Re: [Biofuel] Okay, This time I really am going to take down the list, , , , but first, please read

[Thomas Irwin]

Hi,

This list has been so great over the years that I would hate to see it
go. However, if you do not have the time then it will have to. Thanks
for your additional attention to the list.

Sincerely,

Tom Irwin

On 3/16/17, Chip Mefford  wrote:
>
>
> Good day all of you who are left,
>
> I really want to thank everyone who has sent their
> thoughts on taking the list down. There have been
> some, , no, not some, all, great stories.
>
> Before I take the list down, ,
> I was wondering how many of you are still interested in keeping
> something like this going.
>
> reason I ask is that I am becoming involved in a
> new software project that I find very exciting, and
> hence have chosen to do the work to update my
> respective servers, including the mailing list server.
>
> Kind of a pain in the neck, I went through a life-change
> over the last 6 years, and walking away from all things
> IT was part of that. Since I had many dangling obligations
> (being a denizen of the internet) I tapered it all down
> to where about the only thing I was responsible for was
> this mailing list. However, that particular attempt
> at resolving some things in my life by not doing
> systems administration have cropped back up again,
> so that wasn't the fix for which I had hoped.
>
> So, it doesn't make sense really to abandon all those
> skills I had developed, even though I am moving into
> my dotage, (heh) but rather to double down and dive back
> in.
>
> The project of which I speak is FarmOS
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCOqg5iH6fM
>
> Take a look, give me some feedback, if there is interest,
> I'll migrate some or all of this list into a new
> community.
>
> Thanks kindly for your attention in this matter;
>
> --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] 2016

[Thomas Irwin]

Dear Darryl

(who notes that one advantage which comes with age is the ability to see
the parallels in the cycles of human time)

I have found this to be true but this as well. Nobody listens or employs
old people yet that is where all the experience is.

Tom

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Darryl McMahon 
wrote:

> Wishing the best of a new year to all.
>
> 2015 has had its share of challenges and defeats, victories and unfinished
> business.
>
> As we start to circle round the calendar again, I wanted to share this
> e-card artwork of the time circles of clock faces with you.
>
> http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=5970402243853=jl999
>
> May 2016 bring us better understanding of our world and our neighbours
>
>
> A SAID POEM
>
> for Ronald and Beatrice Gross
>
> “I have seen the future and it doesn’t work,” said Robert Fulford.
> “If there weren’t any Poland, there wouldn’t be any Poles,” said Alfred
> Jarry.
> “We aren’t making the film they contracted for,” said Robert Flaherty.
> “History never repeats itself but it rhymes,” said Mark Twain.
>
>   - John Robert Colombo
>
> Darryl
> (who notes that one advantage which comes with age is the ability to see
> the parallels in the cycles of human time)
> ___
> 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] Anybody wants the biofuel gear of Journey to Forever?

[Thomas Irwin]

Greetings,

Depending on the shipping cost, I would be willing to take the small and
the ethanol still. If you are getting rid of the library, I would be happy
to add it to mine as a future reference for the group. I live in
Montevideo, Uruguay. Let me know the shipping costs. I can probably pay via
credit card if that is convenient.

Sincerely,

Tom Irwin

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org
wrote:

 Dear biofuel friends,

 This is Midori, Japanese partner of Keith Addison.
 I'm looking for somebody who wants to have the biofuel gear of Journey
 to Forever, made by Keith.

 Because of many complications, they are still packed in a warehouse in
 Oxford, UK, together with Keith's 300+ books and other personal
 possessions.

 I really hate to dump them, but as a poor PhD student living in a small
 flat, I cannot keep them. So I hope somebody on the list to accept them
 and make good use of them.

 The gear should include the disassembled JTF biodiesel processors (90L,
 15L, and mini-processors), and the ethanol still.
 http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor10.html
 http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor5.html
 http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor7.html
 They are disassembled, and might be missing tanks or some parts. I
 cannot guarantee because I didn't see how they were packed when Keith
 shipped them out before he died. Still, there should be enough to help
 you easily start biofuel project.

 We need the recipient to bear the expense of transfer and related cost.
 Some additional donation for the gear is also appreciated too because
 there's been lots of difficulty to retrieve Keith's possessions. I and
 Keith's close friends have been bearing the cost and trouble because we
 care of Keith and hate to waste his efforts.

 We plan to retrieve them from the wharehouse first, and sort them out
 (maybe in Cork, Ireland), then will ship the biofuel gear to those who
 want them.
 (IF somebody near Oxford UK could provide a storage place for about 70
 boxes/220Cuft of goods including the JTF biofuel gear and Keith's
 library until March 2015 and help me sort them out, that would be really
 appreciated too - but I suppose I'm asking too much so don't worry about
 this bit).

 Please email me at i...@journeytoforever.org (specify to Midori in
 the title) if you are interested.

