Post by: thepatriot on August 16, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
Yes, Global Warming, as it is being promoted, is a complete joke, the whole idea that puny little man, can have any effect on Earth's biosphere is so patently absurd. It may be getting warmer, but ONE volcano can spew out 20 years of exhaust in one month, consider this: every single dirt clod on this planet is a by product of volcanic activity, all the mountains, also all the valleys, to the bottom of the sea, every bit of it was formed from boiling liquid rock, coming from inside the liquid core. If the greenhouse effect could destroy life on Earth, I think it would have done it by now... in fact, I'm sure it has many times. This planet has been hit from space by burning rock, too. Consider the lowest point on the Earth's surface, The Dead Sea. It didn't get there by water running downhill. Something had to smack it down from above. I'm sure mankind will never come close to the carbon based fuel exhaust put out by that blast, and that's only one of many. But, it gets worse. Not only is every speck of rock and dirt the product of complete meltdown, all the air comes from the same place. So how did all this rock get here anyway? Debris from the REAL nuclear world... STARS. Every molecule of every speck of molten rock on Earth is the direct byproduct of interstellar nuclear fusion, the likes of which we can't even imagine. Take the biggest H-bomb ever imagined, then multiply that times a number higher than any number we've ever conceived of, and that's how much every molecule on this planet has been subjected to. THAT'S HOW IT GOT HERE. That's where "here" came from. Not just "here"... ALL "HERE'S" EVERYWHERE. So, if all this unimaginable nuclear activity on a vast scale produced this planet, AND LIFE ITSELF, then how could the pitiful activities of mankind put any dent in it at all? The only danger we face is from our own stupidity, our obsession to be totally full of corny-ass BULLSHIT, spoon fed to us by a box with light and sound coming out, we look to the box to tell us what to think, since its way too hard to just look around and use common sense.
, most "science" is just a scam to keep us enslaved in our brains, a crude, half-assed attempt to keep us from thinking our own thoughts, going from point A, to point B, and all the way to Z. Most of the available energy is going to waste anyway, in the form of raw sunlight, the Earth's magnetic field, and wack-ass politicians, lying into microphones all day long. Look how much lightening there is all over the world every day. Only a liberal nazi like Al Gore would think mankind's rinky dinky power systems can even begin to influence a system as large and rugged as a planet. Absurd delusions of grandeur, just a miniscule puff of hot air, Leave that kind of idiocy to religion, where it belongs. The government should concern itself with MONEY, not totalitarian tree-hugger policies from the insane asylum. If science needs a good project, why not figure out what that big yellow sun is up to? It seems to be rather warm, globally speaking. The Earth is a tiny speck compared to one solar flare of one sunspot, which is a burst of liquid fire, 100's of 1000's of miles high, spewed by gravitational flux and the sun's internal magnetism rubbing ultra-violent nuclear elbows...
Post by: Antigen on August 16, 2004, 04:42:00 PM
I never believed any of it and I never discarded any of it out of hand, either. I simply didn't know and I knew that I didn't know and so I've just waited and watched for something concrete to come out of it all.
Well, just yesterday, I saw something about it on the Science chanel. So I thought I'd look again.
Well, here we go! http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/ (http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/)
So what do you think, Patriot? Is the University of Alask engaging in conspiracy mongering at it's own expense or is HAARP a real program?
I don't know the longterm effects of heating up the ionosphere, whetever the intended effect. I will say, though, that it doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. (and, btw, the same Science chanel presentation covered cloud seeding used as a weapon during the Vietnam war)
To the extent that a society limits its government to policing functions which curb the individuals who engage in aggressive and criminal actions, and conducts its economic affairs on the basis of free and willing exchange, to that extent domestic peace prevails. When a society departs from this norm, its governing class begins, in effect, to make war upon the rest of the nation. A situation is created in which everyone is victimized by everyone else under the fiction of each living at the expense of all.
--Edmund A. Opitz
Post by: SyN on August 16, 2004, 04:49:00 PM
mass hasnt even hit 90 degree's yet this summer. Winters of the last 3 years have been great (I'm an avid ski'ier so bring on the snow all year.) and even scientist I talk to from Umass say they wouldnt be surprised if another Ice age has begun. Also it doesnt need to take thousands of years for an ice age to hit it has happened within the space of 10 years, without man made by products.
The Earth is a tiny speck compared to one solar flare of one sunspot, which is a burst of liquid fire, 100's of 1000's of miles high, spewed by gravitational flux and the sun's internal magnetism rubbing ultra-violent nuclear elbows...
those flares are definetly potent since they cause black outs here (earth) from time to time.
I do prefer science to christianity or any ism, but i laugh constantly at their theories, but respect them at the same time.
good post patriot!!!
