[Biofuel] Cheating Our Children
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/opinion/krugman-cheating-our-children.html?hp_r=0 Cheating Our Children By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 28, 2013 [Links in on-line article] So, about that fiscal crisis — the one that would, any day now, turn us into Greece. Greece, I tell you: Never mind. Over the past few weeks, there has been a remarkable change of position among the deficit scolds who have dominated economic policy debate for more than three years. It’s as if someone sent out a memo saying that the Chicken Little act, with its repeated warnings of a U.S. debt crisis that keeps not happening, has outlived its usefulness. Suddenly, the argument has changed: It’s not about the crisis next month; it’s about the long run, about not cheating our children. The deficit, we’re told, is really a moral issue. There’s just one problem: The new argument is as bad as the old one. Yes, we are cheating our children, but the deficit has nothing to do with it. Before I get there, a few words about the sudden switch in arguments. There has, of course, been no explicit announcement of a change in position. But the signs are everywhere. Pundits who spent years trying to foster a sense of panic over the deficit have begun writing pieces lamenting the likelihood that there won’t be a crisis, after all. Maybe it wasn’t that significant when President Obama declared that we don’t face any “immediate” debt crisis, but it did represent a change in tone from his previous deficit-hawk rhetoric. And it was startling, indeed, when John Boehner, the speaker of the House, said exactly the same thing a few days later. What happened? Basically, the numbers refuse to cooperate: Interest rates remain stubbornly low, deficits are declining and even 10-year budget projections basically show a stable fiscal outlook rather than exploding debt. So talk of a fiscal crisis has subsided. Yet the deficit scolds haven’t given up on their determination to bully the nation into slashing Social Security and Medicare. So they have a new line: We must bring down the deficit right away because it’s “generational warfare,” imposing a crippling burden on the next generation. What’s wrong with this argument? For one thing, it involves a fundamental misunderstanding of what debt does to the economy. Contrary to almost everything you read in the papers or see on TV, debt doesn’t directly make our nation poorer; it’s essentially money we owe to ourselves. Deficits would indirectly be making us poorer if they were either leading to big trade deficits, increasing our overseas borrowing, or crowding out investment, reducing future productive capacity. But they aren’t: Trade deficits are down, not up, while business investment has actually recovered fairly strongly from the slump. And the main reason businesses aren’t investing more is inadequate demand. They’re sitting on lots of cash, despite soaring profits, because there’s no reason to expand capacity when you aren’t selling enough to use the capacity you have. In fact, you can think of deficits mainly as a way to put some of that idle cash to use. Yet there is, as I said, a lot of truth to the charge that we’re cheating our children. How? By neglecting public investment and failing to provide jobs. You don’t have to be a civil engineer to realize that America needs more and better infrastructure, but the latest “report card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers — with its tally of deficient dams, bridges, and more, and its overall grade of D+ — still makes startling and depressing reading. And right now — with vast numbers of unemployed construction workers and vast amounts of cash sitting idle — would be a great time to rebuild our infrastructure. Yet public investment has actually plunged since the slump began. Or what about investing in our young? We’re cutting back there, too, having laid off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and slashed the aid that used to make college affordable for children of less-affluent families. Last but not least, think of the waste of human potential caused by high unemployment among younger Americans — for example, among recent college graduates who can’t start their careers and will probably never make up the lost ground. And why are we shortchanging the future so dramatically and inexcusably? Blame the deficit scolds, who weep crocodile tears over the supposed burden of debt on the next generation, but whose constant inveighing against the risks of government borrowing, by undercutting political support for public investment and job creation, has done far more to cheat our children than deficits ever did. Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we’re doing to the next generation’s economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much — and the deficit scolds, for all their claims to have our children’s
[Biofuel] Taking Our Foot Off the Global Warming Accelerator
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15402-taking-our-foot-off-the-global-warming-accelerator Taking Our Foot Off the Global Warming Accelerator Friday, 29 March 2013 09:21 By Dr Brian Moench, Truthout | Op-Ed Moench proposes a way to cut energy waste and reduce the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases [that] is very simple, relatively painless and would actually save consumers money immediately, with no upfront costs. In his State of the Union speech, President Obama said, in reference to the climate crisis, If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy. Last month, 70 environmental groups signed a letter to President Obama urging him to bypass Congress and use his executive authority to address the climate crisis in multiple ways. Key among those recommendations was yet another call to reject the Keystone Pipeline. As important as that is, there is even lower-hanging fruit that so far is being overlooked by the President and apparently forgotten by the environmental community. The President specifically urged Americans to cut in half the energy wasted in homes and business over the next 20 years. One of the easiest and most benign ways to cut energy waste and reduce the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases is very simple, relatively painless and would actually save consumers money immediately, with no upfront costs - restore a lower national freeway speed limit of 55 mph. It requires no technological innovation, merely a societal acceptance of the imperative to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions. During World War II, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt mandated a nationwide 35 mph speed limit. At the time, that was considered the most efficient speed for automobiles and would also preserve tires (Japan had cut off American access to natural rubber from Southeast Asia). In 1973, Republican President Richard Nixon responded to the Arab Oil Embargo by mandating a drop in national freeway speed limits to 55 mph. Congress passed the corresponding legislation, the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, setting the new national maximum speed limit. The act also prohibited the Department of Transportation from approving or funding any projects within states that did not comply with the new speed limit. That law lasted for over 21 years until 1995, when gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon, oil was $17 a barrel and global warming was just becoming a boutique topic of conversation. Obviously so much has changed since then. Vehicles generally get the highest gas mileage somewhere between 45 and 55 mph, says David L. Greene