Re: [Biofuel] Price Of Oil Will Double
of the continent's single biggest gas supplier. He also warned against protectionist tendencies in Europe, where worries have grown that the company is being used as a blunt negotiating tool of the Kremlin. The relationship between Gazprom and Europeans is one of mutual dependence. We rely as much on European consumers as they depend on us, he said. In all frankness, I am concerned about certain protectionist tendencies resurfacing in the EU ... How wise it is that the European Commission invents an 'anti-Gazprom clause' to keep investments which are so needed for more efficient satisfaction of raising demand. ___ 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/20080617/942cf63e/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] A Norwegian alchemist
Ove, Your titration procedure: 1. Heating and swirling 1 ml palm oil (measured with a 1 ml syringe), 10 ml isopropyl alcohol (10 ml syringe) and 2 drops of 1 % phenolphthalein in a shot glass in hot water bath. 2. Adding the titration solution (0,1% NaOH/distilled water) drop by drop with a 5 ml syringe - while stirring - until the solution turned pink, and stayed pink for 10-15 seconds. - Results: 1,5 and 1,6. It should (as I said) have been 2,65. This is what I have. Not much to take hold of, is it? Everything looks fine. Since successful titration is not based on luck or magic, I still suspect that there is a very simple answer to the problem. About a year ago I got a phone call from a friend I had helped get started making BD. After dozens of successful batches, he had begun to get emulsions and failed quality tests. We went over every detail on the phone then repeated each step he had taken. Unable to resolve the problem, I simply drove over to his house and we discovered a very simple error he was making in titration. Unfortunately I can't drive over to your place, so please bear with me. Why would you consistently get low titration results? Everything you are doing appears to be correct. Your chemicals seem to be high quality Your measurements look to be right on Your persistence is admirable A thought keeps coming to mind regarding the procedure you follow. Something to consider: WVO will remain dissolved in warm isopropyl alcohol After adding titration solution (99.9% water) the WVO tends to fall out. When I titrate, I am determined to keep the WVO dissolved as titration solution is added - FINISH QUICKLY; my titration solution flows from the syringe; not drop-by- drop - keep the mix warm - swirl the mix as constantly as possible -As the purple color begins to appear I slow the rate at which I add titration solution. I can't help but think that some of the WVO is falling out of solution while you are adding the titration solution drop-by-drop --- artificially low titration results. stayed pink for 10-15 seconds. - Results: 1,5 and 1,6. It should (as I said) have been 2,65. Experiment: If you still have some of the WVO that was successfully converted using 2.65g KOH/L of WVO (rather than the 1.5g and 1.6g KOH that you got from titration) try the following: - Re-titrate it: 10ml Isopropyl alc, 2 drops phenolph, 1ml of the WVO - Heat and swirl (do you have a small, plastic water/juice/sports drink bottle rather than using a shot glass and spoon?) - Have your 5ml (titration solution) syringe filled to 1.6ml and ready to go. Instead of adding drop-by-drop, squirt in the 1.6ml. titration solution into the warm, clear WVO, phenolph, alcohol solution. Does the mix turn purple and stay purple upon swirling? Tom - Original Message - From: Ove Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Norwegian alchemist Thanks, Tom - also for your generous offer to mail me some phenolphthalein. - But as you say: The phenolphthalein seems good. It is also possible to acquire phenolphthalein powder in Oslo. - As for the solvent: The first phenolphthalein I had, was dissolved in isopropyl alcohol. Question for you: Prior to adding titration solution, is the WVO dissolved in the mix of isopropanol and phenolphthalein? - Is the mix warm and clear? - Kept warm and swirled throughout the titration process? Yes, the WVO is dissolved in the mix of (99,9%) isopropyl alcohol and phenolphthalein, and it is warm and clear and kept swirled throughout the prosess. - Does it matter that I use a metal tea spoon to swirl with? I've been distracted a bit. I don't recall if you ever posted, step-by-step, the procedure and results of a titration. - Not of any special titration. - So I've made two new titrations today - with a palm oil with which I've had successful test batches (passed Wash Test and Methanol Test), using 6,15 g NaOH. It should, in other words, titrate 2,65. This is how I did it: 1. Heating and swirling 1 ml palm oil (measured with a 1 ml syringe), 10 ml isopropyl alcohol (10 ml syringe) and 2 drops of 1 % phenolphthalein in a shot glass in hot water bath. 2. Adding the titration solution (0,1% NaOH/distilled water) drop by drop with a 5 ml syringe - while stirring - until the solution turned pink, and stayed pink for 10-15 seconds. - Results: 1,5 and 1,6. It should (as I said) have been 2,65. This is what I have. Not much to take hold of, is it? Ove - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, June
Re: [Biofuel] Obama's Chicago Boys
