CountryPlans Forum

George Monbiot on solutions to global warming.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1935560,00.html

QuoteIt is a testament to the power of money that Nicholas Stern's report should have swung the argument for drastic action, even before anyone has finished reading it. He appears to have demonstrated what many of us suspected: that it would cost much less to prevent runaway climate change than to seek to live with it. Useful as this finding is, I hope it doesn't mean that the debate will now concentrate on money. The principal costs of climate change will be measured in lives, not pounds. As Stern reminded us yesterday, there would be a moral imperative to seek to prevent mass death even if the economic case did not stack up.

Treehugger summarized Monbiot's suggestions like this, here:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/britains_stern.php

Quote1) a 90% decrease in greenhouse emissions by 2030.
2) Give everyone a personal carbon ration. If you run out, buy it from someone else.
3) Every new house should be built to the German PassiveHaus standard: no heating system.
4) ban incandescent lights, patio heaters and garden floodlights.
5) redeploy the nuclear missile budget to wind turbines.
6) stop all road building and widening programs; invest in coaches and trains.
7) make every gas station have battery charging stations for overnight wind-powered charging
8) Freeze and then reduce airport capacity.
9) ban and close out-of-town superstores.

Oh, and all of this between 4 and 10 years from now.

The comments are pretty interesting at Treehugger--at that link.

It all sounds good, but then why is our gov't in partnership with Mexico & Canada planning the Texas Corridor superhwy - eminent domain on over 500,000 acres, more cement, less farmland, more trucks that aren't required to have the same smog standards as trucks in the United States - the Mexican trucks will eventually go straight to Kansas City where there will be a Mexican customs under Mexican domain - not United States!  Now multiply the acres of cement & US citizens' loss of property through eminent domain when the superhwy goes all the way to the Canadian border!  More farmland, forests, wetlands etc covered over with cement!  The Security & Prosperity Partnership is on the "fast track"  :o  Do ya think it might have any affect on "global warming"?

http://www.freepressinternational.com/wc.html - this link is to a video I posted awhile back on another possible cause of global warming.  A billion watts of concentrated microwaves aimed at the ionosphere superheating & destablizing it, hmmmmm, I wonder if that could cause "global warming"?  Read about HAARP in Alaska... or watch the video where numerous scientists, ecologists, medical people talk about HAARP & the potential damage to the environment & people's health...

It seems that the media & most people want to ignore the elephant in the room & focus on minor changes that may or may not help...  I wish it was as simple as that...  :-/

Here's another link   Scientists Say White House Muzzled Them (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/01/D8L4NF5G1.html)

QuoteA report last month in the scientific journal Nature claimed administrators at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blocked the release of a report that linked hurricane strength and frequency to global warming. Hansen had said in February that NOAA has tried to prevent researchers working on global climate change from speaking freely about their work.

NOAA has denied the allegations, saying its work is not politically motivated.

I think one of the single greatest things we can do is increase the percentage of the planet that has forests on it.

That means re-claiming huge tracts of desert lands and turning them into orchards or irrigated rain like forests...So be it..

Huge Desalinization plants for every city within 100 miles of an ocean...This would allow the freshwater currently being piped pumped dammed from our lakes and rivers to go back to the lakes and rivers or to be used to irrigate land for forests.

In most parts of the world we re-use and recycle 10% of the water that goes into our drains toilets...etc..

Changing that to 90% recycled and re-used would allow us to demand less of our water tables and rivers

Planting huge tracts of trees and re-claiming desert lands would mean less drought...Less wind storms...It would reduce carbon dioxide levels across the planet... It would help eliminate smog...Improve air quality for everyone..

And it would lessen the demand on current wilderness for agriculture and food...Long term more forests would mean more habitat for animals and more resources to be harvested in the form of lumber.

Water is the key to saving the planet...Better use of fresh water and using salt water for coastal populations would allow us to cool the surface of the earth...

People forget that water is a terrific moderator... The more water that is on the surface of the planet the longer it takes to heat up the planet... Allowing temputures to remain moderate

Piping massive amounts of water in from oceans and desalinizing them...would erase the effects of rising water levels also...

Using salt water in all coastal areas and then recycling our waste water and sewage and releasing that recycled water into the water table would allow the water table to rise worldwide...We would replenish the aquifers...And create additional water resources worldwide.

Africa, Australia,  the middle east and western North America would benefit from this specifically..All of these continents have vast tracts of land where a little bit of water would make a huge difference.

I read a report where it said ocean fish stocks were in serious trouble...maybe it is time to put people to work irrigating lands that are now deserts...Buildingpipelines and pumping stations...Creating a massive new food source which would eliminate our dependancy to fish the oceans as a primary food source.

Better use of water would easily allow us to double or triple the amount of food that we grow...And at the same time create more arable and out of desert and more land capable of supporting forests ....

Water is the key...It should be our top priority instead of oil...

Some have the idea that population control is the key, Peter.  They advocate getting rid of 80% of the population.

Cut down the people and the water and global warming should take care of itself.

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/brotherhoodpart6.shtml

Peter, since the elites are planning on the North American Union (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/) with the Security & Prosperity Partnership (http://www.spp.gov/), the United States will just be able to drain Canada of their water!  Hey, that sounds like a solution!  :)  Glenn mentioned that we could build a major pipeline along the SuperHwy to pipe the water to our cities & deserts, you did mention, one time, that Canada had more water than it needed, didn't you?   ;)

Sassy

BTW, how is the remodeling job going on your house?  You'll have to post some pictures, the house sounded like a real neat place - glad you are restoring it.

sassy

Nightmare wrapped in a disaster...Me and that house...More on that later..

Yes Canada does have a decent amount of water Manitoba is just about all water...Remnants of the largest lake in the world...Huge Glacial lake...

And in British Columbia there are several waterways and lakes that could easily be diverted to  irrigate california and Nevada

Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Northern California could all use water...they have the climate to grow massive amounts of food...

Canada could use the extra revenue as well...Canada has made a really nice niche for itself making sure it supplies the world with resources...They sell massive amounts of hydro electricity to NYC...They pump massive amounts of Natural Gas to New England from Nova Scotia and the largest single oil deposit in the world is the Alberta Tar sands oil fields..

This is not to mention the mineral rich Canadian shield that has massive amounts of Copper, Gold, Platinum, Nickel and even Diamonds

If they would just invest in pipelines to pump and distribute the water Several states could grow massive amounts of food and irrigate forests...not to mention alleviating the demand on rivers such as the Colorado...

The one thing I fear is that if they started to pump massive amounts of water from Canada they would lose sight of recycling waste water and desalinizing along coastal cities...

The Key is to recycle 90 of waste water and to use desalinized salt water for our cities...This would allow more water in our lakes and rivers to remain for wildlife and fish...It would also have a doubling effect as it would allow more water for forests, food growth and replenishing the water table.

People that have not been through Bakersfield do not understand how much you can transform a landscape with water... Millions of acres of what would be scant grazing for cattle in California have been transformed into the best orchards in the world...

Far as the eye can see mile after mile along both sides of the highways...Orange, date, pecan trees grow lush and green

Not only do the trees improve the quality of the air we breath...They prevent soil erosion...They lower the surface temputure in a hot arid region...They keep the water table up...They create massive amounts of food for the entire world...they create massive amounts of jobs to maintain....And for the economy trade products are created to eliminate trading deficits.