 I really appreciate for your support and contribution for Keith over
 these years. Thank you so much. I hope we all remember Keith and what he
 taught us.

 Many thanks and best wishes,

 Midori
 Kyoto, Japan

 ___
 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] It's a Plastic World

[Thomas Irwin]

The problem with plastic recycling still remain the same. Plastic has such
a low bulk density that harvesting plastic to recycle eats up a lot of
fuel. Are they burning biomass, biodiesel, or alcohol to pick up and
transport the plastic? If not you are just creating more unnecessary carbon
dioxide for release into the atmosphere. The oceans are mankind's great
cesspool. Unless you are harvesting via a renewable resource you are better
off just leaving them in place. A much better use of resources would be to
prevent future plastic pollution. Just don't buy things made of plastic and
don't take them if they are given away for free like plastic shopping bags.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote:

 Another take on the hazards of plastic packaging, microbeads, etc. let
 loose in the wild.

 http://vimeo.com/100694882 - video 4 minutes 40 seconds

 http://itsaplasticworld.com/  - movie website

 So far, one issue regarding harvesting waste plastic from the oceans is
 the limited number of items which can be produced from mixed plastic
 waste.  However, there likely are some options here, such as Blue Planet
 products.

 http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/case-study/how-the-blue-
 box-helped-create-a-blue-planet-at-canadian-tire/

 Substitutes for wooden planks in outdoor applications, and other lumber
 replacement applications.

 http://www.envirocurb.com/

 Recycling plastic should help reduce oil production and save trees.

 ___
 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] Cheaper wind turbines.

[Thomas Irwin]

It could be but how soon can it get to market. There really isn't a lot of
time left. The main material Magnesium dibromide is not so easy to
manufacture and economies of scale have not been developed. It is very
variable in superconductivity properties depending on its manufacture. This
is still an  out there kind of technology. They say it eliminates the
gearbox but it really doesn't explain how. Maybe I missed it because I went
to scan mode after I saw what they were using as a superconductor. The
gearbox for those who don't understand is used to speed up the circular
motion of the drive shaft so you can generate more electricity. Anybody
else see how this eliminates the gearbox?

Tom


On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, bmolloy bmol...@xtra.co.nz wrote:


 Subject: Cheaper wind turbines



 Could this be the big break-through?



 New superconductor-powered wind turbines could hit Australian shores in
 five
 years - ScienceAlert



 
 
 http://www.sciencealert.com/new-superconductor-powered-wind-turbines-could-
 hit-australian-shores-in-five-years

 http://www.sciencealert.com/new-superconductor-powered-wind-turbines-could-h
 it-australian-shores-in-five-years



 ___
 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] I think this is important. Is Putin right? What do we do?

[Thomas Irwin]

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] I think this is important. Is Putin right? What do we do?

[Thomas Irwin]

Sorry, for the slog Darryl. It is not very safe to speak openly about world
events. Others are listening.Destabilization around the periphery, is a
divide an conquer strategy to remove perceptual buffers between Russia and
her enemies. Putin has erected a Russian wall against this possibility. It
is a stout one and the destabilizing force will blowback on their creator.
He wasn't just describing the U.S. when he said everything the U.S. touches
turns into Iraq and Afghanistan. He was describing the strategy others
should follow in order to defeat this tactic.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com
wrote:

 Hi Thomas,

 it took me a while to slog through the whole piece.  Seems pretty much on
 the mark to me.

 It has been noted before that Arseniy Yatsenyuk was essentially an agent
 provocateur for western government interests in Ukraine, and now Ukraine is
 left to reap the whirlwind.

 From Forbes - not exactly a lefty, socialist journal:

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/02/27/
 washingtons-man-yatsenyuk-setting-ukraine-up-for-ruin/

 “Recall the phone exchange between the Ukraine ambassador and Victoria
 Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs) that got leaked
 out, where she basically said ‘we want Yats in there.’ They like him
 because he’s pro Western,” says Vladimir Signorelli, president of boutique
 investment research firm Bretton Woods Research LLC in New Jersey.
 “Yatsenyuk is the the kind of technocrat you want if you want austerity,
 with the veneer of professionalism,” Signorelli said. “He’s the type of guy
 who can hobnob with the European elite. A Mario Monti type: unelected and
 willing to do the IMFs bidding,” he said.

 ==

 Assuming destabilization of a Russian-allied state (Ukraine) was the
 desired outcome by the west, I would call it mission accomplished.


 On 22/11/2014 11:57 AM, Thomas Irwin wrote:

 http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-
 elites-play-time-is.html
 ___
 Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
 Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
 http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
 sustainablelorgbiofuel



 --
 Darryl McMahon
 Freelance Project Manager
 ___
 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] The Future of the Biofuels mailing list, your input needed.