Hi Jason chicago economics is just as bad as keynesian economics. It's much worse. You should have a closer look at what Naomi Klein has to say about Friedman etc in her book Shock Doctrine. Try this: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/01/why-right-loves-disaster Why The Right Loves A Disaster By Naomi Klein - January 27th, 2008 Worse than that too... There's more at her site: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles And a lot in the list archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40sustainablelists.orgq=%22naomi+klein%22+%2B%22Shock+Doctrine%22 I don't think Friedman was relying on individual honesty. Other than that, quite right. Best Keith keynes relies on the state (which is a huge mistake) and friedman relies on individual honesty (not gonna happen in this country anytime soon). the state is ineffective in business as we have all seen. a lot of the government policies of the last ninety-some years (not all, but most) have caused more problems than theyve solved. the federal reserve brought us inflation and the market cycle which have both gone completely haywire lately; FEMA, which used to be a good idea, has become a rolling disaster of its own; the farm bill has never done anything but ruin food markets everywhere we send our biotech garbage; the FDA has totally failed its intentions- as we have seen /repeatedly/; the tax system hasnt actually paid for any government programs since it was installed, it was devised as collateral and to pay the interest for the loan that was taken out on the federal reserve bank by the govt in 1913. that /loan/ has become the american national debt of over FIFTY-NINE TRILLION DOLLARS(!!!) according to business style accounting practices of figuring expenses before income anyway. expenses being things like interest, payroll, war, medicaid, medicare, social security, pensions, insurances, grants, research programs, handouts, etc. even if you take the governments word on it, the debt is still nine trillion dollars... believe me, this is just a smidgeon of my complaints. it all works on paper, but no economic plan will ever work in reality because someone is going to exploit the rules, and no amount of amended rules will ever cover all the loopholes without making new ones. lassez-faire wont work either, because there are too many vultures and thieves to take advantage of the gullible ones. honesty is the exception these days. america is, as they say, Up the Creek -sans paddle... Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:35:26 +0900 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Obama's Chicago Boys http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20089.htm Obama's Chicago Boys Lookout By Naomi Klein 13/06/08 The Nation -- - Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market. Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a progressive success story. On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, I won't shop there. For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real threat: the efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits are creating collateral damage that is way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony. Obama's love of markets and his desire for change are not inherently incompatible. The market has gotten out of balance, he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama--who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade--is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School. He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education--a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy's got a healthy respect for markets, he told Chicago magazine. It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire. Another of Obama's Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth Griffin, CEO of the hedge
[Biofuel] Greenpeace publishes pesticides industry ranking
Greenpeace publishes pesticides industry ranking Greenpeace, 16 June 2008 http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/greenpeace-publishes-pesticide *Bayer pesticides are most damaging for humans and the environment Brussels/Hamburg - Pesticides manufactured by German chemical multinational Bayer pose the biggest threat to human health and the environment, compared to other international producers, Greenpeace found in a report it published today. Syngenta (Switzerland), Monsanto (USA), BASF (Germany) and Dow Chemical (USA) are the next to follow on the company black list. The Greenpeace report, The Dirty Portfolios of the Pesticides Industry,(1) provides the first-ever ranking of the world's leading agrochemical companies based on the hazards and risks of their pesticides on human health and the environment. The multinationals together account for 75 percent of the world market, and 243 (or 46 percent) of the 512 pesticides they sell worldwide are particularly hazardous for humans and for nature. The European Union is currently negotiating new legislation for the authorisation of pesticides. Our ranking shows how toxic the business of the leading agrochemical companies still is, said Greenpeace chemicals expert Manfred Krautter. Politicians must now tighten up EU pesticide laws to protect our health and to preserve biodiversity. Pesticides that can cause cancer, alter genes, and damage the reproductive, endocrine or