Re: [Biofuel] File - movie SuCkingPuSSy.mpeg
Please remove me from your feed if you can't filter this sh*t! RAD -- Original Message -- From: Robert Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:56:56 - what is going on here?has JtF been hijacked by porn spammers? - Original Message - From: keith To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:45 AM Subject: [Biofuel] File - movie SuCkingPuSSy.mpeg hey guys my name is April Goostree i am a sexy 22 yr old bbw , 5'9, 48 dd , big ole booty, jus lovin life, until i get my pics posted in here you can either check out my profile or join my own yahoo group [EMAIL PROTECTED], either way works for me..i hope to become very active in this group, i like to get to know people, like to get on cam once in a while, jus to chill, when they aint none home..thats why its once in a while yaknow..anyways jus holla at me... n thanks for lettin me join!!! kisses kandee..Bye -- Journeytoforever.org servers automatically scanned for viruses using McAfee SECURITY -- ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] WVO candles
K More Christmas trees than Christians, how eloquent! Rad -- Original Message -- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:21:55 +0900 Midori's sitting at the table with 10 brightly burning candles she just made out of WVO, a pretty enough sight. We're doing a project with a science teacher tomorrow, taking some extra trouble because it's the local school. The kids brought used cooking oil (tempura oil) from their kitchens at home. Midori titrated it this afternoon (all less than 0.5ml 0.1% NaOH solution). Tomorrow at the school we'll make biodiesel with some of it, the kids can chuck some of it straight into the TownAce and we'll run it with the Elsbett system, and they'll make the rest into candles. There's a product you can buy here in any supermarket, cheap, a white powder claimed to be made from 100% castor oil. You're supposed to add it to your used cooking oil when you're finished with it, while it's still hot, stir it up and it sets into a solid gel which you can add to the burnable garbage bin rather than throwing it down the drain or the toilet. (People say they've never seen anyone buying any of it though!) A man who works at a science museum got the idea of making candles with the gel (it needs three strings for the wick, one doesn't work so well). Nice for part of a school project, and there are a lot more Christmas trees around here right now than there are Christians so it's seasonal too. Midori's plan is that the kids take their waste oil candles back home again and burn them with their families on Candle Night at the winter solstice: http://www.candle-night.org/ Anyone have any idea what this castor oil stuff might be or how it works? I've never heard of it before but for all I know it's common everywhere. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Emperor Of Risk Assessment Isn't Wearing Any Clothes
Keith: The environmental problem is exactly as you describe, however it is a subset of the profit Vs health picture and is compounded by globalization. There are significant geographic alternatives for most manufacturers/ polluters. Cumulative pollution levels are not constrained by Geopolitical boundaries. Perversely manufacturers/ polluters could significantly increase their harmful contributions to global pollution by moving to a country with a more favorable regulatory environment and/or cheaper labour (growth Vs health/ human life). Reductions in either of these two input costs could result in increased productive output (with more pollution), under a competitive advantage justification (numbers). We see by numerous examples typified by todays coal miners, that a workforce educated to the health risks of a hazardous environment, can always be found. Rather than risk localized regional or super-regional economic decay, they will stay close to home and die early. Keeping polluters in this country allows a weak measure of control until the issue is raised again tomorrow. It ultimately results in more (Vs yesterday) toxins released on a daily basis, but less than an offshore move to a place where people cut the grass with hand shears and death is a great reward for having lived. Our lawmakers believe they are judges, knowing nothing until they are told. It allows them to claim impartiality. The profit side has successfully painted the green groups as environmental saboteurs (General Subutai: 1248). The environmentalists have ham-handled the overall reponse with ridiculous complexity that removes the common man (support) from the equation. It has allowed corporations to fight the fight in labs using bad science and it has confused and deafened the voting public. It is too late for idealistic solutions. If we dont show the lawmakers (old age vote buyers) how the Profit side can make money while they pass laws to protect the environment, (before they die of butter and scotch poisoning), well get nothing but formaldehyde in our bread. Rad -- Original Message -- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:06:19 +0900 http://rachel.org/ From: Rachel's Democracy Health News #831, Dec. 1, 2005 The Emperor Of Risk Assessment Isn't Wearing Any Clothes By Peter Montague Some of my best friends still put their faith in numerical risk assessments. For example, over in Jersey City, N.J., local people are now debating how clean is clean enough for thousands of tons of cancer-causing chromium wastes. My friends argue that 30 parts per million (ppm) of chromium-VI (chromium six) is a science-based number that will protect residents from lung disease caused by chromium. On the other hand, N.J. state government wants to save the chromium polluters some money by declaring 240 ppm safe, thus requiring less cleanup. The experts are duking it out, debating 30 ppm vs. 240 ppm. Over in New York, major polluters have convinced state officials that toxic waste cleanup standards are unnecessarily strict, so the state has proposed to relax its toxic cleanup rules. Citizens are pressing to maintain the existing standards, which they hope are fully protective of human health, fish, and all other critters. Again, we have dueling experts defending their favorite numbers. It's the same all over, really. After decades of