Re: [Biofuel] the 'Inconvenient Truth'
snip? I think alot better arguement could be made that there is no known benefit to the planet from Humans, and we should go get 'em. Oh, except that you can't ask a human this question because they are not a neutral observer. looks like we are well on our way to doing just that. but let's not go gently into that good night without at least some fight. no more wars except against global warming, eh? ___ 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] The Inconvenient Truth, Part II
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4014 Foreign Policy In Focus | The Inconvenient Truth, Part II Tom Athanasiou | February 21, 2007 Editor: John Feffer, IRC Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org You've probably seen the movie; you've certainly heard about it. So you already know the first part of the inconvenient truth: we're in deep trouble. And one good thing about 2006 is that this ceased to be a public secret. We not only know that the drought is spreading, the ice melting, the waters beginning to rise, but we also know that we know. And this changes everything. The science is in; the skeptics aren't what they used to be. They're still around, of course, but their ranks have thinned, and their funders are feeling the heat. They've been reduced to a merely tactical danger. They're flaks, and everyone knows it. Still, this good news comes with bad-their job was to stall, and they did it well. And it's now late in the game. Don't just take my word for it. In 2006, scientists schooled in the art of careful and measured conclusion chose instead to speak frankly. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and perhaps our single most respected climate scientist, spoke for many of his colleagues when he said that we're near a tipping point, a point of no return, beyond which the built in momentum and feedbacks will carry us to levels of climate change with staggering consequences for humanity and all of the residents of this planet.1 It's time, past time really, for at least some of us to go beyond warning to planning, to start talking seriously about a global crash program to stabilize the climate. Gore knows this, but he's a politician and must move deliberately. He is moving, though, and has already passed beyond his film's gentle implication (most visible in the upbeat visual call to action that ran under the closing credits) that personal virtue will suffice. During a September 2006 speech at the New York University Law School (a speech one wag called the lost reel) he made some necessary, and dangerous, connections: In rising to meet this challenge, we too will find self-renewal and transcendence and a new capacity for vision to see other crises in our time that cry out for solutions: 20 million HIV/AIDS orphans in Africa alone, civil wars fought by children, genocides and famines, the rape and pillage of our oceans and forests, an extinction crisis that threatens the web of life, and tens of millions of our fellow humans dying every year from easily preventable diseases. And, by rising to meet the climate crisis, we will find the vision and moral authority to see them not as political problems but as moral imperatives. The situation, alas, is worse than either Gore's movie or his speech implies. So, this being a new year, let's move on a bit, into territories through which no politician can guide us. And let's be a bit more explicit about just what a real crash program to stabilize the climate would actually imply. Two Degrees of Separation What happens if the temperature-or, more precisely, the average global surface warming since pre-industrial times-rises past 2°C? Even though we're not yet at the edge of the 2°C line, the Earth's ice sheets are already becoming unstable. The Greenland ice sheet, in particular, appears to be at significant risk of collapse at a warming of less than 2°C, and this would eventually mean about seven meters of sea-level rise.2 Since only three meters would put virtually all coastal cities and their hundreds of millions of people at great hazard, and given that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also at eventual risk, the ice situation is already, by any reasonable standard, dangerous.3 With 2°C of warming, killer droughts will settle in to stay. There will be massive vegetation changes, agricultural disruptions, and extreme weather including superstorms. Many disease-bearing pests will have radically expanded ranges that put, for example, several hundred million more people at risk of malaria. Arctic species such as the polar bear will face extinction, along with 15-40% of other terrestrial creatures. There will be horrifying refugee crises. The key points, at least from the point of view of human suffering and social instability, are the ice-melt, the widespread agricultural disruption, and the refugees. Also crucial are the billions of people, many of them in the mega-cities of the South, threatened by permanent water stress. There will be more, and more terrible, water wars, many of which are essentially civil wars.4 Most terrifying of all, 2°C of warming, particularly if sustained or overshot, will likely trigger non-linear changes that would induce further warming, and further changes, and further warming-positive feedbacks in the jargon-until the nightmare scenario imagined by James Lovelock (whom I am very sorry to report is not a crank) finally comes to pass. And this
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