of the National Transportation Research Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Knoxville, Tennessee. Doubling speed from 40 to 80 mph increases drag resistance fourfold. In 2009, Consumer Reports tested seven different models of cars. The average drop in fuel efficiency was 25% when speeds were increased from 55 to 75 mph. Nationwide implementation of such a speed limit drop would decrease American oil consumption about 4%, or 280 million barrels a year [1]. That is more than currently comes from the Alaska Pipeline and about the same as the Keystone Pipeline would carry at full capacity. While no one expects the current Congress to pass any such law, given the paralysis inflicted by the House Republicans' allergy to science, several court rulings have upheld the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases (GHG) from multiple sources. Fuel efficiency standards for mobile sources have been established in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The basis for those regulations were upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2007 ruling that greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' and that EPA therefore has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. In June 2012 and again in December 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions. If the EPA has the authority to regulate fuel efficiency and GHG related to the manufacturing of motor vehicles, then it should also have the authority to establish a national speed limit to address those same issues during the use of those vehicles. If winning World War II and the Arab oil embargo were sufficient reasons to lower national speed limits, then avoiding the climate crisis should be an even more compelling reason to do so. Rejecting the Keystone Pipeline would not only defuse the carbon bomb that is the Alberta Tar Sands, it is also a symbolic line in the sand that we will not allow the fossil fuel industry to cross in pursuit of profits. Also lowering speed limits will
[Biofuel] It Can Happen Here: The Confiscation Scheme Planned for US and UK Depositors
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15401-it-can-happen-here-the-confiscation-scheme-planned-for-us-and-uk-depositors It Can Happen Here: The Confiscation Scheme Planned for US and UK Depositors Friday, 29 March 2013 09:04 By Ellen Brown, Web of Debt | News Analysis [links in on-line article] Confiscating the customer deposits in Cyprus banks, it seems, was not a one-off, desperate idea of a few Eurozone “troika” officials scrambling to salvage their balance sheets. A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds. New Zealand has a similar directive, discussed in my last article here, indicating that this isn’t just an emergency measure for troubled Eurozone countries. New Zealand’s Voxy reported on March 19th: The National Government [is] pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts . . . . Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is Finance Minister Bill English’s favoured option dealing with a major bank failure. If a bank fails under OBR, all depositors will have their savings reduced overnight to fund the bank’s bail out. Can They Do That? Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.” The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price? Most people keep a deposit account so they can have ready cash to pay the bills. The 15-page FDIC-BOE document is called “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.” It begins by explaining that the 2008 banking crisis has made it clear that some other way besides taxpayer bailouts is needed to maintain “financial stability.” Evidently anticipating that the next financial collapse will be on a grander scale than either the taxpayers or Congress is willing to underwrite, the authors state: An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company [meaning the depositors] into equity [or stock]. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution. No exception is indicated for “insured deposits” in the U.S., meaning those under $250,000, the deposits we thought were protected by FDIC insurance. This can hardly be an oversight, since it is the FDIC that is issuing the directive. The FDIC is an insurance company funded by premiums paid by private banks. The directive is called a “resolution process,” defined elsewhere as a plan that “would be triggered in the event of the failure of an insurer . . . .” The only mention of “insured deposits” is in connection with existing UK legislation, which the FDIC-BOE directive goes on to say is inadequate, implying that it needs to be modified or overridden. An Imminent Risk If our IOUs are converted to bank stock, they will no longer be subject to insurance protection but will be “at risk” and vulnerable to being wiped out, just as the Lehman Brothers shareholders were in 2008. That this dire scenario could actually materialize was underscored by Yves Smith in a March 19th post titled When You Weren’t Looking, Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives. She writes: In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino. The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositaries to fund derivatives exposures. And as bad as that is, the depositors, unlike their Cypriot confreres, aren’t even senior creditors. Remember Lehman? When the investment bank failed, unsecured creditors (and remember, depositors are unsecured creditors) got eight cents on the
[Biofuel] State Department's Keystone XL Contractor ERM Green-Lighted BP's Explosive Caspian Pipeline That Failed to Live Up to Jobs Hype
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15413-state-departments-keystone-xl-contractor-erm-green-lighted-bps-explosive-caspian-pipeline-that-failed-to-live-up-to-jobs-hype State Department's Keystone XL Contractor ERM Green-Lighted BP's Explosive Caspian Pipeline That Failed to Live Up to Jobs Hype Friday, 29 March 2013 10:56 By Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog | News Analysis [Lots of links in the online article] The more things change, the more they stay the same. Almost 11 years ago in June 2002, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Group declared the controversial 1,300 mile-long Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline environmentally and socio-economically sound, a tube which brings oil and gas produced in the Caspian Sea to the export market. On March 1, it said the same of the proposed 1,179 mile-long TransCanada Keystone XL (KXL) Pipeline on behalf of an Obama State Department that has the final say on whether the northern segment of the KXL pipeline becomes a reality. KXL would carry diluted bitumen or dilbit from the Alberta tar sands down to Port Arthur, Texas, after which it will be exported to the global market. ERM Group, a recent DeSmogBlog investigation revealed, has historical ties to Big Tobacco and its clients include ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Koch Industries. Mother Jones also revealed that ERM - the firm the State Dept. allowed TransCanada to choose on its behalf - has a key personnel tie to TransCanada. Unexamined thus far in the KXL scandal is ERM's past green-light report on the BTC Pipeline - hailed as the Contract of the Century - which has yet to be put into proper perspective. ERM is a key player in what PLATFORM London describes as the Carbon Web, shorthand for the network of relationships between oil and gas companies and the government departments, regulators, cultural institutions, banks and other institutions that surround them. In the short time it has been on-line, the geostrategically important BTC pipeline - coined the New Silk Road by The Financial Times - has proven environmentally volatile. A full review of the costs and consequences of ERM's penchant for rubber-stamping troubling oil and gas infrastructure is in order. Massive Pipeline, Massive Hype: Sound Familiar? Like the Keystone XL, the BTC Pipeline - owned by a consortium of 11 oil and gas corporations, including BP, State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni and Total - was controversial and inspired a bout of activism in the attempt to defeat its construction. Referred to as BP's Time Bomb by CorpWatch, the BTC Pipeline was first proposed in 1992, began construction in May 2003 and opened for business two years later in May 2005. BTC carries oil and gas from the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) Caspian Sea oil field, co-owned by Chevron, SOCAR, ExxonMobil, Devon Energy and others, which contains 5.4 billion recoverable barrels of oil. Paralleling the prospective 36-inch diameter Keystone XL that would carry 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands bitumen through the U.S. heartland, the BTC serves as a 42-inch diameter export pipeline and moves 1 million barrels of oil per day to market. Like today's KXL proposal - which would only create 35 full-time jobs - the false promise of thousands of jobs also served as the dominant discourse for BTC Pipeline proponents. The reality, like KXL, was more dim. The Christian Science Monitor pointed out in 2005 that only 100 people were hired full-time in Georgia, the second destination for BTC. People were told that there would be 70,000 Georgians that were going to be employed because of this pipeline, Ed Johnson, BP's former project manager in Georgia told the St. Petersburg Times in 2005. The (Georgian) government needed to sell the project to its own people so some of the benefits were overblown. Massive Ecological Costs and Consequences Part of the BTC Pipeline's circuit runs through the Borjomi Mountain Gorge, an area known for its landslide hazards, and the source of Georgia's massive bounty of mineral water. The pipeline also makes over 1,500 river crossings, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Spills and explosions, both in the Caspian Sea that feeds the pipeline with oil and gas and in the pipeline itself, have also occurred. The most prominent blowout, subject to a mainstream media blackout, was the 2008 BP Caspian Sea oil platform explosion that preceded the infamous 2010 BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. BP, to this day has never admitted it was an explosion - describing it simply as a gas leak - but its plausible deniability cover was blown in the form of a Wikileaks cable discussing the matter, and viawhistleblowers who contacted investigative reporter Greg Palast. Palast obtained information from whistleblowers in Baku who said that, rather than a minor gas leak, there was a serious well blowout akin to the Gulf disaster two years later. As in the
[Biofuel] Capitalism Never Solves Its Crisis Problems; It Moves Them Around Geographically
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15414-capitalism-never-solves-its-crisis-problems-it-moves-them-around-geographically Capitalism Never Solves Its Crisis Problems; It Moves Them Around Geographically Friday, 29 March 2013 11:05 By Gaius Publius, America Blog | Video [Animation in on-line article that is the key to the article] This is one of the best — and visually interesting — animations about modern capitalism and the political/economic system we’ve been living in for the last 50 years I’ve ever seen. If you’ve been following my wanderings for the past week or so — for example, “Free Trade and Capital Flow: How billionaires get rich“ — you’ll know why I recommend it. From the creators, RSA Animate: In this RSA Animate, celebrated academic David Harvey looks beyond capitalism towards a new social order. Can we find a more responsible, just, and humane economic system? This RSA Animate was taken from a lecture given as part of the RSA’s free public lecture programme. The RSA is a 258 year-old charity devoted to driving social progress and spreading world-changing ideas. For more information, visit http://www.thersa.org Note: I’m not presenting it to recommend any given solution (and the speaker offers none). I’m putting it up for its wonderful explication of the process and structure of this modern world. The headline quote: “Capitalism never solves its crisis problems; it moves them around geographically” comes at 7:00 minutes in, and as soon as you see how the speaker got there, you’ll get it. Wonderful work. Watch (h/t valued commenter Bill_Perdue). Notice at 7:40, “Capitalism cannot abide a limit.” David Graeber makes the same point in a different way in DEBT: The first 5000 years. (The audiobook version is excellent, by the way. Very listenable.) Graeber says (paraphrasing) that some systems have to expand constantly or they collapse. There’s no stasis point for them. Empires based on the nexus of coinage (which means mines) + conquest (using soldiers paid by the coinage) + slaves (captured by the soldiers to work the mines) are a perfect example. The Roman Empire was one such instance. It was a coinage empire heavily dependent on slaves. Once they couldn’t expand, they crumbled. Post-Roman Europe had many serfs but fewer slaves (though Europeans were involved in the slave trade to Islam as middlemen). And much of the money in medieval Europe was virtual, just like today. Modern capitalism, according to Graeber, is another instance of a system that will collapse as soon as it stops expanding. (I’ll leave you to figure out why, but consider the quarterly profit report of any major company. What happens to companies with consistent zero growth?) I ended up watching this video several times, each one increasing my understanding. I hope you enjoyed this as well. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15403-the-great-cyprus-bank-robbery The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery Friday, 29 March 2013 09:28 By Salvatore Babones, Inequality.org | Op-Ed Cyprus is the latest European country to face a budget and banking crisis. Its deregulated banks have accumulated huge losses and now face imminent bankruptcy. Like the United States government, the government of Cyprus guarantees most bank deposits against losses. So a failure of Cyrpus’s banks would result in a budget crisis for the government as well. While it is easy to fault Cyprus for its failed policies, *let’s not forget that the banking system of the United States of America collapsed five years ago*. Little Cyprus (population 840,000) held out five years longer than the richest and most powerful country in the world. What’s more, Cypriot banks have failed because they have engaged in all the risky business practices that US banks taught them. On top of that they implemented a US-style regime of self-regulation. As a result, it’s no surprise that Bank of Cyprus is now going the way of Citibank. The surprise is that it took so long. Unfortunately, the Cypriot government and the European Union are also following the US policy of bailing out their banks, letting managers and bondholders get off scott free. In the US it was the taxpayers who paid the bill. In Cyprus, though, many of the bank depositors are actually foreign (rumored to be Russian). So in Cyprus they plan to make the depositors pay. Like the United States, European Union countries provide guarantees to bank depositors. In Cyprus your first 100,000 Euros are guaranteed against losses if your bank goes bankrupt. Any deposits over 100,000 Euros are theoretically at risk, but