It is hard to imagine it...But literally in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and California...each of those states could easily transform the same amount of land that would equal the size of Say New Hampshire

Just getting water from Canada will do real signifigant long term good for the USA....As cities like Vegas keep booming the water would get used up...Nothing would change....Not until we started to recycle 90% or more of our waste water and started to desalinize on a large scale could signifigant changes be seen

People are just starting to realise that Water is among the most precious resources on the planet

If you had tried to explain the idea of paying for bottled water to someone 30 years ago you would be laughed out of town....Even in arid regions of the planet

Gee, 30 years ago I bought an occasional bottle of Perrier or Pelegrino (but they are both fizzy waters).  And as I worked in a building with no water (or sewer--but they were available next door or across the street), we did buy drinking water for the store.  Since Nashville water always has its own flavor--too much chlorine, on occasion totally undrinkable because of algae--it seemed perfectly reasonable--and we drank a whole lot less in the way of cola beverages.  40 years ago, people were horrified that I even tried to make coffee with tap water in LA.

Desalinized water has a reputation for being worse than either Nashville or LA water.  It is not "pure water," as I understand, but still has a significant quantity of salts in it, at least when produced in tap water type quantities (let alone the kind of quantities that would be usable for irrigation).

And I keep reading that irrigation, even with pretty good water, often has the effect of making the land too salty to use.  That seems to be why Iraq is a desert and not the Garden of Eden.

Amanda

Well you have a point on Desalinization...It does depend on what type...The largest and one of the cheapest types of desalinization is the double reverse osmosis which they use and have perfected in Israel...The water is pure when it comes out the other end...

It is worth noting that irrigation can cause salt damage...That is why they need to stop just using the colorado river in the USA to irrigate western states...Some rivers have a terribly high mineral content...the Colorado is one such river as it cuts it'w way through the grand canyon moving a lot of sediment and minerals in the water with it.

Which is why it is important to take all of the waste water and recycle it...And allow it to be put back into the water table....The water table in America keeps getting lower and lower...Wells are routinely 500 feet deep....Pioneer americans could get more water at a fraction of that depth

Replenishing the water table would allow farmers to pump more water out of the ground where the ecosystem would have a chance to better filter the water naturally

It is not a perfect solution but it would play a major role in helping stay off the effects of increased salt contents in irrigated soil

As for the arguement about the amount of water needed for large cities...We have seen in Saudi Arabia and Israel that millions of people can have all of their water needs met completely with desalinized water....They have perfected the technology and it has gotten to the point where desalinized water would be cheaper than pumping water from the colorado river for California residents

I think in the next 20 years we will see lakes and bodies of water with desalinizing staions on them to lower their salt content...So that water taken from these bodies of water will not pollute irrigated lands with salt

Here's a link to possibly the worst cause of global warming that many people aren't aware of - this video only talks about one of the culprits in the US - there are many of the same throughout the world - including Australia, Norway, Canada, Russia, France, Japan, Peru, UK & S.Africa.  

If more people were aware of this, we might just be able to create such an outcry against it, we'd have our solution right then & there!  

http://www.freepressinternational.com/wc.html

There's also a large pdf file I could send, if anyone is interested.  Scott Stevens, a former weatherman, quit his job & started doing serious research after Katrina.  The pdf file is his research.  

This turned up on another list today (not all of it below):

http://www.abc.net.au/centralvic/stories/s1805531.htm

QuoteThe problem with desalination has always been that it's expensive - plants cost a lot to build, and they're not cheap to run, either. But RMIT scientists say they've developed a solar-thermal desalination plant that turns salty groundwater intot he good stuff, and produces no greenhouse emissions in the process. It'll be on display at Pyramid Hill.

Dr John Andrews, from the School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, is the Project Manager, and he says it's for real.

"It's certainly technically possible to use solar heat to desalinate salty groundwater or seawater. The groundwater at Pyramid Salt, where we're doing this demonstration, has a salinity quite near that of seawater.

"The technology is proven; we'll be showing that it can be done today."

So how does it work?

"The basic process is using solar heat to heat up the salty water. We then introduce it into a chamber where the air has been taken out, where it will boil at a temperature less than 100 degrees centigrade. We're using solar heat - at its hottest, around 80 degrees centigrade.

"The salty water boils, and just the water comes off as vapour. That's then condensed by passing over cooling coils, and then we collect the fresh water that comes out of that condensing process."

That leaves a concentrated salty solution behind, which a salt company can then use to produce salt.

Other processes have been used for producing fresh water out of salty; Perth's plant uses reverse osmosis, and other thermal processes include multi-stage flash or multiple-effect evaporation.

"In Perth, they're using reverse osmosis and that needs electricity," Dr Andrews says.

"They're overcoming the greenhouse problem - which is always the basic problem you've got to overcome - by having a windfarm that inputs electricity into the grid to an equivalent amount to what's used by the plant that's set up in the Kwinana complex.

"We're using solar heat, not electricity, to see if we can get a cheaper option that has no greenhouse emissions."

The salt producer hosting the demonstration has a history of collaboration with RMIT for solar power.

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

What's the solution for this problem?

Oops, and here we thought that the Gates money all came from Microsoft.

Monbiot's book is available from Powells bookstore--in the original British edition.  I read something somewhere that the U.S. publisher is holding it up for us.

He's talking about setting carbon limits for us all.  Maybe especially in an island nation drastic carbon limitations.

To the extent that there probably won't be supermarkets where we can go any time any day and cruise the aisles to find what looks good.

Right now, sites like treehugger are saying things like--buy local, have dinners where everything--or nearly--comes from less than a hundred miles away.  But going to those places to buy may produce as much CO₂ as bringing the one pound of Chilean grapes in as part of a container full of grapes in a full shipload.

If we get serious about this, then some of the oil/gas horrors will be take care of themselves.

Well the melting polar ice caps are a concern... and that is from greenhouse gas ...

But the growing stockpile of "nucular" waste is a growing world problem....We create waste that will be insanely deadly toxic for 10,000 years or something like that...

The solution to the world's problems will not come from weaning off oil...It will come from Power generation that is non toxic, and emits less greenhouse gases.

Be it solar...or the heavywater trillium fission plant they are trying to build in france.

Cheap clean abundant energy will solve a lot of the poverty problems in the world...It will also allow for the electric car industry to take hold...

It is already exponentially cheaper to plug your car in and drive it 100 miles a day on the batteries and charge it when you get home at night...Imagine the possibilities if Electricity costs were cut in half across the world...

There is a massive push by General Motors and Toyota to have next generation battery technology...They have designed electric cars that can carry 6 adults and travel comfortably long distances without charging...

they are waiting for the electric infrastructure and battery technology to catch up...

A lot of this problem comes from a lack of funding...The beefits of solar were known 100 years ago...Zero funding was allocated for Solar, Wind and eco sources of electricity...It was oil, coal, gas...all the way.

Fundamentally changing the way we spend our money would result in a paradigm shift....Take a fraction of the money we spend blowing up Afghanistan and Iraq each year...And spend that on research for longer lasting batteries..Or spend it on building better/ cheaper solar cells.

Spend a fraction of the defense budget that goes for weapon design and research...Folks we are talking about billions upon billions of dollars...And just start planting trees...In america...And in the rain forest...Start planting trees...

Start fighting deforestation...Stop the spread of deserts...And effectively lower the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere

Half the problem is the emissions...The other half if reduction in vegetation of the planet... So planting trees goes a long way... This is something that need not be in the future...We do not need a new tech breakthrough to achieve this...Plant the trees and see drastic improvements....It is instantaneous easy to calculate and practical.

The other huge problem is population...We need to see a stabilization of the world's population...If it were to reach a point where growth was negliable or even if growth stopped....Then advances in food growth, or water management would allow for better conditions worldwide..It would mean more resources could be alloacted to restoring the environment...More resources could be allocated to cleaning up the wastes and the air...

So the cliff notes version of the solution is less people....More trees...And by golly that alone would solve almost all of the problem....