Mike, I'd like to think not. It's a bit odd though that only one variety of blueberry in my garden had any berries at all. First time I can recall ... over 20 years of blueberries here. My apple tree flowered no apples forming. Maybe just too much rain ... there seem to be plenty of bees. Probably just an anomaly. Even considering it has me a bit uneasy. When people complain about all the rain we're getting I just mention that there's a lot of water in those ice caps. Most just look puzzled. Take along an umbrella, Tom Tom - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth I have wonder if the weather we are enjoying here in DC is a symptom of global warming. Keith Addison wrote: http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #22 6 July 06 Preparing For an Inconvenient Future Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a commendable movie, not least for its attempts to educate, rather than terrify, people about the facts and consequences of global warming. In particular, Al Gore specifically warned against justifying inaction first by denial (the platform of most American politicians), then by despair. Instead, he concluded the movie by listing actions that individuals and societies can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To see specific suggestions, visit www.climatecrisis.net and read Colin Wright's thoughtful article in the last issue of Eat the State! (What would Gandhi drive? ETS! vol. 10, no. 21 http://snipurl.com/std1). Making valiant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately is not only a good idea, but a necessity. We must not confuse this imperative, however, with a solution to the problems of global warming, for at least three reasons. First, not all of the means within our technological grasp for reducing emissions are necessarily wisely employed toward that end, even if we grant that they will have the magnitude of effect that Gore credited them with--which is far from certain. Thus, in a movie graphic showing how carbon emissions could be reduced to 1970 levels, a considerable chunk of reduction was attributed to carbon sequestration, the viability and long-term consequences of which are hotly debated. We must be careful not to make matters worse in a desperate effort to make them better. Second, even if carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to 1970 levels, the long time periods required for the Earth system to respond to that decrease will result in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that nonetheless continue to increase for decades to come. Remarkably, although Gore correctly related higher average global temperatures to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, not emissions, this response lag was not addressed in the movie. Third, various global feedback mechanisms affected by higher temperatures may result in further increases in temperature or greenhouse gas concentrations that are not a direct function of human activity. Although these are notoriously difficult to predict, possible examples include greater retention of solar heat due to changes in cloud and ice cover, or release of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, from melting permafrost. In short, controlling emissions is only part of the necessary response to the problems confronting us. A second part of that response is to prepare for the predictable consequences of global warming, starting immediately. The environmental movement must incorporate such preparations into its agenda, not in place of but alongside attempts to attenuate climate change. Limiting our response only to attenuation is naive, if not palliative and fatalistic. What is it that we should be preparing for? The melting of ice sheets and glaciers is expected to result in a rise in sea level that will render uninhabitable low-lying islands and coastal regions, thus creating a refugee crisis on a scale perhaps never before seen in human history. We must begin planning for these refugees now. It is anticipated that greater average surface temperatures will fuel more violent storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes. Having seen the chaos and tragedy resulting from Katrina, as well as the ineptitude, profiteering, and racism of the American government's reaction, surely we should begin preparing a better response now. Overall changes in regional weather patterns, including in some places an increasing frequency of droughts, will dramatically affect the availability and distribution of water and agriculture. Only advance planning can mitigate the tragedies these changes imply. And of course, unless we begin preparing now, all of these anticipated effects will likely lead to major conflicts among
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #22 6 July 06 Preparing For an Inconvenient Future Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a commendable movie, not least for its attempts to educate, rather than terrify, people about the facts and consequences of global warming. In particular, Al Gore specifically warned against justifying inaction first by denial (the platform of most American politicians), then by despair. Instead, he concluded the movie by listing actions that individuals and societies can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To see specific suggestions, visit www.climatecrisis.net and read Colin Wright's thoughtful article in the last issue of Eat the State! (What would Gandhi drive? ETS! vol. 10, no. 21 http://snipurl.com/std1). Making valiant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately is not only a good idea, but a necessity. We must not confuse this imperative, however, with a solution to the problems of global warming, for at least three reasons. First, not all of the means within our technological