there’s a clear legal hierarchy of who takes losses and who gets paid. First the bank’s owners get wiped out. After all, they’re the ones who racked up the losses that bust the bank. Next the bondholders — the professional investors who lent money to the bank itself — take their losses. Then, only after the pros have been wiped out, do the amateurs — the depositors — lose any money. That’s the theory of what happens when a bank goes bankrupt. Except that Cyprus’s banks are not going bankrupt. To prevent a bankruptcy, the European Union wants the government of Cyprus to declare a one-time tax on bank deposits. That’s right. If the government takes 20% of your deposited funds and uses the money to bail out your bank, your bank won’t go bankrupt and your deposits won’t be at risk. Of course, you’ll have only 80% of your money, but technically your 80% is still perfectly safe and guaranteed by government deposit insurance. In other words, it’s the Great Cyprus Bank Robbery. No doubt Cyprus has made many mistakes in its bank regulations and policies. But anyone who thinks that a country of 840,000 is making up its own policies is crazy. Cyprus has implemented the policies that the US and EU have recommended for it. Now that Cyprus’s banks are in trouble, the EU is demanding that Cyprus bail out its banks — and make the depositors pay for the bailout. It’s no mystery why. Most of the bondholders who lent to Cyprus’s banks are banks in other European countries. Cyprus should let its banks fail, then see where the chips fall. Depositors should be protected as much as possible. Ultimately, if there are deposit insurance bills to pay, the government should pay for them. If that means higher taxes, so be it. But to make bank depositors pay for a bank bailout is sheer robbery. There is no other word for it. A lawyer may argue that legally it is a preemptive tax, but morally it is robbery all the same. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Incredible North Atlantic storm spans Atlantic Ocean, coast to coast
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/03/28/incredible-storm-spans-atlantic-ocean-coast-to-coast/?tid=pm_pop Incredible North Atlantic storm spans Atlantic Ocean, coast to coast Posted by Jason Samenow March 28, 2013 at 10:34 pm [Images in on-line article are worth viewing] I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a storm this big before. The storm shown here stretches west to east from Newfoundland to Portugal. Its southern tail (cold front) extends into the Caribbean and the north side of its comma head touches southern Greenland. Not only is it big, but it’s also super intense – comparable to many category 3 hurricanes. The storm’s central pressure, as analyzed by the Ocean Prediction Center, is *953 mb. Estimated peak wave heights are around 25-30 feet*. The storm is forecast to remain more or less stationary over the next few days before substantially weakening and then eventually drifting into western Europe in about a week as a rather ordinary weather system. Note to Washingtonians: this is the same storm that blanketed the region with 1-4 inches of snow Monday. It’s grown into a monster from humble beginnings. The storm’s giant circulation has drawn down the cold and windy conditions we’ve had since it passed. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Suncor spill site in Athabasca River also had incident in 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/alberta-issues-order-against-suncor-over-2011-toxic-water-release/article10541838/ Suncor spill site in Athabasca River also had incident in 2011 [2 years after the initial event, neither Suncor nor the regulator can figure out what is in the water that is killing the fish - seriously?] By Kelly Cryderman Days after industrial waste spilled into the Athabasca River from an oil-sands project, the Alberta government has revealed toxic water flowed into the river from the same site for three days in 2011. Alberta’s Department of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development on Thursday issued an environmental order against Suncor Energy Inc. for an industrial waste-water release in March, 2011, discovered after fish died in a monthly experiment that uses them to test the toxicity of industrial waste water from the oil-sands site. It is unclear why the investigation took two years. The company never issued a press release regarding the 2011 incident and the Fort McKay First Nation just downstream from Suncor said it has tried to get details from the Alberta government about which chemicals were released, but has yet to find out even two years after the test fish died. “We’ve asked for data. It hasn’t materialized,” said Daniel Stuckless, manager of environmental and regulatory affairs for the first nation. The incident comes in a week already heavy with criticism from those who say major oil-sands projects risk the health of northern Alberta’s rivers and lakes, and communities. A critical U.S. decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring heavy Canadian crude to lucrative Gulf Coast markets, is mere weeks away. On Thursday, the Alberta government confirmed the 2011 incident happened at the same Suncor site north of Fort McMurray as Monday’s spill, but insisted the timing of this enforcement order on Thursday is a coincidence. “Absolutely not related,” Alberta Environment spokeswoman Jessica Potter said. The enforcement order from the government said the release into the Athabasca River two years ago was not within allowable limits of “acute lethality toxicity.” At least 50 per cent of rainbow trout used in the test had to survive being placed in a sample of treated industrial water taken from a pond that discharges into the river. But many of the test fish did not survive. The document said Suncor discovered a “failure” in a March 21, 2011, test fish sample on March 24. It then closed the pond to the river, and began diverting the industrial waste-water to a tailings pond. Even though the company has continued to hold the pond water back from the Athabasca River in the two years since, the pond has failed an additional 39 fish tests. The source of toxicity is still unknown, but the government order said it could include naphthenic acids, which are often found in tailings ponds and are toxic to aquatic animals. The order issued on Thursday said Suncor must continue to keep the pond closed off from the Athabasca River, identify the source of the toxic elements in the water, conduct an engineering audit of the waste-water treatment process, and more regularly report to government. In future, the government also said the company must carry out necropsies on fish that die in the water test. Suncor spokeswoman Sneh Seetal said an analysis carried out on the company’s behalf showed the risk that the river from the 2011 incident is “limited.” She also said Environment Canada closed their investigation of the incident in late 2011, stating that the company couldn’t have foreseen it. She noted that before 2011, the oil sands giant had no fish test failure in recent memory. “Notwithstanding that, the release of the water that does not meet the regulated standards is unacceptable,” Ms. Seetal said. On Monday, the leak from a water pipe at the Suncor oil-sands site saw an estimated 350,000 litres of industrial waste water pour into the Athabasca over a 10-hour period, causing “a short-term, negligible impact on the river,” according to the company. Suncor has provided few details about which chemicals and substances were involved, but said in a statement “tests confirm the process affected water was a combination of water with suspended solids (clays and fine particulates) and inorganic and organic compounds. It does not contain bitumen.” In Fort McKay – the small, aboriginal community downstream from Suncor’s mine and base plant – the first nation has hired an independent environmental consultant to test the Athabasca waters this week. The information provided by Suncor about the makeup of the industrial waste water release has not answered all of the community’s questions, said communications director Dayle Hyde. “The one thing is we are still concerned about is whether or not the water that was released contained hydrocarbons,” Ms. Hyde said. Suncor and