SyN
Post by: thepatriot on August 16, 2004, 05:00:00 PM
_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee
Post by: Antigen on August 16, 2004, 05:36:00 PM
Patriot, were you around when I floated that petition to ban dyhydromonoxide? :rofl: Wasn't my idea, mind you. I saw it somewhere and just thought it was hillarious. Credulity is dangerous, but it can be fun too. Sort of like home made fireworks, I suppose.
My point is that most of what passes for debate and discussion on environmental issues gets hijacked by silly issues like the SUVs. Frankly, I think the SUV thing is all about petty jealousy; people who can't afford one blaming those who can for all the world's ills. That works both ways, of course. Either way, it's counterproductive to meaningful discussion.
I think there is a very good case to be made for weaning down from our oil addiction. Unfortunately, most of the people who share my view on that tend to call me mean names like conservative and republican whenever I suggest what I think is the best way to go about it; deregulation.
If it were not so costly and if the liability were not so high, I think we'd have seen some local entrepreneurs pull together biomass energy production right about the time that gasoline broke the dollar per galon mark at the pump. It's not that difficult, in technical terms, to turn any high oil seed crop into diesel or practically any fast growing, starchy crop into ethyl fuel. All of the difficulty lies in meeting regulatory requirements and competing in the market w/ heavily subsidiesed industries.
Just eliminating legislative barriers to free market production of agricultural fuel would eliminate nearly 100% of our need to even involve ourselves in foreign affairs. Now, wouldn't that be nice?
Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut? --
Orange Country, California
Los Angeles Times
29 March 2000
--Judge James P. Gray
Post by: thepatriot on August 16, 2004, 05:42:00 PM
Post by: thepatriot on August 16, 2004, 05:43:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on August 16, 2004, 06:20:00 PM
god damn commie aliens!!!! :lol:
i personally think suv's are the least of our worries here n now. Though i would love the hydrogen cell hype to pull through so we can bankrupt haliburton.
"As far as HAARP goes the research has many relevant expeiments as far as radio and frequency propagation go that can be used in communications or electronic warfare, radio jamming etc,"
I found an article about controlling weather I'll try to find it. Imagine that weapon, send a fleet of tornadoes at em!!!!!! fuk a nuke here's a typhoon up your ass. scary scary stuff. im gonna try to find that article again.
SyN
Post by: SyN on August 16, 2004, 06:22:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on August 18, 2004, 02:30:00 AM
The only danger we face is from our own stupidity, our obsession to be totally full of corny-ass BULLSHIT, spoon fed to us by a box with light and sound coming out, we look to the box to tell us what to think, since its way too hard to just look around and use common sense.
I could dig up some articles, but I'm not in the mood. I'm on vaction. Trying to ignore the filth and dead fish that roll up on the beach everyday.
If one looks around and uses common sense, it is obvious that the environment, which sustains all life, is in serious distress. That may not be important to you. For some damn reason I'm kinda attached to the idea of life on Earth continuing. That requires clean air, clean water, clean food. Pretty simple. In that regard we're going down hill at an unstoppable pace. I predict that we'll be buying air to breath before too long, ya know, like we buy bottled water because what comes out of the tap is chemical soup. Prozac was recently found in blue gills in Tx. Ain't it fun?
'Save the Earth'? How arrogant!! Short of some mad scientists blowing the planet up, Earth will survive. Humans and other life forms (with the exception of roaches and f-in fire ants,perhaps) stand to perish. Earth will move on and repair the damage done by the ignorant behavior of humans. The forces of nature are so incredibly intellegent. It's easy to understand how some must conclude that there is a wise old man orchestrating it all. The environment is constantly seeking balance. Every human cause will have an environmental effect. To think anything else is to be ignorant.
For me, your attitude is as lame as the notion that one might pig out on McDonalds everyday and never experience bad health. Fuck the science, where's the common sense. It makes me sad that my grandson has seen only three frogs in his ten years. That we must release the fish we catch because we're afraid to eat them.
I hope things go well, but most days I'm a card totin' member of the church of futilitarianism. Despite what scientists say on either side of the issue, common sense, oral tradition, paint a pretty gloomy picture. Ancient oral traditions such as- when certain bird migrate it's a signal for time to plant, or it's safe to walk on the frozen ocean to fish until such-and-such date- are no longer valid. Hundreds/thousands of years of wisdom and oral tradtion rendered useless. Because the environment is becoming irratic, unpredictable. Very disorienting. And, that is my understanding of how global warming will effect the climate. Irratic, unusual weather; not across-the-board, consistently higher temperatures. Ice caps are melting, and it's anyone's guess what the results will be. We are involved in the great experiment. Haven't been there, haven't done that. No one really knows what the effect of sucking every drop of pertroleum out of the Earth will have. Native Americans liken petroleum to hormones. Not something you want to fuck with. Common sense begs, why deplete the entire store when there are clean sources of energy. It's a choice. Largely financial and political.