As the ocean warms up it is increasingly burping up methane -- enough to set off the gas sensors on ocean going vessels.  

Reducing population -- the US is doing a pretty good job of that.  Over 600,000 Iraqi's and counting,  DU is killing our own troops and their offspring - major birth defects - irradiated wives, and any others over there - Italian's have been smart enough to realize that-- Officially over 3000 of our troops dead - unofficially the military magazines put the number at more than 25000 if I recall right and and something like 125000 with severe enough problems from Iraq - Afghanistan and more, that they shouldn't worry about procreating anyway.

It'll probably all work out in the wash. :-/

QuoteYes Canada does have a decent amount of water Manitoba is just about all water...Remnants of the largest lake in the world...Huge Glacial lake...

Manitoba, that's where I was born! Lake Agazzi is the name of that ancient lake. FYI, the lake left an extremely flat plain. As you drive across southern Manitoba today from Winnipeg, east to west it's bone numbing flat. The only elevational relief are the drainage ditches that outline the roads. BUT, then you come to a rise! That's the old shoreline of the old lake. (It's also bone numbing flat the other direction but the shoreline gets mixed up with some ignaceous rock formations (Canadian Shield) and that confuses the issue. Also interesting are several mounds that extend for miles; they are rich gravel fields, the morraines of ancient glaciers. .... just in case your mind wasn't full of enough trivia!

Oh, northern Manitoba today is a fisherman's paradise. Minnesota says they're the land of 10,000 lakes; MB (official post office abreviation) has way more lakes. Also a great place for hunting; moose, deer, etc.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)  Interesting article & viewpoint...

Neither NRSP nor Dr. Tim Ball made George Monbiot's index to Heat, although the idea that he is pretty famous for--warming, if true, would be very good for Canada--did.

But NSRP does make it on other lists--as an oil company sponsored organization.

Ball has his own page as a denier here (in a geography, not climatology department--although this may be from smog-blog.):  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Probably we don't need to completely damn people for belonging o "an oil company sponsored organization" especially without asking how much, how involved with a whole web of organizations, etc., but the oil companies did learn a lot from (then) Phillip Morris on how to confuse issues.

Ball's lawsuit sounds pretty interesting.  Against the writer of a letter to the editor and the newspaper that printed it.  (as opposed to letting the paper become bird cage linings and forgotten).  But there's a lot about that on a slightly difficult website called smogblog--difficult just because so many people have put so much into it.  (and I need to get up around 6 AM tomorrow.  I hate having to get up at a given time)

Somebody somewhere talks about Pascal's not really a "proof" of the existence of God.  Basically if we guess wrong, and there is no god, it may well be a no harm no foul situation (don't ask my athiest acquaintances to believe that!).  On the other hand, if we guess wrong, declare that there is no god, and the old man with the white beard comes back and does everything that conservative believers think he will do, then we're in great big trouble.  Found it: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/zerofootprint_r.php

Much easier to assume that climate change is real and plan accordingly.  This could have positive effects.  Although our lives would be very different.

There was a fascinating interview in Grist magazine with the man who popularized, if not coined, the phrase "death tax."  Well worth reading.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/01/31/luntz/index.html?source=weekly

Being pro-active & doing your part to reduce the impact you make on the environment is a good thing - preparing for possibilities is a good thing... and getting away from the intense urbanization is a good thing...

But then

Quotehttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/zerofootprint_r.php RD: Technology is trusted to do a lot of the basic surface operational risk and methodology. How do you measure the information risk of the bank and how much capital you should put towards it? If you're HSBC and your headquarters are in London, how much capital do you need to support the fact that an office might be taken out? I really think that these things are hard to quantify. If you think about the cost of SARS to our economy, it was really high and I don't think you would have been able to forecast that. There were two little planes hitting two towers in New York and it did small numbers by Baghdad's standards --

THD: -- and it cost a trillion dollars.

RD: We couldn't have forecast that either. Forecasting doesn't work. Risk management and resilience do

unfortunately makes me suspect of the whole premise...

Why aren't people talking more about the weather manipulation that has been going on since the 1950's?  Why aren't people talking more about HAARP & the superheating of the ionosphere with a billion watts of microwaves?  

And then you look at the real intentions that the UN's Agenda 21 - to place people in highly urbanized locations & to make most of the world's land inaccessible to most of society... take a look at the Santa Cruz site I posted Liberty Garden (http://www.libertygarden.com/gateway/html/)
http://www.libertygarden.com/documents/LG_private-property.pdf &  The Future of Food (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3643830908060069005)

I've only seen the trailer for "An Inconvenient Truth" so can't really judge whether what Al Gore shows is truth or more political hype - you see, I don't trust politicians too much...  :-/ So, like with most things, I have to play the devils advocate until I get through all the propaganda & see some truth...

It's just like with 9/11 - so many questions unanswered, in fact, totally ignored by the political "leaders" on all sides, except for a few.   There's no mention by these same "leaders" about weather manipulation, chemtrails, HAARP...  I guess that's why I like Ron Paul - he has dared to question 9/11, the Iraq war, weather manipulation, the Patriot Act, etc etc.   Most of the others are still in a "popularity" contest - haven't ever progressed past highschool...  :-/

Resilience in that context means being able to withstand a calamity.

So that the old "for want of a nail" doesn't come true for the whole world--"for want of a fuse....the whole electric grid in the US went down for three weeks" type thing.

these guys say that the earliest written version was before 1400, somebody else cites Benjamin Franklin (who probably put it in Poor Richard's Almanac)  http://www.rhymes.org.uk/for_want_of_a_nail.htm

For want of a nail - rhyme

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Resilience also means that we don't have to regret not taking a moderatly simple action that would have saved--or helped save--a way of life because we were for instance soooo sure that technology would cure all, or there weren't any problems that could land us in trouble.

Just like the boyscout motto... "Be prepared"... that's what we've been doing -  & being informed is part of being prepared, IMHO...

Here's an article from the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html

QuoteLast month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

I tend to think that I'm like the kid (under 20, I think) working for me just now.  When asked what he eats, he replied "food."  The two people working with me right now are both pretty easy to cook for--or with.

But in general when I do cook, it's often vegetarian, frequently vegan (no eggs or dairy).  And like it.  And recently, I've been cooking a lot.

There have been exceptions, of course.  A no-bean chili with sausage and beef and turkey.  Or the cold and damp night I made chile con queso right off the Rotel can--complete with a whole pound of Velveeta cheese, took it to a potluck known for people who are seriously picky about what they eat.  (Atkins is good.  Don't combine fruits and vegetables in one meal.  Ovo-lacto vegetarian, who does eat fish.  Fish are inedible.  Chicken is a vegetable.  Peanut allergy.  A couple of supertasters--spicy foods?--why are you trying to kill us? Non-drinkers.  Home-made beer and wine are wonderful, and science says, soooo good for you.  Go deeper and it doesn't get any better.)  Even the less sensitive of the supertasters, and someone who believes--probably correctly--that a serious health food regimen has saved his life--were scarfing it down--and he'd watched me make it.

Seriously, I think that Frances Moore Lappe made the point--IIRC in the first edition of Diet for a Small Planet, a long long time ago--that one of the biggest users of water in California was farmers growing alfalfa to feed cows.  Water was already an issue in California and other western states, but we hadn't done much if any thinking about eating local, or global warming (in fact I think that the fear--still could happen--was that parts of the globe were going to get colder).