nervous system must no longer be authorised. Pesticides that harm bees or life in aquatic environments must be banned from the market. The chemical industry is now using its significant lobbying power to try to secure authorisation even for toxins like these. On average, 46 percent of the multinationals' pesticide portfolios are made up of particularly dangerous substances. In terms of environmental and health protection, another worrying aspect is that only inadequate information is available in public databases concerning the toxic effects of another 16 percent of the pesticide components. Even the best EU laboratories are unable to routinely detect the residues in food of 42 percent of pesticides on the market. Pesticides are in the environment, in the food we eat and in our bodies. They are like a time bomb, threatening our health and many endangered animal and plant species, Krautter said. US company Monsanto has the portfolio with the highest proportion (60 percent) of pesticides that are particularly toxic to humans and the environment. However, Monsanto only ends up in the middle of the overall ranking due to its small share of the market. The overall ranking not only takes into account the hazardous properties of the various pesticides, but also the quantities that are sold worldwide. Notes to Editor (1) The report can be found at www.greenpeace.eu. The ranking draws on data from the Greenpeace studies Black List of Pesticides and Limits of Pesticide Analysis published in January and February 2008. All five companies declined to supply Greenpeace with information about the pesticidal substances that they sell. (2) The European Commission put forward a proposal on new regulation for the authorisation of pesticides in 2007 and the European Parliament proposed a series of amendments to strengthen legislation in October 2007. EU agriculture ministers are due to meet on 23 June to attempt to reach a common position on the proposal. Contact information Mark Breddy Communications manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +32 2 274 19 03; 0496/15 62 29 (mobile) Manfred Krautter - Greenpeace Germany chemicals expert, Telephone: +49 171 87 80 810 Dr. Oliver Worm - Author of the report Telephone: +49 171 87 80 822 ___ 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/
[Biofuel] Energy Department grants $30M to plug-in vehicle projects
PNGV, FreedomCAR... Early in 2002 the PNGV program was axed by the Bush administration, to be replaced with the FreedomCAR program focusing on hydrogen fuel-cells -- not expected to produce tangible results for a decade or more. See Driving In Circles: New Fuel-Efficiency Initiative Is More PR Than Progress: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg10943.html Fool Cells - How Detroit Plays Americans For A Bunch Of Suckers http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg20667.html See also the Mokhiber-Weissman review of Jack Doyle's book, Taken for a Ride: Detroit's Big Three and the Politics of Pollution: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2000/31.html -- http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_future.html#pngv Wonder why they didn't get their $500 million. - K http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/AUTO01/806130328 Friday, June 13, 2008 Energy Department grants $30M to plug-in vehicle projects David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Energy Department on Thursday announced $30 million in funding over three years for a trio of plug-in vehicle projects -- a fraction of the financial support automakers have sought, but a step they praised nonetheless. Detroit's automakers will use the money for plug-in vehicle test fleets and to accelerate mass production of battery technologies. Chrysler LLC plans to build 80 plug-in vehicles over three years working with General Electric as part of its government-funded research project. It will start by building 10 plug-in Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen vehicles in the first year that will be able to travel up to 40 miles on battery power. Lou Rhodes, Chrysler's president for ENVI, its electric drive research unit, said the company believes plug-ins are still three to five years away. General Motors Corp. working with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Electric Power Research Institute and Michigan Economic Development Corp. won funding for a project to enhance lithium-ion battery packs, charging systems, powertrain development and vehicle integration. GM will deploy a plug-in test fleet as part of the project. Ford Motor Co. is working with Southern California Edison and Johnson Controls-Saft, a joint battery venture, on its Energy Department funded project to identify a pathway that accelerates mass production of plug-in hybrid vehicles, the energy department said. Each of the joint projects will receive about $10 million, the energy department said. The announcement was made at a conference on plug-ins sponsored by Google.org and the Brookings Institution, where a top official at GM on Thursday joined Ford and Chrysler in calling on Congress to boost financial support to make plug-in hybrids and vehicles like the Chevy Volt planned for late 2010 financially viable. We believe government has a significant role to play, said Troy Clarke, GM's