They will refuse to say anything, of course. More than 5,000 scientists have signed a letter supporting their colleagues who found themselves standing trial for manslaughter in the medieval city of L'Aquila, where 309 people died in an earthquake in 2009. But the case is a bit more complex than it first appears. People always look for a scapegoat when disaster strikes, and it's understandable that the bereaved people of L'Aquila wanted someone to blame. Most of them were glad when the six Italian scientists were convicted: At least somebody was being punished for the crime. But it wasn't exactly the crime that those 5,000 foreign scientists thought they had been accused of. Even lawyers and judges know that you cannot predict an earthquake with any certainty. What the six were actually accused of was being too reassuring about how likely an earthquake was. There were hundreds of small shocks around L'Aquila in the weeks before the big one struck, and the six scientists were sent to the city to assess the level of danger. They judged the risk as minor, and one, foolishly, said there was no danger. On the basis of this scientific advice, it is claimed, thousands of citizens decided to sleep in their houses rather than outside - and 309 of them were crushed in their houses a week later when the magnitude 6.3 quake brought them down. So the scientists' crime was not a failure to predict the quake, but a failure to state clearly that it could happen. It's still a stupid charge. Half of the really big earthquakes are preceded by a flurry of smaller shocks, true - but such clusters of small shocks are quite common, and only 5 percent of them are followed by a major quake. So the scientists were caught on the horns of a familiar dilemma. Fail to issue a warning before a big quake, and you will be discredited (and maybe, if you are Italian, charged with manslaughter). But issue warnings every time there is a 5 percent risk, and you will cause 19 needless mass evacuations for every necessary one. You will be crying wolf, which is usually counter-productive. The scientists's conviction will probably be reversed on appeal, bringing this whole foolish episode to an end. For the rest of us, however, this just illustrates how hard it is for human beings to deal sensibly with big but incalculable risks. The biggest incalculable risk of a purely natural order that we know about is the mega-tsunami that will be unleashed when the western flank of Cumbre Vieja volcano on the island of La Palma in the Canaries slides into the Atlantic Ocean. In an eruption in 1949, a chunk of rock about 500 cubic km in size, with a mass of 150 billion tons, became detached from the main ridge and slid two meters down toward the sea. This is bad news for people living in areas surrounding the Atlantic Ocean. In some future volcanic eruption (there have been six in the past 500 years), that whole mass may slide all the way into the ocean and generate a tsunami that would initially be about 600 meters high. It would travel outward in an expanding circle at some 1,000 kilometers per hour, destroying everything on the western coast of Africa in one hour. It would inundate England's south coast in three, and reach the east coast of the United States, Canada and Cuba in six. Brazilians would have to wait a little longer. The waves would reach up to 20 km inland in low-lying areas. Many tens of millions would die. So let's imagine that there's another eruption on Cumbre Vieja, and a committee of global experts is convened to watch the western flank for signs of movement. Should they advise evacuation along all the vulnerable coasts? That's several hundred million people. Who will give those people food and shelter? How long must they stay inland? And the economic damage would be huge. The experts can't wait until the last minute to give their advice: you can't evacuate the entire U.S. east coast in six hours. If they advise evacuation, and nothing bad happens, they will be the most unpopular people on the planet. If they don't, and the worst does happen, they will be seen as guilty of mass manslaughter, just like the Italian scientists at L'Aquila. Since it will always be much likelier that no catastrophe is going to happen this time, the experts will almost certainly issue reassuring statements intended to keep people in their homes. Just like the Italian scientists. And yet some day, next week or a thousand years
[Biofuel] A role for Japan in Antarctic marine protection
Taiji hunts continue to anger, confound readers http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/fl20121030hs.html Science tells us that dolphins are something special http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/fl20121030hn.html Operation Zero Tolerance: Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson Gears Up for Biggest Fight Yet Against Japanese Whaling Published on Thursday, September 20, 2012 by Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/20-4 --0-- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121031a3.html A role for Japan in Antarctic marine protection By MAYUKO YANAI and CLAIRE CHRISTIAN Special to The Japan Times When people hear the word Antarctica, they might think about penguins or towering icebergs. But the Southern Ocean makes up 10 percent of the world's ocean and is home to almost 10,000 species - it's much more than ice and adorable