Environmentalism = religion. Environmentalists are no different than any other contingency that feels passionate about their chosen issue. I don't consider environmentalism as one's religion to necessarily be a bad idea. I appreciate and admire the way natives made social policy. I'm sure you've heard of the seven generation test? The biggest problem with modern society is that more is taken than given. Humans give nothing back to the Earth, not even their disease ridden carcasses. Even in death, they can't give- can't contribute to the natural cycle of life. Give and receive. Natives also LIVED their religion. There was respect and appreciation for the gifts that nature provided freely, without prejudice.
I think Daniel Quinn did a fabulous job of outlining the descent of modern humans in Ishmael-the devistation of the past 200 years. One may be disappointed though, he doesn't have a solution... and doesn't pretend to. He too is a member of the church of futilitarianism. As is Bill Mollison, the father of Permaculture. Most hold out hope, but common sense overrides hope. The human experiment is heading for a crash landing. Time to party and enjoy the last days. Enjoy your role in supporting the experiment 100%. Afterall, it's kinda fun surfing on the edge, huh? There could be worse things than extinction of the human species. Earth will keep rockin and rollin. And I don't think Earth gives a flying fuck about you or your SUV. Totally insignificant in the bigger scheme of things... just as you say. So why all the justification? Just enjoy it.... and pay attention.
Post by: thepatriot on August 18, 2004, 09:39:00 AM
Post by: thepatriot on August 18, 2004, 10:04:00 AM
And as far as your comment
"For me, your attitude is as lame as the notion that one might pig out on McDonalds everyday and never experience bad health."
Believe it or not it is possible for some, not everbody will be effected equally by anything and to assume that is lame at best. Although I must admit it is a pretty good post and you make a lot of great and valid points, but do you always have to be
so morbidly apethetic about life? is it really that bad?
Post by: Deborah on August 18, 2004, 01:44:00 PM
'WE'? You got a frog in your pocket?
Post by: SyN on August 19, 2004, 01:43:00 AM
funny you said that. check out this article deb
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/co ... =oid:67290 (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:67290)
SyN
Post by: Deborah on August 23, 2004, 11:04:00 AM
Is the world's oil running out fast?
By Adam Porter
at the Peak Oil conference in Berlin
How long will the oil keep flowing?
If you think oil prices are high at $40 a barrel then wait till they are four times that much.
How will you pay to run your car? How will you get the children to school? How will you heat your house? How much will transported food go up in price?
How will we pay for plastics, metals, rubber, cheap flights, Simpson's DVDs, 3G phones and everlasting economic growth?
The basic answer is, we won't.
This is the message from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO).
The group of oil executives, geologists, investment bankers, academics and others has been warning the world of high oil prices, and the ensuing fallout, for some years now.
The end of cheap oil
It includes a diverse range of oil industry insiders.
People like Ali Bakhtiari, head of strategic planning at Iran's National Oil Company (NOIC), Dr Colin Campbell, a former executive vice president of Total-Fina, and Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker and adviser to the controversial Bush-Cheney energy plan.
They are united by one idea, that global oil production is about to peak, which in turn will signal the permanent end of cheap oil.
And they warn that this is the foundation of the current rise in oil prices.
Who hurts when prices explode?
"Oil is far too cheap at the moment," says Mr Simmons.
"The figure I'd use is around $182 a barrel. We need to price oil realistically to control its demand. That is because global production is
peaking."
Large new oil fields are ever more difficult to find
"If we price oil correctly," Mr Simmons says, "it could give us time to find bridge fuels, fuels to fill the gap between an oil economy and a renewable economy. But I don't see that happening."
The adherents of the peak oil theory warn the decline of world oil output will force oil prices higher for good, and that the knock on effects could be catastrophic.
"In my opinion, unfortunately, there will be no linear change," says Iran's Ali Bakhtiari. "There will only be sudden explosive change."
"The people who will be least affected will be the super poor, who already have no access to energy, and the super rich who do not care if oil is $100 a barrel."
"It is everyone who is in the middle who will be hurt the most," says Mr Bakhtiari. "When the crisis comes there will be enormous changes."
Oil rationing?
Dr Campbell says endless growth is not possible
Much of ASPO's predictions stem from the calculations of Dr Campbell.
His work on oil reserves has long suggested that many official oil data are either flawed estimates or at worst downright lies.
Scandals like the 23% of 'lost' reserves at Royal Dutch Shell have helped to boost interest in his work.
False reserves threaten the security of energy supply, just as do bombs under pipelines.
Dr Campbell's conclusion: oil production and consumption should be regulated by governments.