industry-written government-delivered propaganda, many people have become convinced that there is some safe amount of PCBs plus mercury plus lead plus benzene plus trichloroethylene (TCE) plus [you name it] that can be released into the general environment. But let's think about this for a minute. This whole approach is based on protecting a most-exposed individual located in the immediate vicinity of the pollution source. Once the pollution-source has been declared safe from the viewpoint of that most-exposed individual, the toxic discharge becomes legal, and a continuous stream of contamination enters the environment. As time passes, this safe discharge (plus thousands more like it) creates a buildup of pollution and the entire planet becomes contaminated with industrial poisons. As a result, everyone is endangered -- the asthma rate rises, diabetes increases, and cancers proliferate, not to mention male fish turning into females, oysters dying from bacterial infections because their immune systems are damaged, sea turtles developing deadly growths and lesions, ducks that cannot eat because they are born with crossed bills... and so on and so on. Let's face it, a regulatory system based on risk assessments to protect the most-exposed individual ends up having one important effect: it legalizes the contamination of the biosphere upon which all life depends. It allows industrial poisons to pollute every living thing on
Re: [Biofuel] The Emperor Of Risk Assessment Isn't Wearing AnyClothes
Thanks for the link Keith. I'm at least a few weeks away from recreational reading, but I'm interested and will take it in. Rad -- Original Message -- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 02:04:02 +0900 Hello Rad Have you read any more of Peter Montague's writings? There's a lot of it in the list archives if you don't feel like browsing Rachel's site. http://snipurl.com/khaj Search results for 'Rachel's' I think it addresses a lot of your (very good!) points. Actually there's a lot of other stuff there that does that too. Lots about risk management and precaution, eg, and even more about corporate predation. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Keith: The environmental problem is exactly as you describe, however it is a subset of the profit Vs health picture and is compounded by globalization. There are significant geographic alternatives for most manufacturers/ polluters. Cumulative pollution levels are not constrained by Geopolitical boundaries. Perversely manufacturers/ polluters could significantly increase their harmful contributions to global pollution by moving to a country with a more favorable regulatory environment and/or cheaper labour (growth Vs health/ human life). Reductions in either of these two input costs could result in increased productive output (with more pollution), under a competitive advantage justification (numbers). We see by numerous examples typified by todays coal miners, that a workforce educated to the health risks of a hazardous environment, can always be found. Rather than risk localized regional or super-regional economic decay, they will stay close to home and die early. Keeping polluters in this country allows a weak measure of control until the issue is raised again tomorrow. It ultimately results in more (Vs yesterday) toxins released on a daily basis, but less than an offshore move to a place where people cut the grass with hand shears and death is a great reward for having lived. Our lawmakers believe they are judges, knowing nothing until they are told. It allows them to claim impartiality. The profit side has successfully painted the green groups as environmental saboteurs (General Subutai: 1248). The environmentalists have ham-handled the overall reponse with ridiculous complexity that removes the common man (support) from the equation. It has allowed corporations to fight the fight in labs using bad science and it has confused and deafened the voting public. It is too late for idealistic solutions. If we dont show the lawmakers (old age vote buyers) how the Profit side can make money while they pass laws to protect the environment, (before they die of butter and scotch poisoning), well get nothing but formaldehyde in our bread. Rad -- Original Message -- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:06:19 +0900 http://rachel.org/ From: Rachel's Democracy Health News #831, Dec. 1, 2005 The Emperor Of Risk Assessment Isn't Wearing Any Clothes By Peter Montague snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] democracy now: chavez to give the us cheap oil to poorfolks
The top 5 petro boys (3 are HQ'd in USA, he other two are BP amd RD Shell) own 50 % or more of refining, discovery and gas station (distribution) operations. They own it all and aren't worried about a little thing like Congress. Rad -- Original Message -- From: Kenji James Fuse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:31:11 -0800 (PST) Did you all hear today's Democracy Now? Looks like the US is letting Chavez sell heating oil at a 40% reduction to poor-er folk in Brooklyn and Boston. I imagine the petro boys and the corporate world are squirming right now: this is the first time a major corporation (Citgo?) has VOLUNTARILY taken a profit cut! This is, in my view, a major accomplishment and may signal the beginning of the end for corporate-America... I really hope Chavez is around next year. KF ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] USA should be renamed USE
USPS Priority Service...keep us advised -- Original Message -- From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:37:58 -0500 So where's my check? Derick Giorchino wrote: Just goes to show you money can buy you the answers you want. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Weaver Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:35 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] USA should be renamed USE Actually, almost nothing shocks me any more... Zeke Yewdall wrote: You're being sarcastic Mike, I hope? On 11/28/05, Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm shocked. radema wrote: Chairman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism and human intelligence admits taking $2.4Million in bribes. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?