penguins. Furthermore, some of the places in the Southern Ocean are of unusually high ecological significance. For example, Antarctica's Ross Sea was identified as being one of the least impacted large marine ecosystems remaining on Earth. The importance of this finding cannot be underestimated. While the Ross Sea is not entirely untouched, it does boast a food web that is in much the same state as it has been for centuries. Despite being only 2 percent of the Southern Ocean, the Ross Sea has more than a quarter of the world's emperor penguins, almost one third of the world's Adelie penguins, and almost half of the South Pacific Weddell seal population. There are not many places left where scientists can study these kinds of intact, thriving marine ecosystems, making the Ross Sea extremely valuable for science. Over 500 scientists have agreed that the Ross Sea's continental shelf and slope should be made a marine reserve. The East Antarctic coastal region is another area with important qualities. This vast region is home to a significant number of the Southern Ocean's penguins, seals, and whales, and contains rare and unusual seafloor and oceanographic features, which support high biodiversity. A proposal has been made to protect many important ecosystems here, but it excludes several key areas of seamounts (often hot spots for marine life) and areas near Prydz Bay that are major feeding areas for three species of seals and a whopping 25 species of seabirds. Now is a crucial moment. Until Nov. 1, 24 countries and the European Union are meeting in Hobart, Tasmania, to make decisions that will impact Antarctic marine ecosystems for generations to come. Japan is one of those countries, all of which are members of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). This management body has agreed to establish a network of Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica by 2012. CCAMLR members are considering several proposals for MPAs that would form part of this network, including areas in the Ross Sea and East Antarctica. The creation of this network would be a major step forward for ocean protection and conservation. Less than two percent of the planet's ocean area is protected, compared to over 10 percent of the land. At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, many countries agreed to establish representative networks of protected areas by 2012. The establishment of East Antarctica and Ross Sea MPAs would be a crucial step toward fulfilling this goal. The countries of CCAMLR now have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in protecting the ocean, which provides food, employment, and recreation for millions of people around the world. However, some member countries remain skeptical about MPAs. Issues include concerns about reducing access to fishing in some areas, the costs of establishing and maintaining MPAs, activities of non-member countries, and the impression that more scientific research is needed. In favor of the MPAs, however, proponents can cite extensive research that justifies marine protection there and the extensive benefits they provide. Scientists advise that MPAs are essential for ocean health. A number of groups and alliances are trying to put a public spotlight on the CCAMLR meeting, where government delegates meet behind closed doors. The Antarctic Ocean Alliance (antarcticocean.org/jp/) has created an online Join the Watch petition endorsed by big names like Richard Branson. It and the Antarctic and South Ocean Coalition (www.asoc.org) have released numerous papers about the merits of creating the MPAs. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio through the online petition network Avaaz garnered nearly a million signatures to Save the Southern Ocean. The world has a chance right now to protect the Antarctic marine ecosystems that are under increasing pressure from growing global demand for seafood, at the same time as climate change is making penguins, whales, seals and birds vulnerable to changes in their habitats and abundance of food
[Biofuel] When should a cyberattack be considered an act of war?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121031a1.html When should a cyberattack be considered an act of war? By ELLEN NAKASHIMA The Washington Post. WASHINGTON - On the night of Oct. 11, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stood inside the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, housed in a former aircraft carrier moored at a New York City pier, and let an audience of business executives in on one of the most important conversations inside the U.S. government. He warned of a cyber Pearl Harbor, evoking one of the most tragic moments in American history, when Japanese bombers unleashed a devastating surprise attack on a U.S. naval base in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941, killing 2,402 Americans and wounding 1,282 more. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it a date which will live in infamy as he asked Congress for a declaration of war. Sixty years later, another surprise attack killed almost 3,000 people when al-Qaida terrorists flew two jetliners into New York's twin towers. Panetta cited the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes, too, warning that the United States is in a pre-9/11 moment, with critical computer systems vulnerable to assault. We all know what an act of war looks like on land or sea, and by evoking two of the most searing attacks in our modern history, Panetta was trying to raise a sense of urgency about the threat in a new domain made of bits and bytes zinging between servers around the world. But what does an act of war look like in cyberspace? And perhaps more important, what does the U.S. government do when cyberattacks fall short of that - assuming it can identify the perpetrators in the first place? What about something like Shamoon, the nickname for a virus that wiped data from 30,000 computers at Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company in August, affecting business operations for two weeks? Panetta called that assault, along with a similar strike on Qatar's RasGas, probably the most destructive attack on the private sector to date. Another U.S. official declared it a watershed moment, beyond the troubling but all-too-familiar thefts of data and disruption of websites. Unlike the Japanese planes at Pearl Harbor, the virus had no telltale markings that gave away its origins. The U.S. intelligence community has privately concluded that the invader was sent by Iran, though some security experts outside the government say they have reason to believe that Iran was not the perpetrator. If Tehran is responsible, what was its motive? In the view of intelligence officials, it was striking back for sanctions; for the Saudi kingdom's implicit support for an oil embargo; and for the damage done to Iran's nuclear program by Stuxnet, the nickname for a cyber-sabotage campaign by the United States and Israel to slow the country's pursuit of a nuclear weapon by damaging almost 1,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges. The Shamoon attack on Saudi Aramco did not cause enough physical damage to rise to what international law experts call an armed attack. But what if something like it happened to several energy companies in the U.S. and it could be traced conclusively to a foreign government or a terrorist group? How much damage, pain and fear would need to result before national security officials would say, We can't let this go unanswered? If government officials have reached a consensus on those questions, they're keeping it to themselves. Welcome to the new world of drip, drip cyber attacks, in the words of Tufts University law professor Michael J. Glennon. The nature of cyberspace, he says, creates the potential for a mysterious airliner accident here, a strange power blackout there, incidents extending over months or years, generally with no traceable sponsorship. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct assault on a U.S. military installation. But much of the nation's critical computer networks belong to the private sector. The companies that provide transportation, water, telecommunications and energy could become targets for adversaries bent on destruction. That simple fact has led to a complicated set of questions for policymakers responsible for the nation's security. Should the U.S. government step in to prevent a destructive cyberattack, if it can see one coming, aimed at the private sector? If not, and such an assault is successful, when should Washington retaliate and how, assuming the attack can be conclusively traced to another nation or to a terrorist group? When should the government make pre-emptive use of cyberweapons to alter a state's agenda or behavior? If a major cyberattack happened - a computer virus knocking out air traffic control, for instance, and sending planes crashing to the ground - the president and the National Security Council would focus first on what type of response would be proportionate, justified, necessary and in the U.S. interest. It might be a military response. It might be a
[Biofuel] U.N. urges foreign fishing fleets to halt ocean grabbing
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/environment-fisheries-idUSL5E8LTFGR20121030 U.N. urges foreign fishing fleets to halt ocean grabbing * Report says small-scale fishing needs promoting * Says rules governing access to waters need tightening By Alister Doyle OSLO, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Ocean grabbing or aggressive industrial fishing by foreign fleets is a threat to food security in developing nations where governments should do more to promote local, small-scale fisheries, a study by a U.N. expert said on Tuesday. The report said emerging nations should tighten rules for access to their waters by an industrial fleet that is rapidly growing and includes vessels from China, Russia, the European Union, the United States and Japan. Ocean-grabbing is taking place, Olivier de Schutter, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food and the report's author, told Reuters. It's like land-grabbing, just less discussed and less visible. The 47-page report on Fisheries and the Right to Food, which said 15 percent of all animal protein consumed worldwide is from fish, will be presented to the U.N. General Assembly. De Schutter said ocean grabbing involved shady access agreements that harm small-scale fishers, unreported catch, incursions into protected waters, and the diversion of resources away from local populations. The report cited the example of islands in the western and central Pacific that get only about 6 percent of the value of a $3 billion tuna fishery off their coasts. Foreign fishing fleets get the