grasp for reducing emissions are necessarily wisely employed toward that end, even if we grant that they will have the magnitude of effect that Gore credited them with--which is far from certain. Thus, in a movie graphic showing how carbon emissions could be reduced to 1970 levels, a considerable chunk of reduction was attributed to carbon sequestration, the viability and long-term consequences of which are hotly debated. We must be careful not to make matters worse in a desperate effort to make them better. Second, even if carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to 1970 levels, the long time periods required for the Earth system to respond to that decrease will result in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that nonetheless continue to increase for decades to come. Remarkably, although Gore correctly related higher average global temperatures to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, not emissions, this response lag was not addressed in the movie. Third, various global feedback mechanisms affected by higher temperatures may result in further increases in temperature or greenhouse gas concentrations that are not a direct function of human activity. Although these are notoriously difficult to predict, possible examples include greater retention of solar heat due to changes in cloud and ice cover, or release of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, from melting permafrost. In short, controlling emissions is only part of the necessary response to the problems confronting us. A second part of that response is to prepare for the predictable consequences of global warming, starting immediately. The environmental movement must incorporate such preparations into its agenda, not in place of but alongside attempts to attenuate climate change. Limiting our response only to attenuation is naive, if not palliative and fatalistic. What is it that we should be preparing for? The melting of ice sheets and glaciers is expected to result in a rise in sea level that will render uninhabitable low-lying islands and coastal regions, thus creating a refugee crisis on a scale perhaps never before seen in human history. We must begin planning for these refugees now. It is anticipated that greater average surface temperatures will fuel more violent storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes. Having seen the chaos and tragedy resulting from Katrina, as well as the ineptitude, profiteering, and racism of the American government's reaction, surely we should begin preparing a better response now. Overall changes in regional weather patterns, including in some places an increasing frequency of droughts, will dramatically affect the availability and distribution of water and agriculture. Only advance planning can mitigate the tragedies these changes imply. And of course, unless we begin preparing now, all of these anticipated effects will likely lead to major conflicts among peoples and nations. Perhaps more subtly, our preparations must embrace changing how we think. First and foremost, we must not perpetuate the myth that the problems we face can be addressed without major changes in our lifestyles and cultures. This is an error with which Gore's film flirts. But if we begin the debate by denying the necessity of major changes, we relieve the debate of both its urgency and its point. Pathos and panic are not the necessary corollaries of recognizing this fact; we must instead learn to represent the necessity and achievability of these changes. Second, global warming and its consequences cannot be countered effectively if we limit our deliberations only to short time scales, for example, those of election cycles. We must teach ourselves to think instead on decadal, generational and longer time scales. We must furthermore set up social and political structures
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
I have wonder if the weather we are enjoying here in DC is a symptom of global warming. Keith Addison wrote: http://eatthestate.org/ Eat the State! Vol. 10, Issue #22 6 July 06 Preparing For an Inconvenient Future Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a commendable movie, not least for its attempts to educate, rather than terrify, people about the facts and consequences of global warming. In particular, Al Gore specifically warned against justifying inaction first by denial (the platform of most American politicians), then by despair. Instead, he concluded the movie by listing actions that individuals and societies can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To see specific suggestions, visit www.climatecrisis.net and read Colin Wright's thoughtful article in the last issue of Eat the State! (What would Gandhi drive? ETS! vol. 10, no. 21 http://snipurl.com/std1). Making valiant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately is not only a good idea, but a necessity. We must not confuse this imperative, however, with a solution to the problems of global warming, for at least three reasons. First, not all of the means within our technological grasp for reducing emissions are necessarily wisely employed toward that end, even if we grant that they will have the magnitude of effect that Gore credited them with--which is far from certain. Thus, in a movie graphic showing how carbon emissions could be reduced to 1970 levels, a considerable chunk of reduction was attributed to carbon sequestration, the viability and long-term consequences of which are hotly debated. We must be careful not to make matters worse in a desperate effort to make them better. Second, even if carbon dioxide emissions were immediately