Nike, Opinion is a matter of perspective. That is why we have lobbyists. Your, tongue in cheek comments, on Government efficiency are certainly accurate, from the perspective of the beneficiaries (wealthy). Mine are written from the perspective of the overtaxed (poor/ middle class). My comments were originally made after thread participants were suggesting more tax as a viable solution. When lawmakers hear this (even once), they seize and spin to build more incoming revenue. The first inefficiency we need to tackle is us. We need to recognize that it is no longer all right to raise taxes. -- Original Message -- From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:12:45 -0500 You're using the wrong metrics. The US government works perfectly well. It transfers money from the poor to the wealthy, and quite well I might add, so I don't buy your not efficient argument. Just look at the recent energy bill. Look at the Halliburton contracts. This is a very efficient, well-run system. What did you think the government is supposed to do? radema wrote: Great discussion threads. I find myself drawn in without restraint. IMO, the largest problem facing us via government isn't reactive governing, its waste (politically attractive) and vote buying (democracy). While the case can be made for higher Government revenue requiremnts, it is predicated on the assumption that Government works efficiently. This is folly in the extreme sense. We are witness to personal agendas from the top down to the smallest fiefdom. A thick self-serving union layer checks, double checks or escalates every daily activity for dual custody deniability. A narrowly defined job scope is rigorously designed to allow the use of unskilled labor and systemically CYA when a resource is confronted by a new or evolutionary 'issue' (previously undefined). In other words the system loses issues where resources are not protected. Output is politically attractive in the form of plausible deniability. Action plans are equated to procedure and the optic of action. This results in productivity that is not objective driven. Rad -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:53:33 -0500 (EST) There are major costs besides road maintenance and building, such as health costs of pollution medical (National Health Service) and other costs related to accidents, costs of policing. Back in the late 80's Pollution Probe in Toronto published a study The Costs of the Car which estimted that charging all costs to fuel would result in a total gasoline price of $5 to$6 CDN per Imperial gallon. the price would be almost double now. Also, the more roads the less land there is for other uses and the lower the tax base to pay for ever increasing roads and infrastructure. The ultimate solution is charges for road use; difficult but becoming easier with the advance of computers and electronics. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Chris lloyd wrote: If you are talking about hybrids that use electricity the government gets the fuel side tax but would have a rough time implementing a zap tax for charging the vehicle but its not out of the question they may try. Here in the UK we buy a licence to use our vehicles on public roads, I pay about 280 dollars a year which is far more than is required for road maintenance/building. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman
[Biofuel] USA should be renamed USE
Chairman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism and human intelligence admits taking $2.4Million in bribes. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US Guvmint to tax alternate fuel vehicles?