rest. Equally, Guinea-Bissau nets less than 2 percent of the value of the fish caught off its coast under a deal with the EU. De Schutter said some countries where industrial fleets were based were already taking steps to tighten laws. What's getting worse is that the capacity of industrial fishing fleets is increasing, he said. Governments give an estimated $30-34 billion in subsidies to fishing each year. That money is often spent on boat-building or fuel that skews competition. We need to do more to reduce the capacity of the industrial fishing fleets and to manage the fish stocks in a much more sustainable way, said de Schutter. Food security is also at risk from threats such as climate change and pollution, he said. WASTEFUL De Schutter said aquaculture was disproportionately concentrated in Asia which is responsible for 88 percent of all production. Extremely little has been done in Africa and Latin America in particular. There is a huge potential there, he said. Fisheries received less attention than farming, he suggested, partly because the sector employed only about 200 million people globally. By contrast, the world has 1.5 billion small-scale farmers, he said. The report said that local fishing was more efficient and less wasteful than industrial fishing, urging measures to promote small-scale fishing such as the creation of artisanal fishing zones. Small-scale fishers actually catch more fish per gallon of fuel than industrial fleets, and discard fewer fish, it said. It praised some measures which have already been taken to promote local fishing - such as in Cambodia's biggest lake or off the Maldives. Estimates of the scale of illegal catches range from 10-28 million tonnes, while some 7.3 million tonnes, or almost 10 percent of global wild fish catches were discarded as unwanted by-catches every year, the report said. It said industrial fishing was by far the most wasteful. Total global fish production was about 143 million tonnes - 90 million from wild fish catches and 53 million from fish farming, the report said. De Schutter said fish farming would have to expand to feed a rising world population, now just above 7 billion. Population growth would raise demand by a forecast 27 million tonnes over the next two decades, he said. (Editing by Andrew Osborn) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Hurricane Sandy Pushing Obama, Romney to Break Climate Silence
Name Storms After Oil Companies (The Ones Most Responsible for Climate Change) by Bill McKibben Published on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 by New York Daily News Blog http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/30-12 --0-- http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/30-9 Published on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 by Common Dreams Hurricane Sandy Pushing Obama, Romney to Break Climate Silence The presidential candidates decided not to speak about climate change, but climate change has decided to speak to them - Common Dreams staff Will Hurricane Sandy force climate change to be the decisive issue in the presidential election? The aftermath from historic storm Sandy continues to unfold and has brought presidential campaigning by the contenders to a halt. Both President Obama and Republican contender Romney took Monday and Tuesday off from the campaign trail, and Obama has planned to stay off the trail Wednesday as well. While the candidates haven't spoken to climate change directly since Sandy has made landfall, the storm itself may have already injected itself into the national dialogue--breaking the so-called climate silence--whether the campaigns like it or not. The presidential candidates decided not to speak about climate change, but climate change has decided to speak to them, writes Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. * * * Sandy Roars in Face of Climate Silence Dr. Tom Mitchell, head of climate change program at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in the UK, writes: Hurricane Sandy has put climate change on the election agenda even if the candidates didn't want it. The important thing now is what happens next. Tackling climate change must become a focus of the next administration, just as healthcare was for Obama's first term. Continuing a fossil fuel focus and ducking international leadership on climate change is effectively a slow motion robbery of the future. [...] The evidence suggests the U.S. public has already woken up to the need for a change-70 percent now believe the climate is changing and a greater percentage than before want a switch to clean energy. Ignoring numbers like that may be rather more difficult now for both campaigns. Scientists recently concluded that the drought was made 20 times more likely by climate change and it seems the U.S. public agree. So the message for the politicians is as clear as it can be-more oil and gas equals more extreme weather and other climate change impacts, all of which equal greater economic losses. Daphne Wysham, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, argues: Our planet desperately needs us to get beyond the adrenaline rush of responding to one storm after another, as though each one were a unique shock, and not related to an overall climate crisis of enormous proportions. We need our political leaders and weather-casters to end the silence on climate change. And we need to