Yep, I'm the same way - either am eating organic, mostly fruits, veggies & whole grains or chicken & barbecued steak... & then at times (more often than I'd like) I just feel like eating junk - I'll never be a purist when it comes to food.  Now, that Velveeta cheese - Glenn said "it's nice to know that other people think that Velveeta is cheese, also  ;) )

But getting back to the article - there's so many variables that go into the global warming  - don't think I could completely go vegetarian.   And just watched the video "Who Killed the Electric Car?"  What a shame...  :-/

It's amazing how much energy goes into the food chain. Calculate what human and machine effort went into a package of fozen vegetables that I toughtlessly take out of the freezer and throw in the microwave.... I don't know but I'll bet it takes more energy than an ancient farmer used working his land for a whole year.

I wonder sometimes if someone coming into an American kitchen from 300 years ago would even recognize most of the stuff we eat as food?

Back then everyone had to live on locally grown organic food. They called it FOOD!

No Cheeze Whiz and not even frozen peas from California! Now we have to work really hard to get locally grown organic food. We call it NATURAL. It almost makes me want to grow my own! (If I only had the ENERGY).

QuoteIt almost makes me want to grow my own! (If I only had the ENERGY).

We used to grow a lot of our own vegetables back home (in Canada). Beans, peas, corn, assorted squash, tomatoes, potatoes, broccoli, and so on. It took a lot of work. It did taste real good and we froze the freezables for winter use. Here in NM where we are it is much more work, requires much more water, and is not worth it. I guess that proves we were never meant to live in the desert.

You would be surprised what drip irrigation on a simple timer can do for you. :)

No, I wouldn't be surprised.   :-?  I have a multi branch automatic drip system for the city/suburban home. It's now used just for the 7 trees that normally wouldn't be able to survive in the desert heat/dryness without the watering. The natural undeveloped surrounding land doesn't support anything taller than a average sized Pinon Pine or a good sized Cholla's that almost throw their needles at you. We used to have more plants, bushes, that we also irrigated with the drip system. The results were phenomenal. Drip is the only way to go to make good effective use of your water. We tried a small veggie garden when we first moved here, but found the direct sun just dried the plants out so fast. I'd need a bunch of sunscreen or something to moderate the sun/heat. Or a greenhouse? My neighbor tried that and he quit after a couple years of toasting his plants.

However we redid the landscaping a few years back and now have fewer plants and those are native plants that can survive the 90 - 100 degree cloudless summer days. We have a virtual truckload of cacti. The temperature is bad enough but the direct sun is murder.  :'(  

Several yers ago I read an article that said the average potato in the supermarket had  travelled 500 miles to get there.  In my local supermarkets in N. Georia there are potatoes from Idaho and Maine.   A local farmer who grows superb potatoes can't get them in the stores because he is too small a producer for agribiz to bother with.  

Production aside, our distribution system leaves much to be desired.  But it puts more food in reach of the consumer than any other in widespred use.

Sort of like government.   Democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just better than the alternatives.   (Anyone remember who first said that?)

I, myself am from the Will Rogers school of government.  "Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for".

Unfortunately it looks rather as though the traveling hundreds of miles to market is becoming the standard for "organic" products as well.

but....

Native foods can feed more people better than we think, according to Gary Paul Nabham in the book Why Some Like It Hot: Food, Genes, and Cultural Diversity.  Although maybe not Caucasians in the land of the Pima or Navajo.  Pima and Navajo, definitely.  And remember that there are pretty well founded rumors that the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas numbered many many more than what the old world settlers found as they headed west.  For instance, some damned virus shared with pigs probably took out many many people after the pigs escaped from the Spanish and proliferated.  I don't remember if this is in the book.

But it's a fascinating book.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Some-Like-Hot-Diversity/dp/1559634669

Just "stumbled upon" this video - don't know how long ago it was produced - for alternative power
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=hofol09py2

Interesting> The one detail they didn't talk about though, is how much electrical power is used to break down the water molecule into the 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. My understanding is that at present the cost of the electrical power is one of the hurdles. Hydrogen technology is perfectable IMO, it's where does the electrical power come from... has to be a renewable source to make any sense.

Hybrid Garbage Truck!!  Hydraulics, not electrics. Good idea for vehicles with lots of stop-n-go operation.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2006/08/hybrid_garbage_.html

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/business/16667339.htm

I have seen one using a resonant frequency that makes much more hydrogen for less power input.  Long ago.

The man from Knowledge Publications (and his mentor) seem to think that bad quality hydrogen is pretty easy to make, and will still burn very cleanly.  It's been a while since I've looked at his books on the subject--just got some more in, the biogas--mostly methane--one looks like even I could do it.  One 55 gallon drum, one a bit smaller, you know you're making gas when the second one floats.  It's reprint of two US government pamphlets aimed towards farmers in Africa.  (a lot of his books are--sometimes badly reprinted--reprints of older books, from the 1870's on), and sometimes both the old and the new ones are fascinating.

http://knowledgepublications.com/index.htm

Wow, Peterbilt in the news for something other than trying to break its unions!  (I'm retired from them)

Even if it doesn't look like they developed anything, just adopted it.

I might even want an Expedition if it got 27 mpg in the city--but only if the country mpg was comparable, which it won't be.  Just like the electrics, these get a lot better fuel mileage in the city.  And I don't live in the city anymore.

LED light bulb advances
It's only equivalent to a 40 watt incandescent at present, but who knows where it will lead.
http://www.sys-con.com/read/281703.htm
I found that the power company in The Netherlands is selling them at about $10 each (in a pack of 4)
http://www.oxxio.nl/Oxxio/Thuis/Producten/Lamp/LampTarieven

I've been almost tempted to buy one of the shop worklights with a ton of them in it but a bit high yet.  We bought one earlier but the switch went out so took it back to Costco.  
Someday soon though...

If you've got a steam engine, (stationary, railroad, Stanley steamer) running on coal, it might well be cost-effective (carbon-effective? maybe) to use the heat that you're not using to generate hydrogen--and then use that along with your burning coal for whatever you're using your steam engine for.  This seems to be the answer from the Knowledge publication books.  But I haven't looked all that far.

Bio-gas (methane) might be a better idea for home use.  I'd wondered about Jean Pain's system--does he deplete his woods of nutients in order to make his methane.  Still don't know.  

But there are ridiculously simple methane producers (two drums--one a bit bigger than the other, with the smaller one set upside down in the larger--the smaller one rises as methane is produced, can be used directly, or  put into an innertube).  Not great for vehicle use, though.

Even more than global warming, the stuff you just talked about is good for being ready in case of a burp in the system.  Our blundering leaders cannot indefinitely keep the system operating in spite of their greed and mismanagement so it will pay to be prepared.

Note the big red steam engine in the snow picture in front of my RV garage.  It's an 8x8 vertical. It is in working condition, but I think I am going to try making a propane expander next.  It gets power by transferring pressure from a heated propane tank to a cooled one then switching running a generator as the gas moves from tank to tank.  It only uses the pressure and does not use up the propane.

Quote
Note the big red steam engine in the snow picture in front of my RV garage.  

I saw that and wondered about it; some kind of a pump I thought.... ::)

Propane expander sounds interesting   :-/

That engine ran the drapers and driers at the SunMaid raisin plant in Fresno around 1900.  An old fellow came up to me at the Fair in Fresno years ago when I showed it - so excited he could hardly stand himself.  He was around 80 to 84 then and said he used to run them at the plant.  He said there were about 20 of them there.

The expander is made from a Sanden air conditioning compressor with the check valve removed.  It will then run backward expanding the propane into the empty tank becoming a motor and charging the batteries with a generator.  I have read about it here

http://www.redrok.com/engine.htm but I haven't tried it yet.  I have concerns that the expanding propane may freeze the compressor/expander but maybe the heat in it will stop that from happening.  I just got a compressor to play with a few weeks ago but am currently busy working on the shop and equipment when I have enough excess energy to do anything.

Awfully handsome red steam engine in the snow!