[Thomas Irwin]

Ok, How about Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi.

here is the link at Club Orlov

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html#more

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:50 PM, deborah howard dhowar...@cox.net wrote:

 I've been happily reading many comments and postings over the years.  I
 don't need to continue on this list.
 Deborah Howard
 Glastonbury, CT

 On Nov 19, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Chip Mefford wrote:

  Good day all;
 
  As of this morning, there are 456 subscribers to this list.
 
  The recent news of Keith's passing come as sad news to us all and we saw
 a tiny
  uptick in traffic over those few days. Since then, we're back to some
 updates
  on issues that many of us find interesting by Darryl, and not much else.
 
  So, I need to hear from you, as in a *lot* of you if you want to see
 this list continue.
 
  The archives are in place, and as of right now, it's the intention to
 keep them in
  place, but I'm uncertain that this list is really serving any further
 purpose.
 
  Keith and I have discussed this very issue many times over the last 5 or
 so years.
  I offered to host the list in order to keep it going a few years back.
 But now
  that we are no longer blessed with Keith's insights, well, I'm not sure
  this list is really relevant.
 
  So, please respond to this posting with your thoughts. I'll need to hear
 from
  a lot of you.
 
  --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

___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] The Problem of Stupid in Economics

[Thomas Irwin]

Considering how little economists actually know and how little they can
predict from their soft science, it is laughable for them to call someone
else stupid.

Tom Irwin

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com
wrote:

 http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27482-the-
 problem-of-stupid-in-economics

 [Hello, fellow 'stupid' members of the public.  Welcome to the Matrix. Of
 course, when I took economics in university, the 'public' was the economy.
 Silly me, things have changed.  The Soma is in your Kool-aid; drink deeply.]

 MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber has inadvertently become a YouTube celebrity
 as a result of a video of him referring to the public as stupid. The
 immediate point of reference was the complexity of the design of the
 Affordable Care Act (ACA), which Gruber was describing as being necessary
 politically in order to deceive the public. With the right-wing now in a
 state of near frenzy after the Republican election victories, the Gruber
 comment was fresh meat in their attack on the ACA.

 Apart from merits of the ACA, there is something grating about seeing a
 prominent economist refer to the US public as stupid. After all, the
 country and the world have suffered enormously over the last seven years
 because the leading lights of the economic profession were almost
 completely oblivious to the largest asset bubble in the history of the
 world.

 While it should have been easy to recognize an $8 trillion housing bubble
 in the United States, prices had diverged sharply from their long-term
 trend with no plausible basis in the fundamentals of the housing market. In
 particular, rents had only risen in step with inflation, indicating there
 had not been a sudden upturn in the demand for housing.

 It also should not have been surprising that the loss of this wealth when
 the bubble burst would lead to a severe economic downturn and have a major
 impact on the financial sector. After all, it was easy to see that the
 bubble was driving the economy in the last business cycle. Residential
 construction had hit a record as a share of GDP and the ephemeral bubble
 wealth led to an unprecedented boom in consumption.

 Since mortgages are a heavily leveraged asset even in normal times, and
 became considerably more leveraged during the bubble years, it should
 hardly have been a surprise that there were large numbers of defaults and
 foreclosures. And, given the leverage of the banking system, the fact that
 a large number of bad loans would put many banks in danger also should not
 have been a surprise.

 In spite of the huge yellow warning lights flashing all over the sky,
 nearly all the world's top economists were caught by surprise by the
 collapse of the housing bubble. People in my profession should be very
 cautious in the use of the word stupid.

 There is some truth to Gruber's comment in that most people are
 ill-informed about major public policy issues, including health insurance.
 This is in large part due to the fact that, unlike Gruber, most people have
 day jobs. They put in their shift at work and then often have child care
 and other family responsibilities. Most of them probably don't have much
 time to read the Congressional Budget Office's latest report on the health
 care system.

 But even worse, when people do take the time to get informed, the media
 let them down badly. Stories even in the best of outlets, like the New York
 Times and National Public Radio, often present information in ways that are
 misleading and often meaningless to nearly all readers.

 The New York Times gave us a great example of misleading reporting this
 weekend in an article headlined, Cost of Coverage Under the Affordable
 Care Act to Increase in 2015. The piece then highlighted a number of plans
 which are increasing premiums by large amounts in 2015.

 Anyone reading this article would likely get the impression that most
 people are seeing big insurance price increases in 2015. This is 180
 degrees at odds with reality. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that the
 average cost of benchmark plans in the ACA exchanges actually fell slightly
 in 2015. (The chart accompanying the NYT article would show a story of
 declining prices or modest increases.) This is remarkable given the fact
 that insurance costs have been rising sharply for the last half century.
 Rather than highlighting the fact that for most people in the exchanges
 premiums are rising little or actually falling, the NYT decided to
 highlight that some people will pay more, if they don't change plans.

 In the same vein, the media routinely report huge numbers without giving
 any context that would make these numbers meaningful to their audience. AP
 gave us a great example of this practice when it reported that the Social
 Security Disability program paid out $2 billion in benefits, to people who
 should have not been eligible, over the last seven years.