[Biofuel] Even Boulder Finds It Isn't Easy Going Green
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015920992845334.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks Even Boulder Finds It Isn't Easy Going Green By STEPHANIE SIMON [multiple images in online article] BOULDER, Colo.—This spring, city contractors will fan out across this well-to-do college town to unscrew light bulbs in thousands of homes and replace them with more energy-efficient models, at taxpayer expense. City officials never dreamed they'd have to play nanny when they set out in 2006 to make Boulder a role model in the fight against global warming. The cause seemed like a natural fit in a place where residents tend to be politically liberal and passionate about the great outdoors. Instead, as Congress considers how to encourage Americans to conserve more energy, Boulder stands as a cautionary tale about the limits of good intentions. Here are some of the ways the city of Boulder, Colo., is trying to reduce its emissions. What we've found is that for the vast majority of people, it's exceedingly difficult to get them to do much of anything, says Kevin Doran, a senior research fellow at the University of Colorado at Boulder. President Barack Obama has set ambitious goals for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, in part by improving energy efficiency. Last year's stimulus bill set aside billions to weatherize buildings. The president has also called for a cash for caulkers rebate for Americans who weatherize their homes. But Boulder has found that financial incentives and an intense publicity campaign aren't enough to spur most homeowners to action, even in a city so environmentally conscious that the college football stadium won't sell potato chips because the packaging isn't recyclable. Take George Karakehian. He considers himself quite green: He drives a hybrid, recycles, uses energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. But he refuses to practice the most basic of conservation measures: Shutting the doors to his downtown art gallery when his heating or air conditioning is running. Mr. Karakehian knows he's wasting energy. He doesn't care. I'm old-school, Mr. Karakehian says. I've always been taught that an open door is the way to invite people in. He's not alone in ignoring the call to arms. Since 2006, Boulder has subsidized about 750 home energy audits. Even after the subsidy, the audits cost each homeowner up to $200, so only the most committed signed up. Still, follow-up surveys found half didn't implement even the simplest recommendations, despite incentives such as discounts on energy-efficient bulbs and rebates for attic insulation. The City of Boulder prides itself on being an eco-conscious town. So how come it's been so hard to get residents to reduce their dependence of fossil fuels? WSJ's Stephanie Simon reports. About 75 businesses got free audits; they made so few changes that they collectively saved just one-fifth of the energy auditors estimated they were wasting. We still have a long way to go, says Paul Sheldon, a consultant who advises the city on conservation. Residents should be driving high-efficiency vehicles, and they're not. They should be carpooling, and they're not. And yes, he adds, they should be changing their own light bulbs—and they're not. The science behind climate change has taken hits of late. Authors of a landmark 2007 report on global warming have admitted to some errors in their work, though they stand by their conclusion that climate change is unequivocal and is very likely due to human activity, such as burning fossil fuels for energy. British climate scientists have also come under fire after their hacked email correspondence seemed to indicate they tried to squelch dissenting views. Here in Boulder, some climate-change skeptics have become more vocal about their doubts in public and in online forums. But for the most part, those working on the energy-efficiency plan say the public still backs it. The hitch is in getting residents to move from philosophical support to concrete action. As Mr. Sheldon put it, until his neighbors all decide, 'We're doing this!'... the city will be pushing a rope uphill. A city of 100,000, tucked up against the Rocky Mountains, Boulder has a proud history of environmentalism. It was one of the first to levy a tax to protect open space. Residents bike to work at 20 times the national average. In 2006, Boulder voters approved the nation's first carbon tax, now $21 a year per household, to fund energy-conservation programs. The city took out print ads, bought radio time, sent email alerts and promoted the campaign in city newsletters. But Boulder's carbon emissions edged down less than 1% from 2006 through 2008, the most recent data available. By the end of 2008, emissions here were 27% higher than 1990 levels. That's a worse showing than the U.S. as a whole, where emissions rose 15% during that period, according to the Department of
[Biofuel] BioDemocracy or Corporatocracy: The Food Fight of Our Lives
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27261.cfm BioDemocracy or Corporatocracy: The Food Fight of Our Lives By Ronnie Cummins Organic Consumers Association, March 27, 2013 If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it. - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994 Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job. - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998 For two decades, starting with the controversial introduction of Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, polls have consistently shown that U.S. consumers are wary, indeed alarmed, about the new technology of genetic engineering (GE). Surveyed regularly, the overwhelming majority of Americans have repeatedly stated that they either want these Frankenfoods banned, or at least clearly labeled. In a March 2012 national poll, conducted by the Mellman Group, 91% of Americans said they wanted GMO foods labeled. When asked whether gene-altered foods were safe, 34% of consumers said they believed that gene-altered foods were definitely unsafe; 41% said they were not sure; while 41% said genetically engineered foods should be banned. Five counties and two cities in California and Washington have banned the growing of GE crops http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27247.cfm. In addition, given the near total absence of FDA regulation, 19 states have passed laws restricting Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Millions of consumers are purchasing over $30 billion of organic foods, and $60 billion worth of so-called natural foods, every year, in part because organic standards prohibit the use of gene-altered seeds or ingredients. But many consumers believe mistakenly that natural foods are GE-free as well. The biotech industry and Big Food Inc. are acutely aware of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GE foods. Even though most consumers don't fully understand the science of gene-splicing foreign DNA into plants or animals, they