It really is a nice picture.

Thank, Amanda.  I fire it up on air once in a while to get it all oiled up.  It's about time I did it again I guess.

QuoteI have concerns that the expanding propane may freeze the compressor/expander but maybe the heat in it will stop that from happening.  

Whether or not that becomes a problem probably depends on how fast the propane exits the high pressure tank, and maybe upon how large the tank is. I remember something about tank size and flow rate affecting freeze ups on high capacity propane fueled construction type heaters. (wish I recalled what exactly  ::) ) ... something about flow rate (BTU's).... over a certain number you had to use larger tanks (100#)instead of smaller (20 - 40#)... ring any bells? make any sense?  :-?

Yeah, it makes sense.  I know the tank itself will go to freezing as the propane boils off - maybe that will be the only place there will be a freezing problem and the expansion in the expander will not get that much colder as the tank will have expanded  the liquid to a gas.  They could be heated by solar or solar heated water to prevent them from freezing and keep pressures up.  Then some kind of teeter totter or movable shade will switch to change the heated tank to the cooled tank that the gas will be condensed back into.

I have froze up many a 5 gallon tank with a weed burner for pre-heating welds.

Electricity from the Sea

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wave11mar11,0,2922563.story

Science turns sun, surf into green energy (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/science-turns-sun-surf-into-green-energy/2007/03/20/1174153066798.htmlScience)

Well this would be great for california....Oregon and Washington....

They already desperately need to be pumping in seawater for all of california's needs...It is cheaper to pump and distill than pipe from the colorado

On top of the need to use sea water for california's water needs if they had a  seawater network along the coast inland they could tap the seawater to produce energy in the desert...Just inland from Los Angeles or wherever...Plenty of hot flat desert land out there.

And the hydrogen could be used for automobiles.

The process itself would go a long long way towards getting the hydrogen car of the ground...This would make a plug in refill station a reality for everyone wanting one...

Get a hydrogen car and buy a self charging unit for the car at walmart...

Methinks that something will happen in the next 5 years to prevent this from maturing...I mean the government cannot charge taxes on sunlight...They do not under any circumstances want us to be able to fill our fuel tanks on sunlight and water....

A friend of ours stated the other night that he had a brother who had invented an engine that ran on hydrogen - basically just used water - I can't remember all the details - anyway, he said his brother tried to sell his invention on several occasions but no one would buy & he refused to give it to the gov't as he didn't want it buried... I'll have to find out more.  

Sassy

There are several people that have successfully had engines run on alternative fuels...There is the guy in the 50's that converted everything he had to run on Methane...I think he was in England...Just had a massive compost pile in the backyard with leaves trash and he hosed it down every couple of days....Geared up a compressor and some old oxygen tanks...And compressed the methane the compost pile was venting off into the tanks and he ran his car, his cimpressor (to fill the tanks)..Everything to Run off the fuel the garbage pile was making.

The car ran perfectly...And this was 50 years ago....No computers or high tech gizmos...

Point is I am sure that human ingenuity and clever minds all over have come up with viable ways to harness things like Methane, Hydrogen and the power of the sun.

But as Glenn says to me all the time...Follow the money...The government does not want you powering your automobile with the power of the sun...And they do not want people with a compost pile in their backyards making their own methane ....Where is the ability to control us with taxation in that?

If Everyone started composting and using the methane in their automobiles the government would ban compost piles and there would be new evidence found that composting was bad for the environment. ::)

I personally love the idea of pumping salt water inland all along the coast of all the continents....We have all this seawater and we can use it to replenish the water table of the world. We can fight rising sea levels as well

Nobody thinks about how precious pure water is...And how much of it we waste as a species flushing the damned toilet.

Almost every single massive population centre in the world lies along the coastline region of the continents...Meaning that the logistics for using seawater are simplistic.

I would be happy if we simply just started using seawater to replace the water we flush the toilets with...If we recycled all the raw sewage in the world and used that for irrigation...And allowed rivers and water tables to return to their normal levels.

We have water shortages in the world...Despite there being an overabundance of water worldwide... We just waste so damned much of it.

The electricity from Sea water would be a paradigm shift....meaning that the world could power itself from sea water and do it without creating pollution...

It would be huge for the planet.

We already have a fair bit of hydro, solar and wind power generated on the planet...If we just replaced 10% of the coal fired electricity with green energy the reduction in pollution would be staggering.

Greenpeace and activists would have to learn to cook and play pool because they would be out of a job.

Interesting video from 1995 on Hydrogen experimentation and some who have done it.  Where did they go?  50 minutes

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=zyxso48t7j
StumbleVideo - Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995)

Update on the above video.  [highlight]Stan Meyer poisoned[/highlight].  Should have took the money, Stan.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

That methane guy is probably Jean Pain.  Strangely the article about him that comes up early in a search is an old Reader's Digest one (first link).  If your French is pretty fluent you might be able to get a book--the English version seems to be long gone.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html

http://www.jean-pain.com/

(the late Al Rutan was our methane guy)

Knowledge Publications has a reproduction (a lot of their books are reproductions) of a book on how to make and store methane intended for African farmers.  It seems right doable.  A pair of metal drums and an inner tube.  Biogas volumes one and two--put into one.

http://knowledgepublications.com/methane/methane_uses_and_fuels.htm

Amanda you never cease to amaze me...

Great links by the way...I ordered a couple of books I hope that they are fascinating... Thank you

Thank you!

I've bought from him before, am on his mailing list.  

You have figured out that some of the hydrogen is wood-gas--what is burned away to leave charcoal.

pretty fascinating the industrial hydrogen that is generated making chemicals...

Not sure I want to mess with suphuric acid and nasty stuff like that for hydrogen

I do think that the solar panel hooked to a device that is hooked to the garden hose is pretty much what I would like to see developed and improved upon...

People could make their own Hydrogen from the sun and the garden hose...Store it in containers and then use it to generate electricity when there was a shortage or to fill up their car.

Play with it - if you blow up I didn't tell you that.  Note that some say it doesn't work.  Only one way to find out.

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/savings.html
Hydrogen-Boost

http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1275
OUPower.com :: View topic - Do you have a car running ONLY on water?

http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html
Hydrogen Booster

http://better-mileage.com/memberbonuswateradx.html
better mileage

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stan.html
Stan Meyer's Files

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=zyxso48t7j
StumbleVideo - Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995)

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2229511748333360205
googleplayer.swf (application/x-shockwave-flash Object)

IPCC to release "Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" report
It is the second in a series of IPCC reports coming out this year
http://www.theworldnews.com.au/region.php?id=136107&region=3

The first volume of "Climate Change 2007; Summary for Policymakers" released on 2 February Can be found here. (PDF Warning)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf

Hmm.  The first of those links suggested "only" "up to" a 4 degree warming by the end of the century.

Some of the projections have suggested 6, but maybe past the end of the century.  Mark Lynas believes that with 6 the only thing that will thrive will be fungi.  And even with four, there may be enough feedback loops/blowback that the 6 degrees (C) warming will be just a matter of time.

Last night the local Eco-film festival showed The Power of Community: How Cuba survived Peak Oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil

I was not as impressed as I'd hoped I would be.  Maybe too many warm fuzzies about how Cuba pulled together, not enough specific details about exactly how they did it.  Too many pictures of lettuce and people hoeing earth that looked as if it would wash away with the first sign of rain.

But one of the bits that didn't make this cut was reported as "If this had been Germany people would have been eating each other."  One that did make this cut was--"when we were told that there ld be less electricity, and what there was would be higher, we said that we could use less.  But people in the US would be more likely to say 'but I am paying for it.'"

even faster?http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/07/content_845498.htm

Naahhh....that's what people have been saying for years.  