start to think long-term, to start claiming responsibility for the growing intensity of our storms. Climate change is upon us, folks, and if this is what a 1-degree Celsius rise looks like, imagine what a 2, 3, or 4-degree rise looks like. For leadership, we may have to look beyond our borders, to the Danes or the Germans: They have taken their blinders off. They have looked around, taken stock of who owns most of the oil and gas in the world, carefully reviewed what Japan is suffering in the wake of Fukushima's multiple nuclear meltdowns, and both countries have said: We are committed to going both fossil-fuel-free and nuclear-free. These countries are committed to true energy independence - not the short-lived kind that results from trading one poisonous addiction for another. It is a long slog. It does not involve instant gratification the way storm heroics do. It involves tinkering with different policies - such as Germany's feed-in tariff and Denmark's multi-decadal experimentation with wind. It involves committing hundreds of billions of dollars to solving a problem that will ultimately save these countries hundreds of billions of dollars, along with millions of lives. There are few heroes in these national dramas. There are plenty of ordinary people, including women, thinking intergenerationally, thinking of their children, their grandchildren, and of children on the other side of the planet, understanding that the energy commitments we make today affect the Frankenstorms our children will suffer tomorrow. Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, says: The presidential candidates decided not to speak about climate change, but climate change has decided to speak to them. And what is a thousand-mile-wide storm pushing eleven feet of water toward our country's biggest population center saying just days before the election? It is this: we are all from New Orleans now. Climate change-through the measurable rise of sea levels and a
[Biofuel] New Report Shows Banking Sector as Major Source of Climate Disruption
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/10/30-2 October 30, 2012 CONTACT: Rainforest Action Network (RAN) http://www.ran.org/ New Report Shows Banking Sector as Major Source of Climate Disruption Rainforest Action Network urges banks to measure and shrink greenhouse gas footprint Bankrolling Climate Disruption: The Impacts of the Banking Sector's Financed Emissions (PDF http://ran.org/sites/default/files/bankrolling_climate_disruption.pdf SAN FRANCISCO - October 30 - A number of major banks, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, invest in the acceleration of climate change each year by committing billions to polluting energy industries like coal, according to a report published by Rainforest Action Network's program today. The report, titled Bankrolling Climate Disruption: The Impacts of the Banking Sector's Financed Emissions, finds that major banks have failed to reduce investment in carbon-intensive companies at a time of global climate chaos. The report also demonstrates that major banks have failed to properly measure their carbon footprint, despite the availability of comprehensive guidelines enabling them to do so. Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have begun to disrupt the global climate, triggering extreme weather events around the globe, said Ben Collins, Research and Policy Campaigner for RAN. To address this growing climate crisis, the global economy must rapidly transition to low-carbon energy sources that can power our future. While the transition could pose challenges for the banking sector, which hold financial relationships to some of the most polluting industries like coal, the report offers guidance on both measuring and reducing emissions. Banks will need to shift financing from fossil fuel-based power sources to low-carbon energy infrastructure for our communities and the climate, Collins continued. One way of doing that is by measuring the climate impact of investments and committing to reduction targets for financed emissions, now. RAN's report draws attention to the chasm between the relatively modest climate impact of the banking sector's physical operations and that of the energy and mining companies it finances. According to the report, financed emissions- the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by investments in fossil fuels--increase the magnitude of carbon output of the world's major banks. The report points out that, while banks have adopted policies to address the pollution from their offices and branches, they fail to measure or reduce the emissions induced by loans, investments, and other financial services of fossil fuel companies. The report cites JPMorgan Chase as an example, highlighting the disparity between its ambitious goal of reducing its GHG emissions to 80% of 2005 levels by 2012, and its relationship with Duke Energy, which in 2010 was one of the largest carbon emitters in the US electric power sector. The climate footprint of energy financing activities is estimated to be 100 times larger than those that banks emit through operations, said Amanda Starbuck, Energy Finance Campaign director. The time has come for banks to address the global impacts of doing business with fossil fuel industries and come clean on their commitments. The report also points to the fact that despite the reputational and financial