 This article likely gave people the 

Re: [Biofuel] Latin American Herald Tribune - Uruguayan Firm Launches Project to Convert Used Cooking Oil into Biodiesel

[Thomas Irwin]

Greetings,



Let me add to the information already provided. I have lived in Montevideo,
Uruguay since 1998. Official population statistics indicate that Montevideo
has a population of 1.5 million people with the country having a bit over
3.2 million people. ALUR is also manufacturing ethanol from sugar cane.
They are using it in demonstration cars to let people know that these fuels
are available and workable. They work closely with the national refinery,
ANCAP, so they can add the alcohol they produce to our gasoline to extend
the nation's transport fuel supply while the country is building out their
wind generators. The plan, ultimately, is to get off of oil as much as
possible, which must be imported at high cost, and shift to renewable
electric public transportation. They plan to do it over the next 5 years.
This country is a great place to live and raise a family. It is not a first
world country and has virtually none of those amenities or problems
associated with such. It is an agrarian based economy, exporting beef,
lamb, wool and rice. It has a true democracy with a multiparty system. We
had 5 people running for president from different parties in October. No
one received the majority of 50.1% of the vote so there will be a run-off
election in two weeks between the two top vote getters. The favorite is a
former president. His actual profession is as one of the country's leading
oncologists. Every adult citizen must vote in Uruguay. If you don't you
receive a fine. Elections are held on Sundays to accommodate that. By law,
only 1.5 % of the national budget is allocated to the military. The
military is called on in times of crisis to help local populations affected
by floods and other national disasters. They do a good job at that. Please
don't tell anyone about this place, I don't want a lot of foreigners coming
here and mucking things up. (BIG SMILE) Actually, I run a small side
business setting foreigners up here. So, far it has been mostly retirees.
There are not very many jobs available as it is a small economy. But small
is beautiful.


Saludos,


Tom Irwin

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote:

 http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2359595CategoryId=23620

 Uruguayan Firm Launches Project to Convert Used Cooking Oil into Biodiesel

 MONTEVIDEO – State-owned company Alcoholes de Uruguay (Alur) has launched
 a pilot project to recycle used cooking oil and convert it into biodiesel.

 The head of Alur’s oleaginous products and derivatives unit, Nicolas
 Ferrari, told Efe Wednesday that a “smart” container already has been
 installed to gather used cooking oil at a school in Montevideo and the idea
 is to gradually set up others nationwide.

 The project, which uses a green-colored “smart” glass container that
 receives used cooking-oil containers and provides clean ones in return, is
 modeled on recycling systems implemented by the company Ekogras in the
 northern Spanish city of San Sebastian.

 The goal is to leverage the capacity of Alur’s new plants in Uruguay to
 produce biodiesel from used cooking oil, “as Europe has been doing for some
 time,” Ferrari said.

 Alur has already signed its first agreements with fast-food chains and
 supermarkets in Montevideo, while other individual collectors are dispersed
 in various parts of Montevideo, a city of some 1.2 million inhabitants, and
 allow people to sell their used cooking oil.

 Ferrari said Uruguayan society is interested in the program because people
 often do not know what to do with their used oil and end up pouring it down
 the drain, which complicates water treatment processes and clogs pipes.

 “One liter of oil contaminates 1,000 liters of water and in Uruguay each
 inhabitant uses an average of 15 liters year, 3 of which end up as waste,”
 he said.

 Awareness-raising and education are part of this recycling initiative.

 The next step will be to increase the number of smart containers in
 Montevideo to 10 by February or March of next year and install others in
 the towns of Canelones and Piriapolis.
 ___
 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] Berries and Climate Change

[Thomas Irwin]

Hi Darryl,

Well it is an election year. No sense talking about real issues like
climate change. People might vote based on that issue. The big energy
companies wouldn't want that. If I recall the only issues permitted by the
MSM during an election year are gay rights/anti gay marriage,
abortion/overturning Roe vs Wade, and campaign finance reform. Sorry, no
other issues need apply. Besides are not Americans already doing their fair
share by cutting back something like 3 million gallons per day of gas
demand by getting layed off. Last time I looked something like 18 million
folks are cutting their use of fossil fuels by not being able to find a job
or are working part time. Some of the same folks are cutting back on
heating fuel by moving back home with Mom, Dad and sometimes Grand dad. Now
there is a heartwarming family issue we can all get behind. Each extra
person generates 100 watts of excess energy. They wouldn't need to facebook
Grandad if he's right down the hall.