But a two or three degree rise is not trivial, because the temperature rise is extremely uneven, because water in the form of both rain and ice not to mention lack of water, is also involved.

Also somewhere in there there are feedback loops--e.g. lack of ice at the North Pole causes more summer warming up there, which melts more ice, which....  (Polar ice that's floating will not--by itself-- cause a rise in sea levels.  That will take glaciers and permafrost and I guess swamps and inland lakes drying up as well)

Given that the average  temperature has varied by at least this amount in the documented past- an average 3 degrees C more in the 800's permitted vineyards in Scotland, for example, it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. As for sea level rise, there are any number of middle-ages and older seaports now submerged, so that is nothing new, either. And the doomsayer credibility of Stern, an economist, not a scientist, with the World Bank, the organisation which, along with the IMF, has done more harm to more parts of the global financial network than Adolf Htler and Ghengis Khan combined, it is, in my opinion, non-existant.

I agree.  A natural occurrence - there used to be dinosaurs here but lots of variance besides that.  Follow the money takes you here.

Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307hysteria.htm

Globalists Love Global Warming
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

That's it, Glenn.
Paranoid, Moi? Yep, you bet- the amount of freedoms willingly given away by Aussies in the last thirty years, with gun ownership in the forefront, is sickening.

How is that gun ban thing working out? I haven't paid too much attention to the AU status but I was horrified when the legislation went through and I saw pictures of them cutting up firearms. Do the bad guys still have guns? I would think so.  :-?

(I'm originally from Canada, 22 years ago, and they've gone stricter and stricter in recent years as well, but not that far. Even my wife has gotten used to firearms now... she never used to "like" them, but tolerated them/me. However, we now go target shooting (revolvers) together and last year she came on an elk hunt.)

The Aussies are in bed with Bush as is England and the New World Order crowd.  Look to give up nearly all freedoms you have and live in fear if you don't keep yourself aware of what they are up to.  They'd have to kill me before I'd lick their boots.

The sky is falling -- the sky is falling --- help me big brother-- save me -- I pay you all my money and give you all my freedom -- just keep the bad ole ice from melting and drowning everybody who built on the beach.....    My a$$.  Give me a break.  Give me my money and give me my freedom.  Now get out of my face. >:(

Not you -- I was talking to big brother. :)

...and I'm sure he is listening, Glenn, that's the scary bit. A national ID card comes in next year down here, with almost nary a whimper from the brainwashed masses. Chaney was welcomed down here recently as a hero, and civil liberties are almost a thing of the past- strangest of all, it is illegal not to vote in any election- State, Federal or Local Government- .

Not really a gun ban.
The death of 35 people and serious injuries to almost 20 others at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 prompted the Australian government to urge a meeting of the eight state and territory police ministers to introduce a new and stricter range of gun controls. Three major changes were introduced.
(a) Gun registration was introduced to all eight jurisdictions
(b) Attempts were made to have uniform gun laws throughout Australia
(c) A new standardised gun-licensing scheme was put into practice.

The main thrust of the "Australian Gun Laws", in regard to gun registration, bans on certain semi - auto guns, genuine reason for gun ownership, safety training, safe storage, etc where taken on board by these states and territories.

The new scheme allowed non-self-loading guns to be readily available but placed restrictions on high capacity self-loading rimfire rifles, self-loading centrefire rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns. These were the types of guns mainly used in Australian gun massacres, There were about four million guns in Australia. One million were no longer in the legal category so a gun buy-back scheme was introduced to purchase these. About 640,000 guns were offered for purchase, 40% of Australian gun owners did not obey these laws.

There is good reason to believe that these changes contributed in a major way to the fact that today about 350 fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds compared to the situation in the 1970' and 1980's.
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/phb/HTML2003/march03html/phbmarch03.pdf
Look for the deaths from firearms.

QuoteDo the bad guys still have guns?

Probably, but so do the good guys. ;)

Don't read this PEG --- remember your blood pressure.  

That is almost a mirror image of gun laws they enacted around here.  Near the same results.  Criminals will not give up their guns.

A mandatory vote law would mean they would have to shoot me also.  I will in no way approve of or be made an accessory to the criminal activities of our elected officials or even our installed leader and vote machine tampering retained White House resident and his cabal.

I'm afraid Australia failed the US by allowing Cheney to leave without trying him for war crimes. :'( :)

Published: August 2000 Author: Ron Owen, President, Firearm Owners Of Australia
 

Dear Mr Owen

The 1996 national gun laws have been shown in research to have significantly reduced the level of gun related crime in this country. The number of offences where a gun has been used has decreased significantly. Guns were used in 18.6% of armed robberies in 1998-99, compared with 26.8% the year before.

As a result of the national gun laws 640,000 guns were collected and destroyed. It is not only murder rates that have fallen, but all firearm related deaths. Total firearm related deaths in Australia fell from 523 in 1996 to 328 in 1998.

The guns targeted in 1996 were those that a member of our community had little justification in owning. The Government of South Australia took the view that the safety of our community was under threat by these weapons and took action to address this situation.

The studies you have referred to ignore the high level of gun violence in the United States in comparison with Australia. The easy availability of guns directly relates to the level of gun violence. The Government of South Australia considers the responsibility of owning a gun a serious one, and has sought to make the conditions of ownership strict. Responsible gun owners have nothing to fear from the national gun laws. The community is safer because of them.

Yours sincerely

JOHN OLSEN
Premier (the equivalent of Governor in the US), South Australia

To Premier of South Australia

John Olsen

In reply to your letter dated 2/5/2000, Ref Number 00P01231

From Mr Ron Owen, National President,

Firearm Owners Association of Australia

Dear Mr Olsen

Reading your letter and considering the amount of well researched information that has already been dispatched to your office, and the breadth, of the research information within the Parliamentary libraries in Australia, the only conclusions I can deduce from your correspondence is that you are either an ignoramus or a charlatan. You either cannot read or cannot be bothered to read or really know the truth and still ignore it.

When you say, "The 1996 national gun laws have been shown in research to have significantly reduced the level of gun related crime in this country". You omit to say, whose research it is and what that research was. We are left in the dark as to what figures and where those figures are from, that you consider to be significant. Are they figures concocted by public service staff left over from the 'Buy Back fiasco' as usual ,trying to justify their past failures as public looters and parasites.

On the other hand we understand you have already received the following information in detail:-

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."

Police Commissioner South Australia Mal Hyde 23/12/99 - The Advertiser - Adelaide

Robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 per cent over the previous financial year.

South Australian Police Annual Report - tabled in State Parliament 27/10/98

"I apologise for the error (in Attorney-General's letter to SSAA (Sporting Shooter's Association of Australia) member) that was made in extracting the ABS figures."

Dianne Gray - Senior Legal Officer - SA Attorney-General's Department - 27/1/99

To SSAA Researcher Paul Peake after it was claimed by the SA AG's Department that SSAA figures were wrong.

When you say, "The number of offences where a gun has been used has decreased significantly. Guns were used in 18.6% of armed robberies in 1998-99, compared with 26.8% the year before" You are discredited. by:-

"Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in Australia Release Date: July 15th, 1998

Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery.

The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the increases in some other States were also quite substantial.

Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%, Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%.

Commenting on these figures, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that "they suggested that the underlying causes of the upward trend in property crime in New South Wales were probably national rather than State-based."

Abbreviations
AIC - Australian Institute of Criminology
ABS - Australian Bureau of Statistics
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures) "Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98

"AIC define robbery as unlawful taking of property, accompanied by force or threat of force"

In 1998 8% were committed with a firearm, 38 % with another weapon, and 54 % unarmed

There were 10850 armed robberies recorded in Australia in 1998. This represents almost a 20% increase from the number of armed robberies recorded in 1997.