North American president. Our nation must fund a major effort to strengthen domestic advanced battery capabilities. Advanced lithium-ion batteries are a key enabler to a number of advanced vehicle technologies, including extended range electric vehicles and plug-in electric vehicles, Clarke said. GM also plans a plug-in Saturn Vue in 2010 with a shorter all-electric range. There is concern among automakers and Congress that the United States could replace reliance on imported oil with reliance on imported batteries, since most battery production is in Asia. China has 40 million electric vehicles on the roads though most are scooters and bikes, said Jon Wellinghoff, a Federal Energy Regulatory commissioner. The Energy Department plans to fund a second round of projects next year if Congress approves the money. The projects demonstrate a shared public-private sector commitment to advance clean vehicle technologies and will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil while confronting the serious challenge of climate change, said Andy Karsner, assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Last year, the Big Three auto CEOs had sought $500 million in battery research funding from the White House. U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, have been pushing for tax breaks for advanced battery technology money and credits for the purchase of plug-ins. Dan Reicher, director of Google.org's climate change initiative, praised GM's decision to green-light the Volt. We really need you to succeed, Reicher said in reference to GM. Plug-ins are a real solution whose time has arrived. ___ 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):
[Biofuel] Non-GM Crops Dominate in World Agriculture
See: http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_crops_land_area_final.pdf --- Non-GM Crops Dominate in World Agriculture GM Freeze, 17 June 2008 Non-GM crops bred using traditional plant breeding methods still provide most of the food and animal feed in the world, covering more than 97% of agricultural land [1] compared with only 2.4% growing GM crops. The new analysis [2] was carried out by GM Freeze after media reports claimed 25% of global arable land was under GM crops - a figure obtained from the National Environmental Research Council's website [3]. The GM Freeze analysis shows that in fact over 90% of global arable land [4] is used to cultivate non-GM crops. Even in the USA, where GM crops have been widely adopted, over 85% of agricultural land is growing non-GM crops and two thirds of arable land grew non-GM crops in 2007. Two countries, Argentina and Paraguay, are over dependent on GM crops to the point that sustainable production is under threat. GM Freeze's analysis raises serious concerns about the dominance of Monsanto's GM RR soya (genetically engineered to tolerate the company's top selling weedkiller RoundUp (glyphosate)). In Argentina, 99% of soya production is GM and glyphosate resistant weeds now appear in fields over considerable areas. The data reveal that 85% of Paraguayan arable land is under RR soya, suggesting that little by way of arable rotations are being practiced - a vital component of long-term soil health and productivity. Recently the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Report [5] called for a rethink in agricultural research to build on the knowledge of farmers, especially women, to improve farming systems with an agro-ecological approach designed to produce high quality food, without damaging soils, other natural resources and biodiversity while at the same time playing a key role in mitigating against climate change. Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: Our analysis clearly shows just how important non-GM cultivation is in world agriculture. This is likely to remain the case for years to come, and there is an urgent need for Governments to increase funding for research and development in traditional farming, including plant breeding led by farmers. Official obsessions with GM crops are leading us into oil dependent monocultures and dangerous reliance on the huge seed and chemical corporations behind GM crops. Our analysis shows that despite billions spent in GM research and development, non-GM crops remain dominant around the world and offer the best hope of a sustainable future. ENDS Calls to Pete Riley 0845 217 8992 or 07903 341065 Please note GM Freeze's new land line number 0845 217 8992 Notes 1.Agricultural land includes all land used for arable crops, permanent crops such as fruit trees and forage land (grasslands) 2.See www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_crops_land_area_final.pdf 3.The NERC webpage has now been taken down following representations by Friends of the Earth. A copy of the original site can be obtained from Friends of the Earth or GM Freeze. 4.Arable land is that used to grow annual crops re-sown each year such as wheat, rice and soya. 5.See www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SDM_050508_FINAL.pdf ___ 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/
[Biofuel] How to Enter the Global Green Economy