Seriously though, no one is going to do anything about burning fossil fuels
because it means cutting your standard of living. Raise you hand if you
want to go from middle class to poor. I am fairly certain the rich are
staying put. The insurance companies know what's going on. How much does
flood insurance cost in hurricane prone areas if you can get it at all. I
tell my students that we now live between the flood and the drought. Both
of which will get worse as time progresses. The Chinese and the Indians are
moving forward. One Chinese factory that I have dealings with will build 9
gigawatts of solar panels this year with 3 gigawatts targeted for export. I
have heard that both are building Thorium reactors. Leadership on climate
and other issues will come from those two countries. We shipped the jobs
there but for to send the Unions,Oops! As long as we are on happy subjects,
was there enough nuclear material at Fukashima to poison all of the Pacific
ocean or only as far as Hawaii.

As we live in interesting times,

Tom Irwin

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 It astonishes me to see the news items - even on our corporate
 television network (CTV) - of the multiple weather events (massive
 forest fires, tornadoes where they don't belong - let alone when,
 millions without electricity in the eastern U.S., record-setting high
 temperatures across the continent, flash floods, etc.), and nary a word
 about climate change.  I know we have discussed it here recently, but it
 still leaves me gobsmacked.  Seriously, our leaders and newswriters are
 that determined to not connect the dots?  (Nod to Bill McKibben).

 Anyway, it's hot enough here that I am changing up my usual schedule to
 play in the garden in the early morning coolness instead of my past
 practice to save this for my evening 'wind-down' time.

 My raspberries are gloriously out of control in the southern-most corner
 of the yard, having refused to accept my attempt to direct them to a
 more northern section.  They have ceded that territory to my equally
 gregarious (rescued years ago) maple tree, which provides welcome shade
 over the park bench I put out by the street for passers-by.
 (Originally, it was used by an elder couple every day as he walked as
 part of his therapy to recover from a stroke.  I don't see either of
 them anymore, but the tree and bench remain popular, especially on these
 hot days.)

 However, the raspberries are hitting maximum production a full 2 weeks
 earlier than I have come to expect in previous years.

 Local lawns are browning due to heat and lack of rain.  In my childhood,
 I can remember that happening on occasion in mid-August but never in
 July, let alone early July.

 I'm well behind schedule getting my basement-started tomatoes outdoors,
 but time remains a scarce resource.  Perhaps this weekend, if other
 priorities permit.  There always seem to be so many.

 Roberto, I miss your garden reports.  How goes it on the wet coast?

 Darryl

 --
 Darryl McMahon
 The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy
 Runner-up, non-fiction - 2011 International Green Book Festival awards
 http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/


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

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120708/bea40f92/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list 

Re: [Biofuel] The Market Is Lying: Why We Must Tax Carbon, Not Subsidize It

[Thomas Irwin]

Why not cap and trade and tax carbon. Taxing carbon can give you the
immediate benefit that the climate desperately needs. Taxing is something
countries can do as individuals that benefits their economic balance sheets
upon implementation. Cap and trade has many holes and needs to be ratified
by each and every government. Waiting until an enforcable cap and trade
system is in place world wide just lets the greenhouse gas pollution
continue. The taxes can be phased out as each country wishes perhaps based
on their participation and benefit from cap and trade.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Keith Addison wrote:

  Sweden has been using a carbon tax since 1991. It works. See
  
  http://www.carbontax.org
  
  http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/0/2108273.pdf
  
  If markets are to deliver a least-cost economy then prices have to be
  corrected to include costs external to market transactions. Taxes are
  the simplest and most efficient way to do this. Alfred Pigou
  introduced
  the concept in the 1920s. We're a little slow catching on.
 
  :-) Funny, that.
 
  Thanks Doug - all best
 
  Keith

 I'm not sure of how well that would work on a planetary scale.
 For one thing, you'd need to get all affected governments to agree on
 some authority to tax.

 No, I think cap and trade is the best approach.

 Cap the carbon at the mine entrance, at the well head.

 Then trade stuff you have, for other stuff you want.

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

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110714/5665f64e/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] SVO and titration

[Thomas Irwin]

Thanks for the information

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Oskar Bartenstein
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:


 Candle filters 100um, 20um, 1um, no vacuum, no heating.

 I let stuff settle for a while and avoid surface and bottom.

 Dont know, possibly nothing.
 1um sounds better to me than 10um and does not
 cost any more work or money.

 On 6/28/2011, Thomas Irwin wrote:

 How do you filter WVO to 1 um? Multiple filtering steps with vacuum? Do
 you
 separate emulsions and animal fat first? What would 5 or 10 um filtering
 leave in that would be problematic?




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

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110628/0a885797/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bonus credits for CCS weaken Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulations

[Thomas Irwin]

Yes, the Weyburn site was the large storage facility but there were some
smaller ones that could not hold pressure as well.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 I expect this is the leaking CCS story to which you are referring.


 http://thegreenpages.ca/sk/2011/01/still-questions-in-the-weyburn-carbon-dioxide-leak-ecojustice/

 The petro industry and provincial government were quick to report that
 there was no evidence of a CO2 leak related to the Weyburn storage
 facility, without bothering to actually conduct an actual investigation.