This figure was included in the category 'Other Weapon'. It is possible that this 9% used in these robberies were firearms.

So it looks like without the public being able to defend themselves crime soared - it's just that thieves didn't need to use a gun part of the time because there was no resistance.  Give me the wild wild west. :)

Statistics are easy to play around with. A few years ago I read a book by John Lott (and several more since). Mr. Lott did some very exhaustive statistical analyses on the topic of gun control / availability. He went into the project with anti-gun beliefs but his research made him do a turnabout. Basically when everything is taken into account counties where guns are more readily available saw a significant drop in crime.

One other statistical difference I find interesting when comparing Canada to the USA is that Canadians (with tougher gun laws) are significantly more likely to suffer a home invasion than people in the USA.

There's 2 sides to every argument/story. I happen to favor being able to own a firearm if I desire. Several of mine would be illegal under laws like those in AU. Also registration requirements are the first step toward confiscation.

Registration requirements are the tip of the iceberg- for example, if I have an argument over something as minor as a parking spot, the person perhaps wanting to cause trouble can go to the police and take out an Aphrehended Violence Order against me- no proof of any type required- and the police, if I have a registered firearm, can enter and search my home and/or place of employment without a search warrent and remove the firearm..indeed, they are required to do this.
This article is almost ten years old, there are a raft of figures all giving the same dismal picture and things have gotten far worse since it was published, but it gives an oversight of just how much gun control has re-directed firearms from legal to illegal use. There are a large number of automatic weapons which were diverted and on-sold to tribal leaders in PNG in exchange for bales of New Guinea Gold, a very potent ganja, that are now causing considerable problems, as well.

Our government has been involved in guns and drugs deals for years and it's not over yet - just hidden better.  Same criminals in office now who were in on the old stuff.  No wonder they want to control the guns of the public.  

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH12Ak03.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020311/corn

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1076

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/index.html

QuoteStatistics are easy to play around with.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, MountainDon.
Interestingly the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) who's statistics Mr. Ron Owen points to, is considered by the gun lobby to be a stooge of the government.

[The role of the AIC in connection with gun control in Australia has been to use statistical methods, the government's prestige, and the peoples' money to produce scientific-looking propaganda.]
From one of their own publucations

Link to the AIC document on violent crime in Australia.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti61.pdf

While doing some research on this issue I came across this from the National Coalition for gun control. (Worth a read)
http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v1/n2/peters_browne.pdf

While I don't agree with a lot of the stuff our fearless leaders get up to, I have no problem embracing these laws. I have at various times been a sporting and professional shooter and at no time have I had a problem obtaining the tools I needed to do my job. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
I have owned a number of rifles over the years, (all bolt action) and have never felt the need to have a high capacity self-loading rifle. But, maybe that's just a product of my years as a professional shooter and an aversion to wasting ammo. Never owned a handgun, for my work such a weapon would be virtually useless (no range). For close quarters work (wild hog) I prefer a good hound and an 18" bayonet. (Works a treat) ;D
I am also of the opinion that owning any of these weapons would not afford me any real protection in the case of a home invasion by an armed intruder. My thinking is that if such a person where to poke a gun in my face with the intention of blowing my head off he is hardly likely to wait round while I fetch my weapon.  If his intention were just to relieve me of some of my possessions, it would be far safer for me to simply wait until he leaves and get the cops to deal with it.  ;)

My personal opinion is that the gun lobby is making a mountain out of a molehill.

I've had people tell me that their guns protected them--when asked if they carried them--loaded with nice fresh ammunition, safety off, at all times, they looked at me as if I had rocks in my head for suggesting such a thing.  

But since then, carry permits have become a whole lot easier to get.

(this was even true of my mother.  Once when she was visiting, I tried to get her to agree to look into one of those shoot/don't shoot simulations--no, she knew what she was doing--or do some serious target shooting--ditto.  I can pretty well guarantee you that she didn't know what she was doing, the gun--22 pistol of some sort, probably had the ammunition from the same box that had been bought 35 years before)

work from home,saves commute and you can listen to youre music as loud as you wanT ;)

QuoteI've had people tell me that their guns protected them--when asked if they carried them--loaded with nice fresh ammunition, safety off, at all times, they looked at me as if I had rocks in my head for suggesting such a thing.  

Carrying an unloaded gun is worse than no gun. That just doesn't make sense to me. And guns don't protect people; a thinking person behind the gun protects themselves. To me a revolver, loaded, is better than a loaded, safety on, pistol. People who "accidentally" shoot themselves or a friend most often have a pistol they think is empty. Revolver is easier to empty and check and harder to accidentally discharge. As for weight my titanium .45 revlver is lighter than most pistols.

NM has had a carry permit system in effect for a few years now. The training classes are very well run. No one with a carry permit has had it revoked for bad behavior. However I'm aware of two local cases where the presence of a person with a permitted handgun saved two other folks from the serious beating they were receiving being continued. In one case the attacker turned his attack to the gun owner and was shot dead; no charges filed. In the other the perpetrator ran off. No shots fired.

I hope I'm never in the position of being attacked (again). I do like having the choice to own and carry a handgun or long gun if I so decide.

I don't walk around with my revolver on my person at all times though. That's for when I'm out in the boonies (or heading to the boonies) 4-wheeling, hiking, exploring in lonely places. On those occasions I also usually have a lever action rifle and/or a pump shotgun in plain view in the Cherokee, although they are secreted away when the vehicle is left alone.

In the event that my home was ever the target of an invasion it would probably come as too big a surprise and the double barrel shotgun would probably stay in it's designated spot. That said tho' I recall two more cases where potential intruders were scared off by local firearm wielding home owners in the last couple years.

Being that this is a part of the wild west referred to by Glenn, it's also legal to carry a non-concealed handgun on one's person. Of course strolling down the street with a holstered gun on your belt would be an open invitation for a visit from every passing policeman.

Quote...it is illegal not to vote in any election- State, Federal or Local Government

I heard of this somewhere and was amazed and puzzled and frightened at the same time. The thought of some of the apathetic #$@^&% voting on issues that concern me greatly is most unconcerting.

Low turnout is a problem in some elections, especially those at the more local levels. Ther last school board election here had about a 13% turnout. No waiting in poll lines tho'   :)  Only the zealots on one side or the other turn out, plus the retired and bored. So much for representative government. But still better than some of the alternate government styles.

It produces a very narrow range of political options, Don, and a widespread distaste and apathy about almost every aspect of the political process. The elites hog the available media exposure and the mortgage belt is left wondering what possible use casting their vote can be.

Quote... left wondering what possible use casting their vote can be.

The same thing can be said here... about whether or not it matters if you vote or not. Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two perceived evils. But, if feel, if you care, you should try to make a difference otherwise your right to complain is diminished.

i am presently living in a 1886 mansion all hardare still works will post here tomorrow ,.cars recieve muck attention but most houses are gas guzzlers including this one.600 a month to freeze?

In a real situation carrying an unloaded gun is, of course, worthless.  At the time I was thinking of the unloaded gun on the top shelf of the closet to keep it out of the reach of the three-year-old.  

We've had crazy weather--Easter weekend we had several days of hard frost (18F)--killed most annuals we had put in--and some of the real farmers had a thousand tomato plants in the ground  Still don't know if some of the already leafed-out perennials will survive.   I think my asparagus has had it.  No plums, no cherries at my place, no apples, pears, or peaches, anywhere else.  Probably not strawberries either.

And the question is how much of the deciduous forest is going to survive, especially if we have a really dry summer.  Heartbreaking.

And this morning there were big wet snow flakes that melted as soon as they hit the ground.