Lots of hotlinked refs in the online version. - http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5299 FPIF Commentary How to Enter the Global Green Economy Jonathan Rynn | June 16, 2008 Editor: Miriam Pemberton Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in U.S. history in the late 1990s, more than 3 billion dollars worth, the only companies that were able to bid on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States. The U.S. has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11 companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the global market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more competent producers for these markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves. Let's take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, Germany has put up 88% of the PV photovoltaics for solar power in Europe. Partly, this was the result of a feed-in tariff (FIT); that is, Germany guarantees that it will pay about .10 Euro per kilowatt/hour of electricity to whoever produces wind or solar electricity. The average for electricity that is paid for nonrenewable sources is about .05 Euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a successful effort to encourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually compete on its own, having gotten over the hump of introducing new technology. But Germany's other advantage is that it is a world leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment. 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers in the world are located in Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German. In Denmark we can see the advantages of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to the Earth Policy Institute, Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 percent of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country. The Danes have created a fascinating experiment in democracy by building most of their wind turbines through the agency of wind cooperatives, which may be joined by individuals and families. Spain has undertaken one of the most ambitious programs in wind, solar, and high-speed trains. The Gamesa Corporation is the second largest wind turbine manufacturer, and Acciona Energy is the largest wind-park developer. The Spanish government has very ambitious plans for wind production, and occasionally wind power provides as much as 30% of the country's electrical power. Spain is also the world's fourth largest producer of solar energy equipment, and is a leader in the development of concentrated solar power (CSP). CSP is a form of solar power obtained by using a very large quantity of mirrors, typically, to concentrate solar rays onto a tower that produces steam, which then turns a turbine, generating electricity. They are often built in deserts, and can be spread over several acres. These new solar technologies will probably result in lower cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics. Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006 Japan produced about 39% of the solar cells in the world, and has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research budgets. Japan's Shinkansen high-speed rail network covers much of the country. China is set to take off as one of the world's biggest solar and wind equipment producers, owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation. But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence. They dominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing industries in general (often referred to as the mechanical engineering sector). According to statistics compiled by the European Union (EU), the EU produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States; Japan produces almost as much as the US, with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27%, and 21%, respectively. A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe. Think of the industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the
[Biofuel] South Korea's Beef with America
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5298 South Korea's Beef with America Christine Ahn | June 13, 2008 Editor: John Feffer On June 10, one million South Koreans from all walks of life poured onto the streets of Seoul, the nation's capital, to protest the newly elected President Lee Myung Bak's deal with the United States to fully open Korean markets to U.S. beef. Despite widespread concerns over the safety of U.S. beef imports, Lee acted quickly to lift the partial ban on U.S. beef to pave the way for the passage of the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Lee knew that there would be no FTA unless Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) got the green light for the U.S. beef industry to fully resume exports to South Korea, which banned U.S. beef in 2003 after the discovery of a cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Protests began six weeks ago by high schools students and housewives concerned about the safety of U.S. beef appearing on their plates. It soon evolved into a massive campaign to bring down the Lee government. Anger against the deal quickly spread throughout the country, and within 40 days, the number of protesters grew from thousands to one million. In the beginning it was about the beef, says 29-year-old Park Kyung Kun of Seoul, but now it's about democracy. We want democracy back. To the rest of the world, South Korean protests over the safety of U.S. beef are portrayed as an expression of simmering anti-Americanism. Without