"Many reserve figures are highly questionable," says Dr Campbell.
"Many great oil fields are increasingly old and inefficient. But I don't think oil is easy to produce with a sniper behind every palm tree."
"The way to increase energy security is to reduce demand," he says.
'Difficult times'
At ASPO's recent conference in Berlin, companies such as BP and Exxon and men such as Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, began to talk to the proponents of the peak oil theory.
Whilst they may not agree with Dr Campbell's theories, their attendance highlighted ASPO's emerging importance in the oil debate.
In public, Mr Birol denied that supply would not be able to meet rising demand, especially from the buoyant economies in the USA, China and India.
But after his speech he seemed to change his tune.
"For the time being there is no spare capacity. But we expect demand to increase by the fourth quarter (of the year) by three million barrels a
day."
He pinned his hopes for an increase in production squarely on troubled Saudi Arabia.
"If Saudi does not increase supply by 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year we will face, how can I say this, it will be very difficult. We will have difficult times. They must invest."
Can Saudi deliver?
But even Mr Birol admitted that Saudi production was "about flat".
Three million extra barrels a day would mean a huge 30% leap in output in just a few months.
North Sea oil production is in decline
When BBC News Online followed up by asking if this giant increase in production was actually possible rather than simply a desire he refused to
answer. "You are from the press? This is not for you. This is not for the press."
Asking other delegates - admittedly supporters of the peak oil theory - whether such a steep increase was feasible, the answers were unambiguous:
"absolutely out of the question," "completely impossible," and "3 million barrels - never, not even 300,000."
One delegate laughed so hard he had to support himself on a table.
Some recent figures tend to back up ASPO's outlook.
North Sea production is declining at an increasing rate, having peaked in 1999.
Not at the predicted flat rate of decline of 7%, but gradually accelerating from 7% to 8.5% to 11%.
And the number of major new oil fields discovered around the world fell to zero for the first time in 2003, despite an obvious increase in
technological expertise.
"We need transparency with the figures," says Dr Campbell.
"This avoids profiteering from shortages, the collapse of poor countries and it will stimulate alternatives."
"Consumer countries need to be able to audit fields, but at the same time 'flat earth' economists who believe in endless growth need to change their ideas."
And Dr Campbell has a dire warning: "If the real figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets, in the end that would suit no
one."
Post by: Deborah on August 25, 2004, 10:36:00 PM
Finite Supply- How Much Dead Stuff Does It Take to Fuel Your Tank? Tons.
By Lee Dye
Special to ABCNEWS.com
Nov. 6? Jeff Dukes was driving his lab?s huge SUV through the red hills of southern Utah when he asked his wife a question that seemed simple at the time, but led to an astonishing answer.
?We?re burning a lot of gas,? noted Dukes, then a postdoctoral researcher in ecology at the University of Utah. ?Where does all that gas come from?? he asked his wife, also an ecologist.
Months later, after extensive research, Dukes has found his answer. And it casts a new light on the precarious hole that modern humans have dug for themselves.
It turns out that it took tons and tons of tiny plants and animals, buried at the bottom of the seas, lakes or river deltas, to produce every gallon of gasoline that poured through the big engine of that SUV.
It took 98 tons, to be exact, or 196,000 pounds. For every gallon.
A Lot of Dead Matter
?That?s a shocking number,? says Dukes, who is now en route to a new post at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
And of course nobody burns just one gallon of gasoline. That probably barely got the engine started in Dukes? SUV. We burn millions of gallons every day, and we rely on fossil fuel for a wide range of other energy needs. So how much prehistoric plant and animal material do we need to get through a single year?
Dukes zeroed in on the year 1997, and relying on reports from various agencies, including the United Nations, he came up with statistics that are really astonishing.
He found that the total amount of fossil fuel burned that year amounted to 97 million billion pounds of carbon. That?s equivalent to more than 400 times the plant material produced by the entire world during a single year.
So every day, the amount of prehistoric biological material needed to produce the fossil fuels that we burn that day is more than the entire world?s production over an entire year.
Phew.
At that rate, it would seem that we should have run out a long time ago, but ?fortunately for us, there were huge reserves to begin with,?? Dukes says, thus paving the way for the Industrial Revolution and, ultimately, his university?s SUV. But his research shows in more graphic terms than most that there are limits to this finite source, and time may well be running out.
The End Matter
Dukes is not your basic alarmist. He didn?t set out to scare the daylights out of us. He just wanted to answer a simple question that very few others have tried to answer.
?I decided to try to find out just what goes into a gallon of gas,? says Dukes, who first thought that would be a simple task. ?I figured I could just do a Web search and find out. That didn?t work.?
But as a trained scientist with access to all sorts of research, he figured he would just have to dig a little deeper to find a professional paper that answered his basic question.