reduced to 1970 levels, the long time periods required for the Earth system to respond to that decrease will result in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that nonetheless continue to increase for decades to come. Remarkably, although Gore correctly related higher average global temperatures to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, not emissions, this response lag was not addressed in the movie. Third, various global feedback mechanisms affected by higher temperatures may result in further increases in temperature or greenhouse gas concentrations that are not a direct function of human activity. Although these are notoriously difficult to predict, possible examples include greater retention of solar heat due to changes in cloud and ice cover, or release of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, from melting permafrost. In short, controlling emissions is only part of the necessary response to the problems confronting us. A second part of that response is to prepare for the predictable consequences of global warming, starting immediately. The environmental movement must incorporate such preparations into its agenda, not in place of but alongside attempts to attenuate climate change. Limiting our response only to attenuation is naive, if not palliative and fatalistic. What is it that we should be preparing for? The melting of ice sheets and glaciers is expected to result in a rise in sea level that will render uninhabitable low-lying islands and coastal regions, thus creating a refugee crisis on a scale perhaps never before seen in human history. We must begin planning for these refugees now. It is anticipated that greater average surface temperatures will fuel more violent storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes. Having seen the chaos and tragedy resulting from Katrina, as well as the ineptitude, profiteering, and racism of the American government's reaction, surely we should begin preparing a better response now. Overall changes in regional weather patterns, including in some places an increasing frequency of droughts, will dramatically affect the availability and distribution of water and agriculture. Only advance planning can mitigate the tragedies these changes imply. And of course, unless we begin preparing now, all of these anticipated effects will likely lead to major conflicts among peoples and nations. Perhaps more subtly, our preparations must embrace changing how we think. First and foremost, we must not perpetuate the myth that the problems we face can be addressed without major changes in our lifestyles and cultures. This is an error with which Gore's film flirts. But if we begin the debate by denying the necessity of major changes, we relieve the debate of both its urgency and its point. Pathos and panic are not the necessary corollaries of recognizing this fact; we must instead learn to represent the necessity and achievability of these changes. Second, global warming and its consequences cannot be countered effectively if we limit our deliberations only to short time scales, for example, those of election cycles. We must teach ourselves to think
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
http://eatthestate.org/10-21/WhatWouldGandhi.htm (June 22, 2006) What Would Gandhi Drive? by Colin Wright I must admit I liked An Inconvenient Truth, the new movie on global warming featuring Al Gore (www.climatecrisis.net). To be sure, I'm still suspicious of his free market politics and corporate allegiances, but no one can fault Gore's dedication to environmental education. Particularly in a country that ranks last with China in concern over climate change, according to a recent BBC poll. Like any Hollywood tear-jerker, the movie has its hero, victims, and villains. Gore is the laser-lance-holding stoic hero, skewering White House rewritings of EPA reports. The victims are the future generations who will inherit the suffocating planet we are bequeathing them. Not just the 500 million refugees who will lose their homes after the ice atop Greenland and West Antarctic slips away into the oceans, raising sea level 20 feet. Not just the millions who may starve when their arid crops fail after the melting-glacier streams turn into trickles. But I also count among the victims, all the previous generations whom we are betraying by not giving a collective damn about the Russian Roulette we are playing with the planet. All the parents who shed blood, sweat, and tears to make a better life for their children. All the artists and scientists and revolutionaries who believed that culture and civilization were something worth devoting their lives to. Who cares any more, when the international film festivals and sports tournaments beckon? If global oil production really is peaking (www.peakoil.net), maybe it's time to shift some stocks to Exxon-Mobil? The villains are us. Especially here in the US, where we allow a rogue government to stymie any chance of concerted action to reduce greenhouse gases. Especially here in Corporatatopia where greed, political conservatism, and capitulation define the ethic of the day. Nevertheless, like any good drama, the movie offers the possibility of redemption to the viewer. I, for one, certainly left the theatre rededicated to doing what I can to slow, if not end, global ecocide. During the '90s, a bumper sticker occasionally seen on smaller, less auspicious cars protested the rise of the SUV:What would Jesus drive? A more appropriate bumper sticker these days might read: What would Gandhi drive? It's a sure bet that Gandhi (when he wasn't smashing imperialism) would be walking to work. But I