instinctively understand that they don't want to be guinea pigs in a biotech food safety experiment. They don't want their family's health or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by notorious chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta or Dupont-the same corporations who have poisoned our communities and our bodies with toxic pesticides, DDT, Agent Orange, dangerous pharmaceuticals and PCBs. GE crops and foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why biotech and Big Food corporations spent more than $46 million to defeat Proposition 37, a November 7, 2012 California ballot initiative that would have required mandatory labels on GMO foods, and put an end to the routine industry practice of marketing GE-tainted foods as natural. In the wake of a scurrilous barrage of TV, radio and direct mail ads falsely claiming that GMO labels would significantly increase food costs, hurt family farmers, increase the scope and intrusiveness of state bureaucrats, and benefit special interest groups such as trial lawyers, California voters narrowly rejected mandatory GMO food labels 51.5% to 48.5%. After Prop 37: Big Food Blinks But Big Food apparently now realizes that Proposition 37 was a hollow victory, an inconclusive, albeit fierce, preliminary battle in a war against consumer antipathy and consumer choice, a war they will inevitably lose. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) immediately put a happy face on their narrow victory in California, reciting their standard propaganda: Proposition 37 was a deeply flawed measure that would have resulted in higher food costs, frivolous lawsuits and increased state bureaucracies. This is a big win for California consumers, taxpayers, business and farmers. But Jennifer Hatcher, senior vice-president of government and public affairs for the Food Marketing Institute, came closer to expressing the real sentiments of the big guns who opposed Prop 37, a measure she had previously said scared us to death. In her official statement following the election, she said: This gives us hope that you can, with a well-funded, well-organized, well-executed campaign, defeat a ballot initiative and go directly to the voters. We hope we don't have too many of them, because you can't keep doing that over and over again . . . But we are doing it over and over again. More than 30 state legislatures are now debating bills on GMO labeling. Public awareness of the hazards of GE has increased significantly. Controversy surrounding a
[Biofuel] What Could the Massacre of 40, 000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us?
Some people have been saying this for a long time, including me. Contrary to the dumb and debunked FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow... -K http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/30/grazing-livestock.aspx?e_cid=20130330_DNL_art_1utm_source=dnlutm_medium=emailutm_content=art1utm_campaign=20130330 What Could the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us? March 30, 2013 Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=vpTHi7O66pI Story at-a-glance * The conversion of large amounts of fertile land to desert has long been thought to be caused by livestock, such as sheep and cattle overgrazing and giving off methane. This has now been shown to be incorrect, as removing animals to protect land speeds up desertification * Rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip, and climate change, converge to create a perfect storm that threatens life on earth. According to an African ecologist, dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock is the only thing that can reverse both desertification and climate change * Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster, as large-scale factory farms also directly contribute to environmental pollution * According to estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world's barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels * A holistic management and planned grazing system has already been implemented in select areas on five continents, with dramatically positive results By Dr. Mercola In the TED Talk above, ecologist Allan Savory explains how we're currently encouraging desertification, and how to not only stop it, but reverse it, by dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock. According to Savory, rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip (known as desertification), converge to create a perfect storm that threatens life on earth. Most people think technology is required to solve the problem. Not so, he says. While we do need novel technology to replace fossil fuels, desertification cannot be reversed with technology. For that, we need to revert backward, and start mimicking nature and the way things were in the past. How Grazing Livestock Impacts Our Land and Water According to Savory, we not only can, but indeed MUST, use grazing livestock to address desertification. In his talk, he explains how we can work with nature, at very low cost, to reverse both of these problems. By some estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world's barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels. Nothing offers more hope, he says. Desertification happens when we create too much bare ground. In areas where a high level of humidity is guaranteed, desertification cannot occur. Ground cover allows for trapping of water, preventing the water from evaporating. At present, a staggering two-thirds of the landmass on earth is desertifying. As explained by Savory, water and carbon are tied to organic matter. When you damage the soil, allowing it to turn into desert, it gives off carbon. We've been repeatedly told that desertification occurs only in arid or semi-arid areas, and that tall grasslands in areas of high rain fall are of no consequence. But this is not true, Savory says, because if you inspect the ground in tall grasslands, it is bare and encrusted with algae, which leads to runoff and evaporation. That is the cancer of desertification that we do not recognize 'til its terminal form, he says. Desertification has long been thought to be caused by livestock, such as sheep and cattle overgrazing and giving off methane. However, to quote Savory on the veracity of these claims: We were once just as certain world was flat. We were wrong then, and we're wrong again. Lessons Learned from the Unnecessary Massacre of 40,000 Elephants As a young biologist, Savory was involved in setting aside large swaths of African land as future national parks. This involved removing native tribes from the land to protect animals. Interestingly, as soon as the natives were removed, the land began to deteriorate. At that point, he became convinced that there were too many elephants, and a team of experts agreed with his theory, which required the removal of elephants to a number they thought the land could sustain. As a result, 40,000 elephants were slaughtered in an effort to stop the damage to the national parks. Yet the land destruction got worse rather than better... Savory calls the decision the greatest blunder of his life. Fortunately, the utter failure cemented his determination to dedicate his life to finding solutions. And that, he has. Areas of US
[Biofuel] remove from mailing list please
When I signed up for this, I mistakenly thought there would be some info on sustainable bio-diesel info. This is just a blog for people who want to be heard. Please remove my name from a this mailing lost. Ty SR ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] What Could the Massacre of 40, 000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us?