?I have access to all kinds of great information and searching tools, and I still couldn?t find a paper with the answer,? he says. ?Not even a ballpark estimate.?
But he kept digging and soon found himself surrounded by bits and pieces of information. Scientists from various disciplines had looked at different parts of the issue, determining for example how much organic material is lost at each step of the multimillion-year process that turns green organisms into fossil fuel.
There are losses all along the way as the organic material is trapped in a geological formation where it will remain for millions of years while it decays into fossil fuels. The amount of loss at each step in the process is known fairly well because of the extensive research needed to find and develop fuel deposits.
By adding up all the factors, Dukes determined how much organic material was required to produce the oil, coal and gas deposits that are available to us today. Or perhaps more to the point, how much of what was originally there was lost due to erosion or other natural forces and never joined the fossil fuel pool?
And that led to another astonishing figure.
Dwindling Supply
Only one-eleventh of the carbon in plants deposited in peat bogs ends up as coal, according to his calculations. But that?s amazingly efficient compared to the process that turns biological material that was deposited in ancient marine environments into oil and natural gas.
And here?s the shocker. Only one atom out of every 10,750 carbon atoms ended up as oil or natural gas. The rest washed off, blew away, or was somehow returned to the earth?s carbon bank.
It?s amazing that the process worked at all because only a tiny percentage of organic material ?grew in a place where it could eventually become stored and turned into a fossil fuel that we could reach today,? Dukes says.
?And so you would think that we would have run out a long time ago, but fortunately there were millions and millions of years during which this fossil fuel was accumulating in all its various forms.?
Nowadays, ?we are clearly running through it quite fast,? he says. That?s why he titled a report on his research, published in the November issue of the journal Climatic Change, ?Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy.?
Many experts believe the world?s production of fossil fuels has already peaked. After this, if they are right, it?s all downhill.
It will take a while to get there, of course. But along the way the world?s political power will shift increasingly toward countries that have it, and away from countries that have already spent it.
The societies that survive will be those that figured out other ways to produce the fuel they needed to power their homes, factories, and transportation devices. It?s hard not to wonder why that isn?t the No. 1 priority in the world today.
Lee Dye?s column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.
***************************
As we all probably know, oil is old biomass. To produce the fossil fuels used by industrial civilization in the year 1997 required the equivalent biomass of 400 years of planetary plant growth.
But according to the article, only 1/10,750th of the biomass each year would get turned in to oil.
So that means in 1997, civilization consumed 4.3 million years worth of oil production. That means that in 1997, we used about 12,000 years worth of oil production per day. I don?t have any reliable figures about world oil consumption now, but obviously it?s quite a bit more.
Even that?s pretty staggering though?we?re using oil 4.3 million times as fast as it?s being produced.
Then I wondered, how much oil could we use if we wanted to use it ?sustainably??that is, as fast as it?s being produced (ignoring the industrial infrastructure required to mine and refine it, which is obviously not ecologically justifiable)? Using their figures, about 22.55 billion pounds of carbon are sequestered into oil per year. At the current population of 6.45 billion, that?s 3.50 pounds per person. About 40% of crude oil is gasoline, so let?s multiply that by 0.4, which makes 1.40 pounds of carbon (in gasoline form) per person. And for reference, a gallon of gasoline contains 5.35 pounds of carbon. That means that if we used oil at the same rate as it was being produced, we would each get about one quarter of a gallon per year per person.
That would certainly cut down on rush-hour traffic.
Post by: Deborah on August 25, 2004, 10:55:00 PM
World Bank ignores its own advice
By Nadia Martinez
WASHINGTON The World Bank has declared itself to be more concerned with the needs of oil companies than the impoverished people it officially serves, by ignoring most of the recommendations of a pathbreaking report that the lender itself commissioned over three years ago.
After spending millions of dollars having an independent team of experts evaluate the effects of its energy lending, the bank brushed off most of the final report's conclusions - one of which was to pull out of oil and coal projects by 2008.
By doing this, the lender has failed to distinguish its goals and standards from the likes of Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Shell, and other profit-driven institutions. US taxpayers' contributions to the World Bank are supposed to
constitute international development assistance, not corporate handouts.
Here's what happened: After years of pressure to make the World Bank more accountable for its investments, the bank's president, James Wolfensohn, pledged in Prague in 2000 to undertake a review of the World Bank's support
for the extractive industries, particularly oil, gas, and mining.
A year later, Mr. Wolfensohn appointed Emil Salim, a former Indonesian environment minister who served under the Suharto dictatorship, to lead the review. Dr. Salim was also on the board of a coal company at the time of the appointment (though he resigned later). With those credentials, most of the environmentalists, faith-based groups, development advocates, and human
rights activists who'd demanded this assessment were pessimistic about ever seeing the bank change.