bring up the half-naked fakir (Churchill's phrase) because I think inevitably the moral dissonance between our paper-thin ideals and our (in)actions will bring up the idea of civil disobedience in our auto-centric metropolises. When young people in particular wake up and realize we are not just leaving them trillions of dollars of unpaid debt, but a sinking Titanic with too few life boats, the wise among them will not be happy. In the absence of government benchmarks and regulations to reduce carbon dioxide outputs substantially in a timeframe of years and not decades, frustration will mount among the awake. We are already seeing bicycles-en-masse blocking traffic. Cyclists here must be wondering how Chicago can be planning 500 miles of bike paths, while here they they must risk life and limb on the commute. Of course, it will be necessary for activists to promote viable options in addition to direct actions. We will need new incentives to get people out of their cars: pipe dreams of 100 million cars running on hydrogen or biofuels are as unlikely to succeed as people commuting by jet-pack. This is because of the scaling problem: it would take decades to switch our car fleet over to something else. But we don't have decades. We are headed for a liquid fuels crisis because of the imminent peaking of global oil (www.energybulletin.net/16766.html). Burdens will need to be shared by all, including the corporate sector. Why not offer the 35-hour week (for 40 hours of pay) for eco-commuters to compensate them for the extra travel time? If the French economy can survive a 35-hour week, why not ours here in Seattle? Would the corporations leave us and head out of town? I doubt it. Seattle is a highly desirable area and will only become more so in the future, as rural areas became less able to prosper with the rising cost of energy. Gandhi is also more relevant today for other reasons. He thoroughly understood that British imperialism relied on free markets to undercut local economies. Thus he promoted a home-spun movement to counter the cheap Mancunian textile imports. Today these ideas of decentralization are gaining more currency in the peak oil movement, where the end of cheap and reliable petroleum and natural gas are causing some to predict a curtailment or collapse of international trade (see, for instance, Julian Darley's Post Carbon Institute at www.relocalize.net). Gandhi's maxim to live simply, so that others may
Re: [Biofuel] An Inconvenient Truth
I saw it again last night with another friend. This time I bought the t-shirt. Only 10 bucks and made of completely recycled material. Joe Paul S Cantrell wrote: Video that continues 'what you can do' in the film. The story at the beginning is pretty funny, too. http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=al_goreflashEnabled=1 http://www.climatecrisis.net/ On 6/26/06, Sarath G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw the movie this weekend and I was very impressed by the story and facts. Not that this is a new topic to any of the members on this list, but the portrayal of clear and present dangers of looming climate change are well illustrated and makes an extra effort to bring this issue to public focus. Sarath ___ 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] An Inconvenient Truth
Video that continues 'what you can do' in the film. The story at the beginning is pretty funny, too. http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=al_goreflashEnabled=1 http://www.climatecrisis.net/ On 6/26/06, Sarath G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw the movie this weekend and I was very impressed by the story and facts. Not that this is a new topic to any of the members on this list, but the portrayal of clear and present dangers of looming climate change are well illustrated and makes an extra effort to bring this issue to public focus. Sarath ___ 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/ -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything. - Thomas A Edison ___ 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] An Inconvenient Truth
I saw the movie on Friday evening. Lots of great factoids for those who are not in the know about global warming. The presentation is such that I don't see how anyone could not be persuaded. I thought that was very encouraging. Al Gore has so much of an opportunity to reach a large audience. Joe ___ 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] An Inconvenient Truth
Joe, I saw it yesterday and I concur completely...Everyone go see it and take 3 people with you! I encourage everyone to go see it, if nothing else to make me (us) seem less nutty! lol been talkin' about this since high school... On 6/26/06, Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw the movie on Friday evening. Lots of great factoids for those who are not in the know about global warming. The presentation is such that I don't see how anyone could not be persuaded. I thought that was very encouraging. Al Gore has so much of an opportunity to reach a large audience. Joe ___ 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/ -- Thanks, PC He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything. - Thomas A Edison ___ 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] An Inconvenient Truth
I saw the movie this weekend and I was very impressed by the story and facts. Not that this is a new topic to any of the members on this list, but the portrayal of clear and present dangers of looming climate change are well illustrated and makes an extra effort to bring this issue to public focus. Sarath ___ 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/