 I suspect ecojustice is closer to the truth with their stance on the
 matter.

 Darryl McMahon

 On 27/06/2011 7:17 PM, Thomas Irwin wrote:
  Is there one of these CCS units that does not leak? I was reading about
  another unit in Canada that was near full scale but leaked like crazy. If
  there are no non-leakers this is one of those big engineering money pits.
  Come on everyone, lets build one and let the taxpayers and ratepayers
 give
  us free money.
 
  On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Darryl McMahon[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  This sort of thing just reinforces my belief that the much-heralded
  Carbon Capture and Storage (Sequestration) projects that are touted to
  save us from climate change are just a scam perpetrated by major
  polluters and governments on taxpayers and residents of the planet.
 
 
 
 http://www.troymedia.com/2011/06/27/bonus-credits-for-ccs-weaken-alberta%E2%80%99s-greenhouse-gas-regulations/
 
  CALGARY, AB, June 27, 2011/ Troy Media/ – Wouldn’t it be nice if your
  loonies turned into toonies overnight?
 
  And if they did, don’t you think you might end up spending more because
  of those bonus dollars?
 
  Unfortunately, that’s exactly the deal Alberta is now offering to some
  companies – and the result will be more greenhouse gas pollution.
 
  Here’s the situation: the Government of Alberta, along with many
  companies, wants to support carbon capture and storage. This technology,
  known as CCS, would see companies capture their greenhouse gas emissions
  and store them deep underground, rather than allowing them to escape
  into the atmosphere where they contribute to global warming.
 
  Alberta is counting on CCS to deliver 70 per cent of the emission
  reductions it needs to hit its 2050 emission reduction target. The
  problem is that most applications of CCS cost well over $100/tonne,
  while Alberta’s government is charging companies a maximum of $15/tonne
  for their greenhouse gas pollution.
 
  In its first attempt to close the gap, back in 2008, the province
  committed $2 billion in public subsidies to support CCS projects. On
  June 24, it added a second incentive: giving companies bonus offset
  credits for every tonne of pollution they reduce using certain CCS
  projects. These will initially be given out at a two-for-one rate (i.e.
  two credits for every tonne sequestered), which will decline if a
  national carbon price is introduced.
 
  Understanding Alberta’s offset system
 
  An offset is an emission reduction that takes place outside of the
  mandatory targets companies have to hit under Alberta’s specified gas
  emitters regulation. Companies are allowed to buy offset credits as a
  replacement for improving the environmental performance in their own
  operations. But that exchange only works if the offset credit actually
  represents an emission reduction: a tonne of pollution from an upgrader
  needs to be cancelled out by a real tonne of reduction at, for example,
  a wind farm in southern Alberta.
 
  The government’s proposal of two-for-one offset credits gives some
  companies that want to do CCS a financial bonus, which makes it easier
  for those companies to invest in the technology. But it also introduces
  offset credits into the system that are not tied to any actual
  reductions. Companies will then use those credits to pollute more.
 
  In the process, these artificial offsets will cancel out the emission
  reduction benefit of doing CCS in the first place.
 
  Click for larger image
 
  The figure shows how this works. If you reward every tonne of greenhouse
  gas pollution reduced with one offset credit, you don’t increase total
  emissions. But if you reward companies two credits for every one tonne
  of reduction, those imaginary credits will be bought by other companies
  so that they don’t have to reduce their own emissions. The net result is
  that overall emissions go up. If companies buy all the two-for-one
  offsets available, Alberta’s greenhouse gas pollution will rise by one
  tonne for every tonne that CCS reduces.
 
  That’s exactly the opposite of what CCS is supposed to accomplish.
 
  Pembina has been raising questions about the credibility of many Alberta
  offsets for years. By creating a class of credits that is not based on
  real emission reductions, today’s announcement weakens a system that
  already needed strengthening.
 
  Better

Re: [Biofuel] Bonus credits for CCS weaken Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulations

[Thomas Irwin]

Is there one of these CCS units that does not leak? I was reading about
another unit in Canada that was near full scale but leaked like crazy. If
there are no non-leakers this is one of those big engineering money pits.
Come on everyone, lets build one and let the taxpayers and ratepayers give
us free money.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 This sort of thing just reinforces my belief that the much-heralded
 Carbon Capture and Storage (Sequestration) projects that are touted to
 save us from climate change are just a scam perpetrated by major
 polluters and governments on taxpayers and residents of the planet.


 http://www.troymedia.com/2011/06/27/bonus-credits-for-ccs-weaken-alberta%E2%80%99s-greenhouse-gas-regulations/

 CALGARY, AB, June 27, 2011/ Troy Media/ – Wouldn’t it be nice if your
 loonies turned into toonies overnight?

 And if they did, don’t you think you might end up spending more because
 of those bonus dollars?