a doubt, anti-American sentiments have historical roots. But Koreans also have a legitimate claim to fear the safety of U.S. beef. Beef Recall Last year, some 200 million pounds of beef were recalled from the U.S. food supply. In just one recall, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recalled 143 million pounds of meat from just one company alone, the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company. Meat from this slaughtering house has been distributed throughout the National School Lunch programs. And despite the recall, very little was returned because most of it had already been consumed. Over the past few years, several hundred million pounds of U.S. beef have been recalled, says Dr. Michael Greger of the Humane Society of the United States. This is a staggering amount, says Greger. No wonder Koreans are concerned. The USDA tests approximately one out of every 1,000 cows. In real numbers, only 40,000 cows are tested of the 37 million cows slaughtered annually. Meanwhile, Japan surveys every cow, Europe one in four, and Canada one out of 250. The USDA devotes just two percent of its overall $90 billion dollar budget and just two percent of its entire 100,000-person staff to enhance protection and safety of the nation's agriculture and food supply. It's no wonder why 65 countries, including the European Union, restrict U.S. beef imports. Since 2003, three cattle from the United States have been infected with mad cow disease. Given the fatality of mad cow disease, Americans would assume that the USDA is pushing for more testing of the beef industry. To the contrary, Congress hasn't even passed a ban on eating downed animals. These are animals that are too sick or injured to even walk and are literally being dragged into the slaughterhouse. Rather, the USDA is prosecuting companies who want to conduct their own testing. In 2007, the USDA prosecuted Creekstone Farms for wanting to test with their own money every one of their own cattle for mad cow disease. They won the right to test in Federal Court, but in May 2008, the Bush administration reversed the court decision allowing the meatpacking company to market its products as BSE-free. Open Door Policy Another reason why South Koreans are so roiled is because the beef protocol will allow in nearly all forms of American beef into the Korean market and will weaken the controls the Korean government has traditionally used in case of suspected problems. The April 18, 2008 deal scraps the important qualification Lee's predecessor Roh Moo Hyun included in the side deal it negotiated last year ensuring that imported beef must be free of specified risk material for BSE, such as bone fragments. South Korean Trade Minister Kim Jong-Hoon is now in Washington to renegotiate yet another voluntary regulation system. According to this protocol, U.S. beef companies would self-label the age of the cattle where the beef came from. But South Koreans have already seen how ineffective this voluntary system works. Last year, when South Korea partially lifted its ban to allow boneless beef and beef from cattle under aged 30 months, the first three shipments of U.S. beef to Korea contained bone fragments, including one shipment that contained an entire spine. The voluntary system still doesn't address the Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) that are highly susceptible to BSE. Most Koreans eat 85 parts of the cow, compared with Americans who eat only about
[Biofuel] Candle Night
http://www.candle-night.org/english/ Candle Night, Summer Solstice, 21 June 2008 Turn off the lights, take it slow On the other hand... http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1858 Behind the label: Candles 06/06/2008 ... In research by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association, candles have been shown to emit a frightening range of carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including acetone, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene carbon monoxide, creosol, cyclopentene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, phenol, styrene tetrachloroethene, toluene, trichloroethene and xylene. In addition, like anything that burns, candles produce a microscopic soot that can sometimes contain toxic heavy metals released from the candle wick. And so on. :-( Make your own candles. http://journeytoforever.org/edu.html#candle We're very happy to have quite a lot of duck fat and goose fat to hand, that'll make good candles, but I'd rather use it for cooking. Hm. Naah, there's enough to spare - anyway the place is crawling with ducklings, with two more ducks still sitting, and another two thinking of a second sit. No impending shortage of duck fat is indicated. Right, candles. It says in the ATLANTA SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY of January 11, 1862, p. 2, c. 4, that you can make hard candles from tallow by adding prickly pear leaves: To a quart of tallow add two or three leaves of the prickly pear, and boil out all the water that may gather. Mould as usual. It's a long time since I saw a prickly pear. Alum and saltpetre then. If I add some lemongrass oil it'll stupefy the mosquitoes too. There's also soy wax candles: http://www.soya.be/soy-candles.php Best Keith ___ 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/