risks [associated with financing dirty energy], the world's largest banks have yet to measure the greenhouse gas emissions induced by their investing and financing relationships. The emergence of tools for measuring financed emissions, including the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol can provide a reliable method for banks to quantify and manage financed emissions. Among the report's recommendations are that - in order to reduce and disclose their financed emissions, banks should support broadening the GHG Protocol's disclosure guidelines to measure the full extent of a bank's exposure to climate risk from its lending, underwriting and investing activities,' and 'disclose comprehensive financed emissions data and commit to financed emissions reduction targets of at least 3.9% per year. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Superstorm Sandy Shows Nuclear Plants Who's Boss
Oyster Creek on Alert as Sandy Threatens Nuclear Facilities Published on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 by Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/30-4 --0-- http://truth-out.org/news/item/12410-superstorm-sandy-shows-nuclear-plants-whos-boss Superstorm Sandy Shows Nuclear Plants Who's Boss Tuesday, 30 October 2012 11:30 By Gregg Levine, Capitoilette | Report Once there was an ocean liner; its builders said it was unsinkable. Nature had other ideas. On Monday evening, as Hurricane Sandy was becoming Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy, pushing record amounts of water on to Atlantic shores from the Carolinas to Connecticut, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a statement. Oyster Creek, the nation's oldest operating nuclear reactor, was under an Alert. . . and under a good deal of water. An Alert is the second rung on the NRC's four-point emergency classification scale. It indicates events are in process or have occurred which involve an actual or potential substantial degradation in the level of safety of the plant. (By way of reference, the fourth level-a General Emergency-indicates substantial core damage and a potential loss of containment.) As reported earlier, Oyster Creek's coolant intake structure was surrounded by floodwaters that arrived with Sandy. Oyster Creek's 47-year-old design requires massive amounts of external water that must be actively pumped through the plant to keep it cool. Even when the reactor is offline, as was the case on Monday, water must circulate through the spent fuel pools to keep them from overheating, risking fire and airborne radioactive contamination. With the reactor shut down, the facility is dependant on external power to keep water circulating. But even if the grid holds up, rising waters could trigger a troubling scenario: The water level was more than six feet above normal. At seven feet, the plant would lose the ability to cool its spent fuel pool in the normal fashion, according to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The plant would probably have to switch to using fire hoses to pump in extra water to make up for evaporation, Mr. Sheehan said, because it could no longer pull water out of Barnegat Bay and circulate it through a heat exchanger, to cool the water in the pool. If hoses desperately pouring water on endangered spent fuel pools remind you of Fukushima, it should. Oyster Creek is the same model of GE boiling water reactor that failed so catastrophically in Japan. The NRC press release (PDF) made a point-echoed in most traditional media reports-of noting that Oyster Creek's reactor was shut down, as if to indicate that this made the situation less urgent. While not having to scram a hot reactor is usually a plus, this fact does little to lessen the potential problem here. As nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen told Democracy Now! before the Alert was declared: [Oyster Creek is] in a refueling outage. That means that all the nuclear fuel is not in the nuclear reactor, but it's over in the spent fuel pool. And in that condition, there's no backup power for the spent fuel pools. So, if Oyster Creek were to lose its offsite power-and, frankly, that's really likely-there would be no way cool that nuclear fuel that's in the fuel pool until they get the power reestablished. Nuclear fuel pools don't have to be cooled by diesels per the old Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. A site blackout (SBO) or a loss of coolant issue at Oyster Creek puts all of the nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at risk. The plant being offline does not change that, though it does, in this case, increase the risk of an SBO. But in the statement from the NRC, there was also another point they wanted to underscore (or one could even say brag on): As of 9 p.m. EDT Monday, no plants had to shut down as a result of the storm. If only regulators had held on to that release just one more minute. . . . SCRIBA, NY - On October 29 at 9 p.m., Nine Mile Point Unit 1 experienced an automatic reactor shutdown. The shutdown was caused by an electrical grid disturbance that caused the unit's output breakers to open. When the unit's electrical output breakers open, there is nowhere to push or transmit the power and the unit is appropriately designed to shut down under these conditions. Our preliminary investigation identified a lighting pole in the Scriba switchyard that had fallen onto an electrical component. This is believed to have caused the grid disturbance. We continue to evaluate conditions in the switchyard, said Jill Lyon, company spokesperson. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station consists of two GE boiling water reactors, one of which would be the oldest operating in the US were it not for Oyster Creek. They are located just outside Oswego, NY, on the shores of Lake Ontario. Just one week ago, Unit 1-the older reactor-declared an unusual event as