 Unfortunately, that’s exactly the deal Alberta is now offering to some
 companies – and the result will be more greenhouse gas pollution.

 Here’s the situation: the Government of Alberta, along with many
 companies, wants to support carbon capture and storage. This technology,
 known as CCS, would see companies capture their greenhouse gas emissions
 and store them deep underground, rather than allowing them to escape
 into the atmosphere where they contribute to global warming.

 Alberta is counting on CCS to deliver 70 per cent of the emission
 reductions it needs to hit its 2050 emission reduction target. The
 problem is that most applications of CCS cost well over $100/tonne,
 while Alberta’s government is charging companies a maximum of $15/tonne
 for their greenhouse gas pollution.

 In its first attempt to close the gap, back in 2008, the province
 committed $2 billion in public subsidies to support CCS projects. On
 June 24, it added a second incentive: giving companies bonus offset
 credits for every tonne of pollution they reduce using certain CCS
 projects. These will initially be given out at a two-for-one rate (i.e.
 two credits for every tonne sequestered), which will decline if a
 national carbon price is introduced.

 Understanding Alberta’s offset system

 An offset is an emission reduction that takes place outside of the
 mandatory targets companies have to hit under Alberta’s specified gas
 emitters regulation. Companies are allowed to buy offset credits as a
 replacement for improving the environmental performance in their own
 operations. But that exchange only works if the offset credit actually
 represents an emission reduction: a tonne of pollution from an upgrader
 needs to be cancelled out by a real tonne of reduction at, for example,
 a wind farm in southern Alberta.

 The government’s proposal of two-for-one offset credits gives some
 companies that want to do CCS a financial bonus, which makes it easier
 for those companies to invest in the technology. But it also introduces
 offset credits into the system that are not tied to any actual
 reductions. Companies will then use those credits to pollute more.

 In the process, these artificial offsets will cancel out the emission
 reduction benefit of doing CCS in the first place.

 Click for larger image

 The figure shows how this works. If you reward every tonne of greenhouse
 gas pollution reduced with one offset credit, you don’t increase total
 emissions. But if you reward companies two credits for every one tonne
 of reduction, those imaginary credits will be bought by other companies
 so that they don’t have to reduce their own emissions. The net result is
 that overall emissions go up. If companies buy all the two-for-one
 offsets available, Alberta’s greenhouse gas pollution will rise by one
 tonne for every tonne that CCS reduces.

 That’s exactly the opposite of what CCS is supposed to accomplish.

 Pembina has been raising questions about the credibility of many Alberta
 offsets for years. By creating a class of credits that is not based on
 real emission reductions, today’s announcement weakens a system that
 already needed strengthening.

 Better options are available

 Perhaps the most frustrating part of Alberta’s decision is that it
 didn’t have to be this way. The government had much simpler and greener
 options available to reach the same goal.

 Rather than watering down the offset system, Alberta could have simply
 increased its price on emissions. The two-for-one offset bonus gives
 companies about $15/tonne of extra revenue for CCS. Instead of granting
 imaginary offset credits, why not just increase the price that all
 companies pay from its current low level of $15/tonne to $30/tonne?

 That step would have helped make CCS more economically viable, but it
 would also send a signal that would encourage other companies across
 Alberta to cut their own emissions, even if CCS isn’t part of the
 equation for them.

 Economic analysis shows 

Re: [Biofuel] Petroleum alternatives, yes; How about Nuclear?

[Thomas Irwin]

Nuclear with onsite disposal (dispersal) of spent fuel is not really an
option. There is also the cost of building and that none have ever come in
on budget.

Natural gas is still a non-renewable resource and a greenhouse gas addition.

SVO wll run into land, phosphorus and nitrogen limitations but can be a
useful full for specific purposes. It would be a useful transition fuel on
farms. I am not certain if it would require less land than animal power. As
a fuel for making electricity on a wide scale I cannot see it as being very
useful. Small scale wind and microhydro make more sense if you want
distributed electricity.

Just my 2 cents worth.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Paul Landis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If someone complains about the toxic use of Petroleum/Gas,
 they can be informed that there are reliable, available alternatives: SVO
 and or Biodiesel.
 And people on this list have done volumes to make this important
 alternative reality.

 How about Nuclear?

 A friend of mine, a scientist, pointed out that all the nuclear plant does
 is to create steam
 which power the turbine which drives the generator.

 Alternatives:
 Steam created from natural gas obtained without fracking;

 and how about large commercial diesel engines running on SVO or Biodiesel.
 Here there is not need to even have the costly equipment to handle the
 steam and run the turbines.


 Paul Landis
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110625/c31daa7e/attachment.html
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110628/a3ad0ece/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] SVO and titration

[Thomas Irwin]

How do you filter WVO to 1 um? Multiple filtering steps with vacuum? Do you
separate emulsions and animal fat first? What would 5 or 10 um filtering
leave in that would be problematic?