To every observer's surprise, the report concluded in January that World Bank support for fossil fuel and other mining projects simply doesn't alleviate poverty. The bank sat on the startling report for six months.
The report called on the World Bank to improve its practices in the energy industry by setting in place better mechanisms to ensure that money gained from extractive projects will be used for basic needs such as education and health, instead of weapons. It urged the World Bank to adopt policies to guarantee the rights of people affected by large extractive projects, especially indigenous people. Most important, the report concluded that the World Bank should stop financing oil and coal projects altogether.
The bank's board of directors finally discussed this report, known as the Extractive Industries Review, on Aug. 3 and opted merely to endorse minimal commitments to change the way the bank does business. For example, while they pledged to increase renewable energy financing by 20 percent annually, the base line the lender is using is so low that the target for renewable support in 2005 is lower than the bank's loans for renewables in 1994. Currently fossil fuel financing at the World Bank exceeds renewable lending by a factor of 17 to 1.
Although the World Bank is a taxpayer-funded institution whose mission is to help the poorest people on the planet, it is putting the interests of oil companies based in rich countries ahead of the needs the world's poor.
Twelve years have passed since the World Bank and most of the nations in the world committed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Rio Earth Summit. Yet the Bank remains one of the biggest catalysts of fossil-fuel extraction in the developing world, and nothing that the board did in response to the Extractive Industries Review will reverse that trend.
The World Bank's rationale for continuing to subsidize oil companies is that people in developing countries need energy. However, the Institute for Policy Studies' research suggests that 82 percent of the bank's oil- extraction projects wind up supplying consumers in the United States and Europe. The Institute has also calculated that the main beneficiaries of
World Bank fossil-fuel extractive projects are Halliburton, Shell, ChevronTexaco, Total, and ExxonMobil, in that order, and the list continues.
Another rationale the World Bank offers is that its involvement in these projects offers oversight that makes them more environmentally sound and less prone to corruption. In reality, many of the bank's projects are riddled with these kinds of problems. For example, the president of Chad reportedly used part of the first proceeds from the World Bank-supported
Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline on military weapons.
The bank's own review of extractive industries was proof enough that oil companies' profits don't trickle down to the people the institution is supposed to serve - but the World Bank chose not to bring its lending more in line with its stated mission.
Nadia Martinez is Latin America coordinator for the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2004, 10:44:00 AM
Post by: Deborah on September 29, 2004, 07:26:00 PM
Found this site today. Folks are starting to connect and meet up to discuss the issue.
http://oilawareness.meetup.com/ (http://oilawareness.meetup.com/)
And hear this incredible interview on what inspired the movie "The End of Suburbia"
http://www.postcarbon.org/eos/main.html (http://www.postcarbon.org/eos/main.html)[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-09-29 19:00 ]
Post by: Deborah on October 30, 2004, 02:26:00 PM
Kudos, Russia
Back in 1997, the nations of the world came together to negotiate an agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol in an effort to combat global warming. The pact is designed to limit the emission of greenhouse gases - the pollution that causes global warming. Last week, the Russian parliament agreed to sign the protocol, and with Russia's endorsement, it will soon come into effect.
The agreement called for the support of 55 countries accounting for 55 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries. Over 120 nations have signed on to the agreement, but they only account for 44 percent of emissions. In order to overcome the 55 percent hurdle, the agreement needed either the support of the United States or Russia.
While President Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he pledged his support for the treaty. However, once elected, he quickly reneged on his promise to the American people - but kept his promise to campaign contributors like ExxonMobil - and refused to endorse it. The United States accounts for a whopping 25 percent of global warming pollution, despite making up only four percent of the world's population. Russia's support has not swayed the United States (i.e. President Bush) to sign on.
The Kyoto Protocol is not the solution to global warming, but rather a crucial step toward that goal. Greenpeace has been working diligently on this issue since its inception. We've pushed for tougher restrictions. We've pressured countries to sign on. And we're calling for countries to go above and beyond what's called for in the treaty to truly make a difference in the global warming crisis.
Read more.
Post by: Antny on November 01, 2004, 08:07:00 PM
Been to Alaska lately? Seen the spruce trees? They're all dying. Why?
, most "science" is just a scam to keep us enslaved in our brains, a crude, half-assed attempt to keep us from thinking our own thoughts, going from point A, to point B, and all the way to Z.
uhhh...I thought that was religion's job...
Exactly what are you educated in? Dumbass 101?
You friggin idiot, In this case, I have to say that I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, try again. Though I think it was a neat little ploy to try and take the debate in Tacitus's Realm off of the poplitics, and into something you knew was a hook for all the people who give a shit about the future.