Great discussion threads. I find myself drawn in without restraint. IMO, the largest problem facing us via government isn't reactive governing, its waste (politically attractive) and vote buying (democracy). While the case can be made for higher Government revenue requiremnts, it is predicated on the assumption that Government works efficiently. This is folly in the extreme sense. We are witness to personal agendas from the top down to the smallest fiefdom. A thick self-serving union layer checks, double checks or escalates every daily activity for dual custody deniability. A narrowly defined job scope is rigorously designed to allow the use of unskilled labor and systemically CYA when a resource is confronted by a new or evolutionary 'issue' (previously undefined). In other words the system loses issues where resources are not protected. Output is politically attractive in the form of plausible deniability. Action plans are equated to procedure and the optic of action. This results in productivity that is not objective driven. Rad -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:53:33 -0500 (EST) There are major costs besides road maintenance and building, such as health costs of pollution medical (National Health Service) and other costs related to accidents, costs of policing. Back in the late 80's Pollution Probe in Toronto published a study The Costs of the Car which estimted that charging all costs to fuel would result in a total gasoline price of $5 to$6 CDN per Imperial gallon. the price would be almost double now. Also, the more roads the less land there is for other uses and the lower the tax base to pay for ever increasing roads and infrastructure. The ultimate solution is charges for road use; difficult but becoming easier with the advance of computers and electronics. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Chris lloyd wrote: If you are talking about hybrids that use electricity the government gets the fuel side tax but would have a rough time implementing a zap tax for charging the vehicle but its not out of the question they may try. Here in the UK we buy a licence to use our vehicles on public roads, I pay about 280 dollars a year which is far more than is required for road maintenance/building. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Exclusive: Bush Plot To Bomb His Arab Ally
-- Original Message -- From: bmolloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:59:23 +1300 Bush's father is a member of Carlisle, as was O'Bin Laden's dad. Elder Bin Laden isn't anymore. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message
The many projects and technologies that pass or fail to make it into the regulated environment have a common thread. To measure and improve, we must compare apples to apples. An energy credit trading scheme is a stopgap measure consistant with current tech levels. It allows measurable product creation, measurable transportation and measurable distribution. R -- Original Message -- From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:11:51 -0700 Ken Dunn wrote: When talking to friends, family and others regarding the Earth-friendly practices that we can all include in our lifestyles, I always stumble over quantifying the true price of packaging for consumer goods. Its easy enough to calculate the transportation costs of an avacodo from California to Lancaster County, PA. Its also fairly straight forward to relay the burden on natural resources - the real price we pay. Adding it all up is also easily enough accomplished. But, how do you really calculate the expense of packaging materials? The company who produced that iten figured it in to there costs. The store who bought it then sold it to you figured the weight in there shipping costs. How much petroleum goes into one plastic bag? The company that made the bag knows. Call one and ask them how many units of X they get for Y stock. Of course, the plastic won't break down in any of our lifetimes yet, its not easy to determine the displacement of a resource when you don't know the inputs. For many (Americans anyway) Thats insulting. Americans are not the only wasteful people on the planet. Yes its hard to say but its easy to figure out. How much source material was used? How much X went into that? Ask the companies, they might tell you, they might not. I won't be here in a million years so, who cares?. Then again, there are always the ever increasing landfills to point to. NIMBY does have some power there yet, that approach is only a scare tactic to be exploited and I have no time for that. Mmmm,, yes who does care? What portion of a tree is consumed to create a cardboard box that is used just long enough for the DVD player (I almost said VCR :-) ) to make its way from the factory to the store and then the family room only to be mummified in the local dump? How much extra weight does the box add to the truck? How much extra fuel does the extra weight consume? Again track the product and its material. I once heard that paper products are better then 80% efficient. If that is true then 1lb of wood gives .8lb of paper product. What is the weight of your matrial? For a while I questioned whether paper really WAS any better than plastic. For a while I used plastic based on the premise that I could recycle the plastic. I've now decided that paper is better than plastic if only for the reason that the paper atleast comes from a natural resource that is sustainable (sort of). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_pulp Today, some people and groups are advocating using field crop fiber instead of wood fiber as being more sustaible. Paper and such fiber products are far better then plastics in many ways. This does not mean plastics do not have a home. But, is paper better than plastic? For making bathroom tissue it sure is! What if we returned to using plastic made from soy beans like ol' Henry's boys discovered? Would it still be better to use paper over plastic? See above. What if we did return to it? Is it cheaper to do? Is it a better product? If not, Why would any business do it? How much energy is consumed to produce all of these packaging materials? And how much more is consumed to dispose of them? For the production its easy, less then X dollars for a product that costs X dollars. There must be proffit along the way, no one is doing it for free. Rant as I may, how do we get the point across to the producers of goods that we want lass packaging? They already use as little packaging as they feel they safely can. Why? Cause more costs them more and they want ot spend as little as they can. Sorry but a VCR/DVD player NEEDS protective packaging. We can buy local all day long but, Sony doesn't have a factory near me. Even if they did, I'd still probably have to take the packaging with me. Yes you would. Whats so bad about that? Recycle if you want. Or not, that IS a option you have. I think we need better recycling laws. Dumps should be recycling centers each and every one. Only the absolute worst stuff should be tossed forever and even that should be solved.. Take care all, Ken ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message
Sorry...need more coffee...previous post should read...Europe has plunged every generation into war WITHOUT US help... Robert -- Original Message -- From: radema [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 06:36:37 -0600 With all due respect, The USA is a highly visible consumer. Their arrogance and might is right policies are a natural target. We would be remiss to forget their considerable humanitarian contribution (no not war). Europe has plunged every generation into war with US help. Not only is the US an engine for profits, but their trust laws are far stricter than Japan (MITI), China, Middle East, South America, SE Asia, Balkans, or the EU. When the new world order takes place - and I agree it will as manufacturing capacity moves offshore - we will see super-power consumers (China, India) that DO NOT HAVE trust laws. Robert -- Original Message -- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:58:26 +0200 Hi Tom and Bede, Maybe the coming oil crises will be a blessing for our earth. Because the moment oil is no loner available, we have to produce fuel and plastics etc. from other sources. If all playing on a level field, the possibilities are more equal and the wealth will be more distributed. US had the advantage to be the first oil economy and that the large oil resources have been in less populated countries, which could be developed by US interests. Next step will be a development of the coal resources and US, Russia and China have maybe 70% of known resources and this time US will not be able to manipulate. Since the coal will be expensive, the rest of the world will be competing with renewable agriculture based alternatives on more equal terms. To have any kind of possibilities to survive, coal has to carry large cost for sequestering of polluting chemicals and gases. This especially if the hydrogen economy becomes a reality. The handling of nuclear waste will be a minor problem, compared with what the future generations will face The wealth and powers to be, will have a totally different structure than today and none of us can really imagine how the future will look. We will not participate in this future, but our attitudes and work of today, will be of utmost importance. It is now that we can effect the outcome and if we do not take Global warming and other things very serious, our future generations will carry the punishment. It is no risks of that we can be to cautious and careful, because it will be a possibility to sustain the future if we follow this principles anyway. The world is probably on the edge and it does not take much to tip the balance towards disasters. Nothing will be able to solve without a strict energy efficiency, which also will be the best economical regime. It is amazing that US is using 3 times and Canada 4 times more energy in their buildings, than Sweden does. This after climate corrections. With dirt cheap oil, it was expensive, but with todays oil prices, it has become very economical. This is also something that cannot be occupied by military force and is closer to sustainable. Hakan At 12:29 07/10/2005, you wrote: with the rising cost of oil these will eventually become valuable resources, Its also only a matter of time before we start mining our rubbish dumps! There's also a French company i saw on Beyond 2000, it had to do with turning tires back into its raw components. once again once bought back, it cost more to process than the end products where worth. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Irwin Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:07 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message Hi Hakan and all, One of the real problems is not having an economic system that accounts for the lack of degradability or environmental consequences of products produced. This is a world wide problem not limited to the U.S. More than 10 years ago I worked on a research team to make a biodegradable plastic. We accomplished this and had formulations that worked in most plastic processing equipment. Of course, polyethylene was $0.26 per pound and our formulations were about a dollar more per pound. We had a wonderful niche market product that couldn´t support us. The same is true for PET. There´s a company that I worked for that holds a patent for recycling waste PET chemically back to original components, bottles from bottles with no residual contamination. Transportation costs of the light plastics kill this one. Many industries have solutions but they are not economical with the present low cost of the plastics they would replace or recycle. Tom Irwin
Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message
With all due respect, The USA is a highly visible consumer. Their arrogance and might is right policies are a natural target. We would be remiss to forget their considerable humanitarian contribution (no not war). Europe has plunged every generation into war with US help. Not only is the US an engine for profits, but their trust laws are far stricter than Japan (MITI), China, Middle East, South America, SE Asia, Balkans, or the EU. When the new world order takes place - and I agree it will as manufacturing capacity moves offshore - we will see super-power consumers (China, India) that DO NOT HAVE trust laws. Robert -- Original Message -- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:58:26 +0200 Hi Tom and Bede, Maybe the coming oil crises will be a blessing for our earth. Because the moment oil is no loner available, we have to produce fuel and plastics etc. from other sources. If all playing on a level field, the possibilities are more equal and the wealth will be more distributed. US had the advantage to be the first oil economy and that the large oil resources have been in less populated countries, which could be developed by US interests. Next step will be a development of the coal resources and US, Russia and China have maybe 70% of known resources and this time US will not be able to manipulate. Since the coal will be expensive, the rest of the world will be competing with renewable agriculture based alternatives on more equal terms. To have any kind of possibilities to survive, coal has to carry large cost for sequestering of polluting chemicals and gases. This especially if the hydrogen economy becomes a reality. The handling of nuclear waste will be a minor problem, compared with what the future generations will face The wealth and powers to be, will have a totally different structure than today and none of us can really imagine how the future will look. We will not participate in this future, but our attitudes and work of today, will be of utmost importance. It is now that we can effect the outcome and if we do not take Global warming and other things very serious, our future generations will carry the punishment. It is no risks of that we can be to cautious and careful, because it will be a possibility to sustain the future if we follow this principles anyway. The world is probably on the edge and it does not take much to tip the balance towards disasters. Nothing will be able to solve without a strict energy efficiency, which also will be the best economical regime. It is amazing that US is using 3 times and Canada 4 times more energy in their buildings, than Sweden does. This after climate corrections. With dirt cheap oil, it was expensive, but with todays oil prices, it has become very economical. This is also something that cannot be occupied by military force and is closer to sustainable. Hakan At 12:29 07/10/2005, you wrote: with the rising cost of oil these will eventually become valuable resources, Its also only a matter of time before we start mining our rubbish dumps! There's also a French company i saw on Beyond 2000, it had to do with turning tires back into its raw components. once again once bought back, it cost more to process than the end products where worth. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Irwin Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:07 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message Hi Hakan and all, One of the real problems is not having an economic system that accounts for the lack of degradability or environmental consequences of products produced. This is a world wide problem not limited to the U.S. More than 10 years ago I worked on a research team to make a biodegradable plastic. We accomplished this and had formulations that worked in most plastic processing equipment. Of course, polyethylene was $0.26 per pound and our formulations were about a dollar more per pound. We had a wonderful niche market product that couldn´t support us. The same is true for PET. There´s a company that I worked for that holds a patent for recycling waste PET chemically back to original components, bottles from bottles with no residual contamination. Transportation costs of the light plastics kill this one. Many industries have solutions but they are not economical with the present low cost of the plastics they would replace or recycle. Tom Irwin ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message
Hakan Thanks for the input, its appreciated. In response: The Japanese Government targets a specific industry and supports the top few competitors. Internally the mega structures are Kieretsu-based (thank you MacArthur -a man with far too much glory for his skill level). The Allies needed a station near China and USSR so Japan was allowed to morph the zaibatsu into the kieretsu (Mitsumi,Sumitomo,Mitsubishi). They have stakes in every major and mid-level university doing RD in the US. The Koeans favour the Chaebol, the equivalent of the Japanese Kieritsu - Hyundai,LG, SK Group, Samsung. The Chinese strong-arm their spend - ie. GE had three light bulb mfg competitors in China when it started negotiations to build a mfg plant there. Three years later when they got approval they had 2000. Cisco set up a second world headquarters in China. US Congressional approval (excluding COTS -commercial off the shelf) requires multiple (three I believe) quotes. While the US President may favour no-let contarcts (KBR), on balance the US does not allow business to conduct itself through price manipulation or collusion: ADM, Eliot Spicer targets, FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC. Unfortunately a multi-national is not hampered by geo-politics. Who do you think owns India (Union Carbide or IBM). I'm not talking about invisible counter-intuitive policies - e.g. US DEA wants to kill a Golden Triangle general and the US State department supports him due to geography. I also agree that there is a concentration of power internationally - http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2005/06/15.html But I do have to ask you to look at European and European colonialism in 30 year cycles. Robert -- Original Message -- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:02:33 +0200 Robert, I do not understand what you mean by trust laws. If you mean the anti trust laws, Reagan got rid of them, during his presidency. Before that, US had this 70% rule to protect consumers from being dependent of a monopoly source. Hakan At 14:36 07/10/2005, you wrote: With all due respect, The USA is a highly visible consumer. Their arrogance and might is right policies are a natural target. We would be remiss to forget their considerable humanitarian contribution (no not war). Europe has plunged every generation into war with US help. Not only is the US an engine for profits, but their trust laws are far stricter than Japan (MITI), China, Middle East, South America, SE Asia, Balkans, or the EU. When the new world order takes place - and I agree it will as manufacturing capacity moves offshore - we will see super-power consumers (China, India) that DO NOT HAVE trust laws. Robert -- Original Message -- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:58:26 +0200 Hi Tom and Bede, Maybe the coming oil crises will be a blessing for our earth. Because the moment oil is no loner available, we have to produce fuel and plastics etc. from other sources. If all playing on a level field, the possibilities are more equal and the wealth will be more distributed. US had the advantage to be the first oil economy and that the large oil resources have been in less populated countries, which could be developed by US interests. Next step will be a development of the coal resources and US, Russia and China have maybe 70% of known resources and this time US will not be able to manipulate. Since the coal will be expensive, the rest of the world will be competing with renewable agriculture based alternatives on more equal terms. To have any kind of possibilities to survive, coal has to carry large cost for sequestering of polluting chemicals and gases. This especially if the hydrogen economy becomes a reality. The handling of nuclear waste will be a minor problem, compared with what the future generations will face The wealth and powers to be, will have a totally different structure than today and none of us can really imagine how the future will look. We will not participate in this future, but our attitudes and work of today, will be of utmost importance. It is now that we can effect the outcome and if we do not take Global warming and other things very serious, our future generations will carry the punishment. It is no risks of that we can be to cautious and careful, because it will be a possibility to sustain the future if we follow this principles anyway. The world is probably on the edge and it does not take much to tip the balance towards disasters. Nothing will be able to solve without a strict energy efficiency, which also will be the best economical regime. It is amazing that US is using 3 times and Canada 4 times more energy in their buildings, than Sweden does. This after climate
Re: [Biofuel] Quantifying the Price of Packaging/Sending the Message
Sorry all, I have to stand by my statement. Attached is a list of the top 20 wars in terms of military dead sonce WW1. 1 20,000,000 Second World War1937-45 2 8,500,000 First World War 1914-18 3 1,200,000 Korean War 1950-53 4 1,200,000 Chinese Civil War 1945-49 5 1,200,000 Vietnam War 1965-73 6 850,000 Iran-Iraq War 1980-88 7 800,000 Russian Civil War 1918-21 8 400,000 Chinese Civil War 1927-37 9 385,000 French Indochina1945-54 10 200,000 Mexican Revolution 1911-20 11 200,000 Spanish Civil War 1936-39 12 160,000 French-Algerian War 1954-62 13 150,000 Afghanistan 1980-89 14 130,000 Russo-Japanese War 1904-05 15 100,000 Riffian War 1921-26 16 100,000 First Sudanese Civil War1956-72 17 100,000 Russo-Polish War1919-20 18 100,000 Biafran War 1967-70 19 90,000 Chaco War 1932-35 20 75,000 Abyssinian War 1935-36 Regards, Robert -- Original Message -- From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 02:12:35 +0900 Sorry...need more coffee...previous post should read...Europe has plunged every generation into war WITHOUT US help... Except this generation and the last one, which the US have plunged into war all over the world all by itself, though they haven't been the only ones it's true. I think you got it more right the first time. Best wishes Keith Robert -- Original Message -- From: radema [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 06:36:37 -0600 With all due respect, The USA is a highly visible consumer. Their arrogance and might is right policies are a natural target. We would be remiss to forget their considerable humanitarian contribution (no not war). Europe has plunged every generation into war with US help. Not only is the US an engine for profits, but their trust laws are far stricter than Japan (MITI), China, Middle East, South America, SE Asia, Balkans, or the EU. When the new world order takes place - and I agree it will as manufacturing capacity moves offshore - we will see super-power consumers (China, India) that DO NOT HAVE