[Biofuel] The Curious Case of How Libya Became an Election Issue
George Lakoff: Progressives Need to Use Language That Reflects Moral Values Tuesday, 30 October 2012 10:00 By Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview http://truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/12401-george-lakoff-progressives-need-to-use-language-that-reflects-moral-values --0-- http://truth-out.org/news/item/12414-the-curious-case-of-how-libya-became-an-election-issue The Curious Case of How Libya Became an Election Issue Tuesday, 30 October 2012 13:28 By Ira Chernus, TomDispatch | News Analysis Who lost Libya? Indeed, who lost the entire Middle East? Those are the questions lurking behind the endless stream of headlines about Benghazi-gate. Here's the question we should really ask, though: How did a tragic but isolated incident at a U.S. consulate, in a place few Americans had ever heard of, get blown up into a pivotal issue in a too-close-to-call presidential contest? My short answer: the enduring power of a foreign policy myth that will not die, the decades-old idea that America has an inalienable right to own the world and control every place in it. I mean, you can't lose what you never had. This campaign season teaches us how little has changed since the early Cold War days when Republican stalwarts screamed, Who lost China? More than six decades later, it's still surprisingly easy to fill the political air with anxiety by charging that we've lost a country or, worse yet, a whole region that we were somehow supposed to have. The Who lost...? formula is something like a magic trick. There's no way to grasp how it works until you take your eyes away from those who are shouting alarms and look at what's going on behind the scenes. Who's in Charge Here? The curious case of the incident in Benghazi was full of surprises from the beginning. It was the rare pundit who didn't assure us that voters wouldn't care a whit about foreign affairs this year. It was all going to be the economy, stupid, 24/7. And if foreign issues did create a brief stir, surely the questions would be about Afghanistan, Pakistan, or China. Yet for weeks, the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans became the rallying cry of the campaign to unseat Barack Obama. What made this even more surprising: when news of the tragedy first broke, it appeared to be stillborn as a political issue. The day after the attack on the consulate, as the news about the killings was just coming out, Mitt Romney rushed to blast his opponent: American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don't spin out of control. A president must show resolve in our might and a readiness to use overwhelming force. Barack Obama had failed on all these counts, Romney charged, and the deaths in Benghazi proved it. The Republican presidential candidate was duly blasted in return for politicizing the incident. It seemed like almost everyone chimed in critically. Even longtime Republican stalwart Ed Rogers wrote that Romney stumbled, while the president said the right things and had the right tone. Romney never retracted anything he said on that first day -- and somehow the same words, once scorned as unfitting and unpresidential, were mysteriously transformed into powerful arguments against reelecting the incumbent. A month later, a new story dominated the headlines: Romney's criticisms on Libya were now said to be hitting the target, changing the dynamic, playing a major role in his campaign's resurgence. This change of tune surely reflected in part the media's primal need for a close presidential contest to keep the public's interest. At the time of the Libyan incident it was generally agreed that Obama was beginning to pull ahead in the race, potentially decisively, and anything that might boost Romney's chance was undoubtedly welcome on an editor's desk. No matter how hard editors try, though, some stories just don't stick. But the Libya story stuck. It struck a chord somewhere in the hearts and minds of a lot of Americans. You have to wonder why. A big part of the answer lies in the power of the key words in Romney's first statement: might and control. His strategists grasped a fundamental truth of American politics: The public has an endless appetite for gripping stories about challenges to America's global might and its right to control the world. So they doubled down and sent their man out to tell the story again. In his first major foreign policy speech, Romney absolved his opponent of any direct responsibility for the four American deaths, but he pilloried Obama for a far more grievous sin. By a wild leap of imagination, he turned this one incident into the spearhead of a vast assault on America: Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned Our nation was attacked. The president's job is to protect us by dominating our enemies, the challenger proclaimed. It's our consistent record of victory as