Do you think the "End of Days" is coming too, like Bush? Is it Apocalypse time?
Post by: Deborah on November 02, 2004, 12:08:00 AM
One doesn't have to depend on scientific opinion to know that the environment is not in a healthy state.
Get in your car and drive due West. What do you notice? Not many trees, especially hard woods that produce the oxygen you need to breath and reamin alive.
It was all clear cut by the cattle ranchers. Notice all that cedar (most consider it scurge). It's there for a reason. Nature sent it to help heal the devistation. Visit Bamburger Ranch to see a demonstration of how cedar can be beneficial.
Notice the oak wilt on the oak trees? Know why it's there, killing those stately old oaks? Not enough water. The trees are stressed, their needs are unmet, which make them susceptible to disease.
Notice all the dry creek beds? It doesn't take a scientist to know that they used to have water in them. Now they are run off ditches for flooding- carrying more of the precious little topsoil that's left with them. The ground is too barren and parched to allow the rain to soak in. Instead of staying where it falls, the majority ends up in the gulf. The smaller springs are dry.
What you are observing is the early (maybe mid) stages of desertification. Humans need to learn how to work with nature rather than against it. Humans can't continue to take, raping the very mother who gives them life, and expect to survive. That should be common sense.
Humans don't effect the biosphere? Hmmm. It's been said, that before the industrial revolution, a squirrel could jump tree to tree across this nation. While that might be an exaggeration, the fact remains that life is dependent on trees. Trees provide oxygen. Trees provide food. Trees cool and clean the air (if I had it my way, trees would line all concrete roads to cut down on solar gain). Parks would be full of edibles. Trees seed the clouds which creates rain. Less trees, less rain. Less rain, more draught. More draught, more desertification. More desertification, less to eat. It's easy to predict without the benefit of science.
It may not be of interest to you, but here's a fine video called "Re-greening the Desert". It is possible to turn the damage around caused by human greed and ignorance, but first humans have to recognize the need to act. I realize and have accepted that some (most?) will not.
http://www.permaculture.org.au/ (http://www.permaculture.org.au/)
There are several permaculture designed properties between Blano and Dripping Springs. A picture (or tour) is worth a thousand words.
I remain hopeful, knowing full well that humans may cause their own extinction. I'm not awaiting the rapture, but those who are do not support envioronmental laws. Ecocide is good news for them. Means they'll be going home soon. I say praise the lord. Rapture the bastards, and quick.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15814 (http://www.alternet.org/story/15814)
Post by: Antny on November 05, 2004, 04:05:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on November 06, 2004, 12:23:00 AM
Post by: Deborah on November 10, 2004, 01:03:00 PM
Science & Space
Global warming 'threat to Arctic'
Monday, November 8, 2004 Posted: 6:40 AM EST (1140 GMT)Polar Bear.
The report says polar bears are unlikely to survive.
Post by: Deborah on November 11, 2004, 11:50:00 PM
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/INTERV ... /index.php (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/INTERVIEWS/JAMES.HOWARD.KUNSTLER/index.php)
And listen to #2
2. What about all the substitutes for oil - solar, hydrogen, nuclear etc, and how will suburbia fare in a low-energy world? [5:11] mp3 | transcript
Whadda ya think?
Post by: Deborah on November 23, 2004, 03:32:00 PM
http://www.statesman.com/business/conte ... 410a0.html (http://www.statesman.com/business/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/business_142aee8ae53ea0d410a0.html)
CHICAGO -- McDonald's Corp. CEO Charlie Bell, who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in May, resigned Monday to focus on his battle with the disease, the company announced.
Post by: Anonymous on November 28, 2004, 06:03:00 PM
Watch a clip on global warming at:
http://www.leonardodicaprio.org/whatsim ... arning.htm (http://www.leonardodicaprio.org/whatsimportant/globalwarning.htm)
"We must demand a Separation of Oil and State" ~~Leonardo DiCaprio
Post by: Anonymous on November 28, 2004, 06:57:00 PM
Poetry by Harrelson- 'Thoughts From Within':
http://www.voiceyourself.com/03_thought ... 3_main.php (http://www.voiceyourself.com/03_thoughtsfromwithin/03_main.php)
Discussion Forums:
http://www.voiceyourself.com/07_getupst ... illage.php (http://www.voiceyourself.com/07_getupstandup/07_village.php)
Post by: Anonymous on December 05, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
Check out this 'Green' lodging establishment in Austin, Tx http://www.habitatsuites.com/ourstory.htm (http://www.habitatsuites.com/ourstory.htm)
In addition to other green technologies, they are installing 108 solar panels and the rep had this to say:
We will generate about 25 kW of energy from our 108 panels. It won't take us off the grid, but will have these effects: 38,000 tons of CO2 will not be emitted; it is equivalent of planting 5.2 acres of trees, or taking 4.3 cars off the road completely. It's a start! And we hope it will be an effective demonstration of how solar energy works and what a good alternative energy source it is. Please feel free to contact me again, if you'd like to visit more about the specifics of how we made our vendor choices, the rebates offered, etc.