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Oskar Bartenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:


 A question for SVO users - do you actually bother to titrate WVO to
 check the quality?

 In my case: No I dont. I filter to 1um, no further processing.

 Also, any comments from long-term users of two-tank systems - are
 they really inferior to Elsbett-type single-tank systems?

 I think 2-tank is far superior. You have one tank with
 industrially managed well understood diesel,
 and an ALTERNATIVE tank with a liquid that may contain
 fats, acids, water, salt, sugar and anything else it met in the fry pan.

 So I drive almost always on used soy oil but can switch
 to a well defined fuel any time. Long term is in my case about 70,000km.

 Acid contamination can and will damage your engine.

 This is the second reason for 2-tank. Shutdown and startup on
 diesel prevents the corrosive WVO from sitting in your engine
 while the car is parked - which is the overwhelming part of
 a cars life for most of us.

 My setup does not work well for short distance.

 Oskar




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

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110628/7152c303/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

[Thomas Irwin]

I would also think that is the ground is covered in reflective snow would
not the trees also be covered. That would be with evergreen treees.
Deciduous trees would have no leaves so the snow effect would be the same.
Also the initial absorbtion of sunlight on leaf surfaces would occur 30
meters in the air causing a more gradual heating. The leaves are performing
transpiration which causes evaporative cooling. The comparison is wrong as
well. The comparison should be between forest heating vs desert heating.
Life and systems are a lot more complex than even most scientists and
modelers can see.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Bruno M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 FYI:
 ~~


 www.leaderpost.com/technology/Study%20trees%20cure%20global%20warming/4967756/story.html

 By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News June 18, 2011

 Study: trees not cure for global warming

 Planting trees may help appease travellers' guilt about pumping carbon
 into the atmosphere.

 But new research suggests it will do little to cool the planet,
 especially when trees are planted in Canada and other northern
 countries, says climatologist Alvaro Montenegro, at St. Francis Xavier
 University in Nova Scotia.

 There is no magic bullet for global warming, says Montenegro, and
 trees are certainly not going to be providing it.

 He assessed the impact of replanting forests on crop and marginal lands
 with Environment Canada researcher Vivek Arora. Their study, published
 Sunday in Nature Geoscience, concludes afforestation is not a
 substitute for reduced greenhouse-gas emissions.

 The United Nations, environmental groups and carbon-offset companies are
 invested heavily in the idea that planting trees will help slow climate
 change and global warming. International authorities have long described
 afforestation as a key climate-change mitigation strategy.

 But the study says the benefits of tree planting are marginal when it
 comes to stopping the planet from overheating.

 Trees do suck carbon out of the air, but the study highlights that their
 dark leaves and needles also decrease the amount of solar radiation that
 gets reflected by the landscape, which has a warming effect.

 Cropland - especially snow-covered cropland - has a cooling effect
 because it reflects a lot more solar energy than forests, the scientists
 say. This so-called albedo effect is important and needs to be
 incorporated into assessments of tree planting programs and projects,
 the researchers say.

 Montenegro and Arora stress that planting forests has many benefits -
 trees provide habitat for wildlife and prevent soil erosion. And
 planting forests does help reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide
 because carbon is locked into wood as trees grow.

 But planting trees will have only a modest effect on the global
 temperature, according to their study, which used a sophisticated
 climate modelling system developed by Environment Canada.
 
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110621/6c11ec05/attachment.html
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110623/5fc316b5/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] What's Wrong With a Hockey Stick?

[Thomas Irwin]

Hi Folks,

I believe it is a way politicians belittle real data. They do not want to
acknowledge exponential growth so any data that is inconvenient gets labeled
a hockey stick graph as if it really has no significance. That seems to be
the view I see in MSM stories.

Tom Irwin

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:55 PM, robert and benita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ok, it may be a stupid question, but I've never heard a satisfactory
 answer to this and I would really like to know what the deal is.  Many
 people complain about graphs that show exponential growth as a hockey
 stick shape.  What is so wrong about this?  Discussions concerning
 climate change (CO2 levels, for example) banking and resource depletion
 utilize graphics of this nature, and I'd like to know why such
 depictions merit criticism.

 robert luis rabello
 The Edge of Justice
 The Long Journey
 New Adventure for Your Mind
 http://www.newadventure.ca

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


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

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

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080920/ce662c5f/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Major Global Warming Report Puts Value on Human Life

[Thomas Irwin]

 By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted February 21, 2008.

 And the richer you are, the more yours is worth.




Greetings all,


This strikes me as being the business as usual model for governments and
corporations to do anything they want whenever they want. It seems that
everyone will pay for airport infrastucture but only the well to do will get
the benefit by using it. Climate change only matters if it effects the
bottom line. It disgusts me. A part of me wants the whole bloody thing to
collapse so we can begin the task of actually building things right, by
making the world life supporting.

Tom Irwin
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080227/21aa7536/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/