trust laws. Robert -- Original Message -- From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:58:26 +0200 Hi Tom and Bede, Maybe the coming oil crises will be a blessing for our earth. Because the moment oil is no loner available, we have to produce fuel and plastics etc. from other sources. If all playing on a level field, the possibilities are more equal and the wealth will be more distributed. US had the advantage to be the first oil economy and that the large oil resources have been in less populated countries, which could be developed by US interests. Next step will be a development of the coal resources and US, Russia and China have maybe 70% of known resources and this time US will not be able to manipulate. Since the coal will be expensive, the rest of the world will be competing with renewable agriculture based alternatives on more equal terms. To have any kind of possibilities to survive, coal has to carry large cost for sequestering of polluting chemicals and gases. This especially if the hydrogen economy becomes a reality. The handling of nuclear waste will be a minor problem, compared with what the future generations will face The wealth and powers to be, will have a totally different structure than today and none of us can really imagine how the future will look. We will not participate in this future, but our attitudes and work of today, will be of utmost importance. It is now that we can effect the outcome and if we do not take Global warming and other things very serious, our future generations will carry the punishment. It is no risks of that we can be to cautious and careful, because it will be a possibility to sustain the future if we follow this principles anyway. The world is probably on the edge and it does not take much to tip the balance towards disasters. Nothing will be able to solve without a strict energy efficiency, which also will be the best economical regime. It is amazing that US is using 3 times and Canada 4 times more energy in their buildings, than Sweden does. This after climate corrections. With dirt cheap oil, it was expensive, but with todays oil prices, it has become very economical. This is also something that cannot be occupied by military force and is closer to sustainable
Re: [Biofuel] Hoodia Gordonii ?
Hi...I'm new to the thread. Biofuels: I'm learning more everyday...thanks alI. I believe the insolvent Atkins group's greatest contribution was that biological adaptation is rapid. Take one of the three building blocks away and you rapidly force the absorption of organic carbon through an altered metabolic configuration. As far as global subsidy reconcilliation/ obesity: I loved the analogy. Thanks. My two cents on politics is that our greatest threat is pork. Since subsidies have more to do with plural representation and US congressional districts, pork threatens every agri-business (indeed every business). It is a diet of profits and revenue for companies (and individuals) that may or may not produce the best product or service. Only companies that know how to write Statements of Work AND have a sponsoring audience eat pork. People like me eat (unnofficial) final policy. Energy policy is slimming. Bob -- Original Message -- From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Hi Keith, But beef does not cause obesity. I don't totally disagree but, compared to what? Atkins has made it abundantly clear to the public in the US that refined carbohydrates are one of the most threatening foods to someone fighting obesity. However, the claim made in my previous post about the beef lobby in the US came from a report by Peter Jennings called How to Get Fat Without Really Trying. It asserts that if beef is disproportionally subsidized compared to vegetable farmers, the savings is seen by those with the least amount of money. In those scenarios, people will choose more calories for the buck. So, put in that context and making the observation that the subsidies (beef vs. vegetable) is inversely proportional to those in Europe, one can argue that beef can cause obesity if people are compelled to make certain choices based on economics. Commentary on the story by The Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity Environments (http://www.preventioninstitute.org/sa/PR_jennings.html). Mr. Jennings begins in the farmlands of America, examining agricultural subsidies and their impact on the American diet. He found that most agricultural subsides go to the foods Americans should be eating less. Nutritionists and health advocates say these policies are contributing to obesity. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson tells Mr. Jennings that agricultural subsidies are based on political decisions that are not likely to change soon. Of course, whether or not beef contributes to obesity depends on what you compare it to. If there were two people, one eating nothing but steak (for example) and the other only vegetables, I would not hesitate to offer an opinion as to which one is more threatened. Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Michaels Michael: Since herbal supplements are NOT regulated by the FDA, it's buyer beware (not that I had much faith in the FDA to begin with). Some herbs are extremely dangerous: h ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62671-2004Sep4.html I hope that you're also watching what you take in. Americans are among the fattest people in the world because of huge subsidies to the beef industry and the popular use of high fructose corn syrup in processed foods. Stay away from refined carbohydrates, stay away from processed foods, try to stick with locally grown fresh products. But beef does not cause obesity. Best wishes Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