Habitat Suites is happy to be a resource for our green-minded community!
***
5.2 acres of trees!! That is significant, as trees generate oxygen and seed clouds to produce rain. And equivalent to taking 4.3 cars off the road COMPLETELY !! Who could possibly argue against such sustainable rationale???
Post by: Deborah on March 16, 2005, 11:33:00 PM
03/15/05
Contact: Sandra Kirkpatrick
479-659-4051
www.rhizomecollective.org (http://www.rhizomecollective.org)). A donation of $10 is suggested. The lecture will include an explanation of how the technology works, where to find good oil, how to filter it, and suggestions on forming local user cooperatives (poster attached).
The basics:
Any diesel engine can be converted to run on vegetable oil (VO). In fact, Rudolf Diesel debuted a version of his original engine at the 1900 World's Fair running on 100% peanut oil. The main difference between petroleum
"diesel" fuel and VO is the viscosity or thickness of the liquid. Once VO is heated to about 150-200 degrees, it will run through the engine the same as petroleum diesel.
What are the benefits of VO?
The benefits of VO fuels over traditional petroleum diesel are enormous! VO fuels reduce consumption while recycling waste, as well as reducing our dependence on non-renewable and foreign fuel sources. VO fuels also drastically reduce harmful emissions, including a 100% reduction of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, 40-60% reduction in soot emissions, and reductions of all PAH's (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).
Bio-diesel versus VO:
Bio-diesel is increasing in popularity across the country. It is a fuel made of vegetable oil processed with lye and methanol, which changes the viscosity so that it can run through the diesel engine without any heating.
In many parts of the country, bio-diesel is a 'boutique fuel', requiring more traditional petroleum diesel fuel than it saves to make and transport it to distributors. In other cases, individuals make bio-diesel themselves or in cooperatives. In addition, one purchases bio-diesel for more than petroleum diesel, while RVO can usually be obtained for free.
Contact information:
Sandra Kirkpatrick and Christopher King are happy to talk to individuals, groups, and media about RVO and related issues. They can be contacted via email at MotherEarthBus@yahoo.com or they can be contacted at 479-659-4051.
Post by: Deborah on March 28, 2005, 10:12:00 PM
MONSANTO WARNS TWO BILLION FARMERS: "STOP SAVING YOUR SEEDS"
Since the advent of farming, thousands of years ago, farmers have carefully collected seeds at harvest so as to have enough seed for the next year's planting. Concerned that seed saving by farmers reduces their profits, seed and biotech giants like Monsanto have rammed though controversial "intellectual property laws" in numerous countries that make traditional seed saving a crime. Last year, Monsanto harassed and/or sued more than 500 U.S. farmers who saved their seeds, forcing them to pay the company over $15 million in fines, including up to 8 month long prison sentences. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsant ... 031405.cfm (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/seedsaving031405.cfm)
MONSANTO HELPS KEEP A NOTORIOUS TOXIC PESTICIDE ON THE MARKET
This week, Minnesota became the first U.S. state to attempt to follow the lead of the European Union and ban Atrazine. The commonly used corn pesticide has been directly linked to cancer, low sperm counts and widespread deformities in frogs, and has been showing up at increasing rates in wells and municipal water supplies. In response to the proposed law, chemically-dependent corn farmers and distributors of the pesticide, including Monsanto and Syngenta, successfully flexed their lobbying muscle and convinced lawmakers to reject the bill, claiming that Atrazine is safe, and that a ban would negatively impact profits. http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/a ... 031705.cfm (http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/atrazine031705.cfm)
MONSANTO WARNS TWO BILLION FARMERS: "STOP SAVING YOUR SEEDS"
MONSANTO HELPS KEEP A NOTORIOUS TOXIC PESTICIDE ON THE MARKET
JUDGE RULES AGAINST ONE MILLION VIETNAMESE IN FAVOR OF MONSANTO
IN THE WORDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
MILLIONS OF CITIZENS COUNTERING MONSANTO'S BUSINESS PRACTICES
BIRTH DEFECT RATES SKYROCKET ON FLORIDA FARMS
QUICK FOOD COMPANY NEWS MUNCHIES
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS REQUIRE MORE PESTICIDES
GLOBAL GE NEWS TIDBITS
NEW STUDIES SHOW SUSTAINABLE FARMING CREATES NUTRITIONALLY SUPERIOR FOOD
UK SCHOOLS GOING ORGANIC
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/032505.cfm (http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/032505.cfm)