Yes, I saw this a few weeks back. Kept meaning to post it here. Fortunately there are others on the list more on the ball than me. Thanks, Keith. There were a one or two things that bothered me about the talk, though. Firstly, from my recollection he makes no mention of CAFOs. None. He also IMHO puts too much responsibility on ecologists. As if there weren't a multitude of voices, as you point out. He doesn't ask why certain voices were listened to, and not others. It's OK if he wants to leave politics out of it, but he shouldn't have singled out a particular group. It also struck me that while he admits his own responsibility, he's basically acting as though he's some great innovator. Maybe there's people managing the message, who think (and maybe they're right) the message will be more effective that way? The other main point that bothered me, is that he almost trivializes the role of CO2 emissions. He gives the statistic of how much carbon is released by burning grassland in terms of vehicular emissions, but leaves out the fact that the burning is essentialy carbon neutral whereas the vehicular emissions are not. Many of the comparisons he makes seem slanted in this way. But on the whole, it's an important message. The fact that it's being highlighted and getting exposure in the social media is a good thing. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: Some people have been saying this for a long time, including me. Contrary to the dumb and debunked FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow... -K http://articles.mercola.com/**sites/articles/archive/2013/** 03/30/grazing-livestock.aspx?**e_cid=20130330_DNL_art_1utm_** source=dnlutm_medium=email**utm_content=art1utm_campaign=**20130330http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/30/grazing-livestock.aspx?e_cid=20130330_DNL_art_1utm_source=dnlutm_medium=emailutm_content=art1utm_campaign=20130330 What Could the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Possibly Teach Us? March 30, 2013 Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change http://www.youtube.com/watch?**feature=player_embeddedv=**vpTHi7O66pIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=vpTHi7O66pI Story at-a-glance * The conversion of large amounts of fertile land to desert has long been thought to be caused by livestock, such as sheep and cattle overgrazing and giving off methane. This has now been shown to be incorrect, as removing animals to protect land speeds up desertification * Rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip, and climate change, converge to create a perfect storm that threatens life on earth. According to an African ecologist, dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock is the only thing that can reverse both desertification and climate change * Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster, as large-scale factory farms also directly contribute to environmental pollution * According to estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world's barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels * A holistic management and planned grazing system has already been implemented in select areas on five continents, with dramatically positive results By Dr. Mercola In the TED Talk above, ecologist Allan Savory explains how we're currently encouraging desertification, and how to not only stop it, but reverse it, by dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock. According to Savory, rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip (known as desertification), converge to create a perfect storm that threatens life on earth. Most people think technology is required to solve the problem. Not so, he says. While we do need novel technology to replace fossil fuels, desertification cannot be reversed with technology. For that, we need to revert backward, and start mimicking nature and the way things were in the past. How Grazing Livestock Impacts Our Land and Water According to Savory, we not only can, but indeed MUST, use grazing livestock to address desertification. In his talk, he explains how we can work with nature, at very low cost, to reverse both of these problems. By some estimates, grazing large herds of livestock on half of the world's barren or semi-barren grasslands could take enough carbon from the atmosphere to bring us back to preindustrial levels. Nothing offers more hope, he says. Desertification happens when we create too much bare ground. In areas where a high level of humidity is guaranteed, desertification cannot occur. Ground cover allows for trapping of water, preventing the water from evaporating. At present, a staggering two-thirds of the landmass on earth is desertifying. As explained by Savory, water and carbon are tied to organic matter. When
Re: [Biofuel] remove from mailing list please
Correct on both counts. It helps if you ask a quesation... I can answer this for you from my perspective. The Biodiesel list started (not sure how long, but I have been a member for years) as a resource for people making Biodiesel, which is why I joined originally. I guess most on the list are a bit like me, people concerned about sustainability, wishing to leve the world in a state that the next few generations can live a prosperous, safe happy existence. It seems however that this is not necessarily true any more. In my case, I built a processing setup made some Biodiesel. Then I bought a new diesel car, that has electronic injection. The economics were not in risking my fuel in a car that cost a lot if it broke... The Journey-to-forever site is a huge resource for people like me: everything from sustainability, farming, lifestyle etc. This is a worldwide resource, not just for the US. It shows that the whole world needs to think about the future (Was it the American Indians that said you must remember 3 generations past, prepare for 3 generations in the future?). My feeling, as someone in the post middle age is that we are now rushing to the cliff like a mob of lemmings. The environment seems to be ignored in the quest for money, Creeks that were pristine in my youth 50 years ago are now polluted (even the ones in the wilderness). Many people do not even connect food with farmers now: everything seems to come from a factory. Iam not saying that we need to stop progress, or revert to a simpler life. I merely want to get the idea accepted that there are costs to the world caused by our current use of resources with the current world population there is a need to plan the way ahead carefully so we can guarantee that future generations will have an equivalent lifestyle to what we have enjoyed, but hopefully with more equitable use of resources. One of my worries for the future is that the political systems seem intent on continuing the same way as has been for many years past: Politics seems to be steered by vested interests who want to continue controlling everything necessary for life: our food (there are only a handful of companies who control most of the worlds seeds), water is now being privatised, power generation is in the hands of huge companies who are fearful of the ability of householders to generate their own power, Transport is being controlled by the Oil companies who do not want Electric cars taking their profits, etc etc. So to end it, the Members of this list are here because they are concerned about the future. I am sure that you have concerns too, but saw this list as limited to Biodiesel. So your choice is either to leave, or to stay ask the questions. I am sure that there are experts who will help you. I know I would help where I could, but I am not an expert. The reason I like this list is because most information has links to the original information. The problem with the web is that there is so much misinformation. regards Doug (in sunny Australia) On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:51:46 -0400 Stephen Rhodes captb...@gmail.com wrote: When I signed up for this, I mistakenly thought there would be some info on sustainable bio-diesel info. This is just a blog for people who want to be heard. Please remove my name from a this mailing lost. Ty SR ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- Doug lema...@internode.on.net ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] remove from mailing list please