[Biofuel] US employs former child soldiers as mercenaries
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/ugan-o31.shtml US employs former child soldiers as mercenaries By Sybille Fuchs 31 October 2012 The US is increasingly using private security forces to wage its wars and maintain its occupation of countries after the withdrawal of regular troops. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of mercenaries and dozens of private security companies are being deployed to this end. The utterly ruthless and cynical methods employed by American companies and endorsed by Washington were graphically illustrated in a German documentary television program broadcast last week. Weltspiegel showed how US companies were recruiting former child soldiers from Uganda to risk their lives as mercenaries for miserly pay in Iraq and other war zones. The journalists, Marcel Kolvenbach and Daniel Satra, followed the path of young men from Uganda who were hired by Ugandan private security companies. These companies then pass them on to US firms that are commissioned by the American army to guard their camps in Iraq and other areas of the world where the United States is waging war. In many cases, the young recruits had fought as child soldiers for the Christian fundamentalist rebel group of Joseph Kony against the Ugandan government led by President Museveni. In the course of fighting they have both experienced and committed horrible massacres. In March of this year there was widespread media hype in the US surrounding the thirty-minute video Kony 2012. The video denounced the plight of Ugandan children who were used as soldiers by Kony. As the World Socialist Web Site warned at that time, this campaign was also supported by President Obama campaign in a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion in favor of American intervention. The reality is that the traumatized child soldiers in Kony's force are being systematically used by the US as cheap cannon fodder in Iraq. Ugandan security companies and their American partners are quite prepared to exploit the dire and traumatic situation of the child soldiers. The Ugandan journalist Rosario Achola reported: Most of these former child soldiers do not know how to make ends meet when the war is over. They cannot find work and find themselves adrift. So a job as a security guard in Iraq or Afghanistan is practically the only choice they have. She continued: It's ironic that the nations which expressed the most outrage about Kony and child soldiers is now exploiting these former child soldiers to fight their battles and protect them in a war which has nothing to do with Uganda. The young men who have learned nothing other than how to kill are required to risk their lives for a few dollars to make profits for local companies operating throughout the country. They are assured they are carrying out a safe job, but once in the field the reality is very different. Many of the returnees report of fatalities or injuries. Many are themselves injured. On behalf of Weltspiegel, Rosario Achola interviewed Ssali Twaha, a mercenary who was told that he would be carrying out a safe mission in Iraq in the Green Zone. But then a ricochet hit his camp. He recalls: Suddenly I heard my comrade above breathing heavily and blood dripped down on me through the mattress. It was pitch dark, I thought he had wet the bed. I wanted to wake him up. But when I touched him everything was full of blood with foam coming from his mouth. A US attorney reports on the case of a seriously injured Ugandan, paralyzed on one side of his body, who was deported back to his home country and then just left to his fate. When I met him he had neither a disability pension nor medical care. He was just wasting away. The attorney took the case to court. A further 60 victims then came forward who had suffered the same fate. The companies that receive large sums from the US government to insure soldiers against such injuries refused to pay out. Three of our clients have received death threats-in Uganda and Iraq. They received threatening calls such as: 'If you do not drop your lawsuit, we will kill you.' The attorney also reported on another injured soldier who was told by his employer, 'If you report it you will arrive home in a body bag.' One security company that offered the US Army mercenaries for $1,000 per man per month was undercut by another that demanded just $400. As a result the soldiers employed by the first company were forced to return home. The former child soldier Dibya Moses also had to leave Iraq after an illness and return to Uganda. He was dismissed without any compensation or severance pay. In an interview with Achola, he explained: The people here are desperate for a job in Iraq because they see it as an opportunity to earn an extra few dollars. In the end it is like modern-day slavery. Both the US Defense Department and the State Department refused to comment on this practice. The
[Biofuel] Up and running
Hello all Everything's working now, both the list and the archives. The archives has a new address: http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org/maillist.html ... but the old address forwards to the new address anyway. Hats off to Chip Mefford and the Jeff Breitenbach of The Mail Archive. Best Keith ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