read the archives its all there extensive and detailed From: Stephen Rhodes captb...@gmail.com To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:51 PM Subject: [Biofuel] remove from mailing list please When I signed up for this, I mistakenly thought there would be some info on sustainable bio-diesel info. This is just a blog for people who want to be heard. Please remove my name from a this mailing lost. Ty SR ___ 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] remove from mailing list please
This website address appears at the bottom of every e-mail you get from this list: http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel It provides a lot of information about list operation, including how to unsubscribe. Over to you. If you have a question about bio-diesel, I strongly encourage you to check the information already on the Journey to Forever website on the subject. Start here (hundreds have - including me): http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#start (actually, that's available at the first webpage listed above as well). Try it. Seriously. It works. Follow the directions - carefully. You do need to measure and use the genuine materials; no guessing or 'close enough' substitutions. If you still have questions, then ask. Members of this list are remarkably patient with those really trying to work their way through the process. Tell us what you are trying to accomplish with biodiesel. Be careful, you might find out you are trying to change the world. On 30/03/2013 3:51 PM, Stephen Rhodes wrote: When I signed up for this, I mistakenly thought there would be some info on sustainable bio-diesel info. This is just a blog for people who want to be heard. Please remove my name from a this mailing lost. Ty SR ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- Darryl McMahon Author, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (and definitely not the list moderator) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Will Congress Act to Stop US Support for Honduras' Death Squad Regime?
a href=http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/30-3; class=newlyinsertedlinkhttp#58;#47;#47;www.commondreams.org#47;view#47;2013#47;03#47;30-3/a Will Congress Act to Stop US Support for Honduras' Death Squad Regime? In Honduras, Reagan-era atrocities are back as the Obama administration funds a state implicated in murdering opponents by Mark Weisbrot President Barack Obama meets with Honduras President Porfirio Lobo in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) The video (warning: contains graphic images of lethal violence), caught randomly on a warehouse security camera, is chilling. Five young men walk down a quiet street in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. A big black SUV pulls up, followed by a second vehicle. Two masked men with bullet-proof vests jump out of the lead car, with AK-47s raised. The two youths closest to the vehicles see that they have no chance of running, so they freeze and put their hands in the air. The other three break into a sprint, with bullets chasing after them from the assassins' guns. Miraculously, they escape, with one injured – but the two who surrendered are forced to lie face down on the ground. The two students, who were brothers 18- and 20-years-old, are murdered with a burst of bullets, in full view of the camera. Less than 40 seconds after their arrival, the assassins are driving away, never to be found. The high level of professional training and modus operandi of the assassins have led many observers to conclude that this was a government operation. The video was posted by the newspaper El Heraldo last month; the murder took place in November of last year. There have been no arrests. Now, the Obama administration is coming under fire for its role in arming and funding murderous Honduran police, in violation of US law. Under the Leahy Law, named after Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the US government is not allowed to fund foreign military units who have commit gross human rights violations with impunity. The director general of Honduras' national police force, Juan Carlos Bonilla, has been investigated in connection with death squad killings; and members of the US Congress have been complaining about it since Bonilla was appointed last May. Thanks to some excellent investigative reporting by the Associated Press in the last couple of weeks – showing that all police units are, in fact, under Bonilla's command – it has become clear that the US is illegally funding the Honduran police. Why would the Obama administration so stubbornly support a death squad government in Honduras, going so far as to deceive and defy Congress?So, now we'll see if rule of law or separation of powers means very much in a country that likes to lecture less developed nations about these principles. Why would the Obama administration so stubbornly support a death squad government in Honduras, going so far as to deceive and defy Congress? To answer that, we have to look at how the current government of Honduras came to power, and how violent repression of any opposition plays a big role in keeping it there. The government of Honduran President Pepe Lobo was elected after a military coup overthrew the democratically elected government of President Mel Zelaya in June of 2009. Zelaya later told the press that Washington was involved in the coup; this is very believable, given the circumstantial evidence. But what we know for sure is that the Obama administration was heavily involved in helping the new regime survive and legitimize itself. Washington supported Lobo's election in 2009, against the opposition of almost the entire hemisphere. The Organization of American States and the European Union refused to send observers to an election that most of the world viewed as obviously illegitimate. The coup unleashed a wave of violence against political dissent that continues to this day. Even Honduras' Truth and Reconciliation Commission – established by the coup government itself – found that it had undertaken political persecution … and that it was responsible for a number of killings committed by state agents and those acting at their behest, in addition to the widespread and violent repression of rights to speech, assembly, association. This was noted by the Center for Constitutional Rights, in New York, and the International Federation for Human Rights, in Paris, in a report (pdf) submitted to the International Criminal Court. The CCR/FIDH report also identifies over 100 killings, most of which are selective, or targeted killings, occurring even after two truth commissions concluded their investigations. Their report goes through October 2012: The killings are one horrific manifestation of the broader attack which is also characterized by death threats against activists, lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, and campesinos, as well as attempted killings, torture, sexual violence,