Sometimes it's instructive to find out exactly how the people back in the 1880's used their houses in the winter (or summer in the south)  Most of the "living" in one room, serious comforters on the beds???

Quote.  At the time I was thinking of the unloaded gun on the top shelf of the closet to keep it out of the reach of the three-year-old.  

Oh of course... I never thought od it that way.   :-[   A gun safe is marginally a little better... can be left loaded but locked up; still not real easy to get to tho'

Nutty weather here too. 2 weeks ago it was wonderful warm. I got a bunch of ext trim repainted. Snowflakes Thurs night / Fri AM, enough to leave a trace all over the ground and roofs. Today sunny again but only mid 60's; the solar's blowing warm air inside and the silicone's spinnuing the power meter backwards.  :)

Back when I was a youngster Mom would haul out the big fluffy comforters every fall. We use one, but it's polyfiber instead of down.

I had to laugh at this mornings paper. Article was about local people downsizing their homes when their family grows up and moves out. Downsized to 1700 - 1800 sq ft (from 2500+). They are super insulated tho, and 2 of the 3 examples had 3 Kw photovoltaic roof top grid-tie arrays. So that's something. (electric/gas bill for 2006 on one home was $400 net bill)

I shudder to think just how much the power bills are for the trendy McMansions in the newer areas of aussie cities- huge, with ducted aircon as standard, almost no eaves and black tiled roofs.
In a hot climate, this kind of design is not only expensive, it is just plain dumb.

It is the reefer A/C that is my biggest power drain. Thankfully it's seasonal; June, July, Aug.

Regarding black roofs...  A couple years ago one of my friends who works at Sandia Labs did an interesting experiment. He had opted for a white shingle roof on his home. Right next door was a black shingled roof. Using some of the labs expensive equipment they measured the surface temp of the roof and the air temp in the attic. Too bad I don't recall the exact numbers, but whereas the surface temp of the black roof was considerably higher than the white surface, the air temp in the white roofed attic was only something like 4 - 6 degrees F higher than the black attic. Both attics were well vented with large gable end vents, plus roof top "hats" with continuous soffit vents.

It was interesting that the attic temp wasn't all that much higher under the black. The secret is to vent, and vent well. I still won't go into my attic in the summer after 9 AM tho'.

You could get people to pay you for using it as a sauna, with a slide down into a plastic wading pool or stock pond.

;)

My house in Nashville had some fiberglass insulation up there, though.  Much nicer after it got a fan with a thermostat on it.

(Unless we go with the very expensive chiller type AC units, we get the refrigeration ones)

This guy has several solutions including making his own air and power.

Surprising how green some people try to be -or is it yellow?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=449459&in_page_id=1811

QuoteI shudder to think just how much the power bills are for the trendy McMansions in the newer areas of aussie cities- huge, with ducted aircon as standard, almost no eaves and black tiled roofs.
In a hot climate, this kind of design is not only expensive, it is just plain dumb.

How about Al and his inconvenient truth :-?

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

 ;D..you have to laugh at the sheer two-faced nonsense spouted by some of these doomsayers.

Sick And Tired Of Being Lectured By Global Warming Hypocrites
Private jet flying, CO2 belching, bags made by slaves in China transported thousands of miles buying, bulb banning, Al Gore worshipping morons wagging their finger at me when I don't even drive a car get under my skin

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, April 27, 2007


I've had enough of it.

Ninnying fatuous self-important morons who demand that everyone else make sacrifices in the name of mother earth while they zoom around in CO2 belching private jets and lavish themselves in heated swimming pools are hypocrites but perhaps we should be grateful that their frothing absurdities are causing the man-made global warming cult to lose whatever credibility it has left.

Last week, singer Sheryl Crow demanded that we all use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit to help save the planet. Shortly after these ridiculous comments, the Smoking Gun website uncovered documents showing Crow's touring requirements, which include three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars. I don't even drive a car, so to be lectured about what I can and can't do after I take a shit is a bit rich coming from someone whose "carbon footprint" is bigger than King Kong's treads.

At the British premiere of his movie Wild Hogs, actor John Travolta urged everyone to "do their bit" to fight global warming, warning that "We have to think about alternative methods of fuel."

I fly commercial perhaps once every two years for a brief holiday. Travolta has five private jets parked in his runway (pictured above), has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, 100 times more than the average person in the last year, is a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas and named his son Jett as a tribute to his love of flying. So when Travolta lectures me about "doing my bit" forgive me for taking it with a pinch of salt.

Al Gore is the messiah for the climate change fanatics and his error-strewn polemic An Inconvenient Truth, has been dispatched to every British school on orders of the Blair government, so that kids may be forcefully brainwashed into accepting that man-made global warming is as much a reality as the surveillance cameras, metal detectors and biometric scanning for lunches that they have to endure as part of their "education."

Gore's 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity, as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

Gore is behind the spectacle of the Live-8 style Live Earth concerts that will take place in numerous cities around the world on July 7 to raise awareness about climate change. The performers who will be showcased at these concerts include people like Madonna, who owns at least 6 gas-guzzling cars including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S.

According to a report, last year "Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners." The singer's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year.

Other acts, including rock group Red Hot Chili Peppers, all use private jets yet are set to throw their stardom behind an effort to propagandize the notion that we are producing too many carbon emissions.

This will all be eagerly lapped up by the majority of Britons, who are zealously supportive of government programs that punish people who don't jump on the climate bandwagon. Fines for putting rubbish in the wrong colored trash can are now commonplace, as state spies roam around leafy suburbs searching through people's bins for evidence of dastardly "enviro-crimes" while tiny cameras are placed inside bean cans to catch potential villains.

The exact level of idiocy these morons embrace was underscored perfectly yesterday when throngs of them queued up outside a London supermarket from 3am to buy "eco-friendly" bags that have become the latest must-have fashion item and another ego trinket for them to grandstand and revel in the pomp that they are saving Mother Earth.

In reality, the bags were made by slaves in China and transported thousands of miles by CO2 belching jet planes. But let's not concern ourselves about that - as long as we can feel good about ourselves while wagging our finger in judgment at anyone who uses those dirty old plastic bags that's all that matters.
These kind of simpletons are also behind the move to completely criminalize the ownership of incandescent light bulbs, despite the fact that their precious "energy saving light bulbs" are loaded with toxic waste that's already banned under EU regulations. They also contain deadly Mercury which will end up in our land fills and our water supply once use of the new CFL bulbs becomes mandatory.

If you still believe in the notion of man-made global warming, then you should be very concerned about the fact that the leading proponents of the theory are all giant hypocrites espousing outlandish and radical measures to combat climate change while fearmongering about doomsday scenarios that will befall us unless we all drastically reduce our carbon footprints.

The only solace we can hope for is that someone who is a billionaire like Some of these actors or big time musicians... Is that they use their wealth to fight climate change...

Singers and actors have private jets and tour buses...Tractor trailers to go on tour across america...

If a signifigant part of their earnings are used to  fund research into clean technologies... I would be okay with that....

If a decent chunk of their wealth went to planting trees to remove their carbon footprints and to remove the footprints of thousands of others I am okay with that as well

I still say trees are the best way to save the earth....We are still a long way off from eliminating fossil fuels being used to generate electricity.

Cars burn clean now so smog will go away worldwide eventually...But coal will be the worlds number one fuel for a long time as there is enough coal to power the world for 400 years.

Stabilization of the world's population...And increasing the percentage of the planet that is covered in forests will reduce the carbon dioxide levels...

So that when cleaner tech is available we will see noticeable improvements...

Until then through forests will absorb and convert the excess carbon into Oxygen.

Increasing the forest cover of the earth by even 5% would make a massive impact on carbon levels in the atmosphere.

We will eventually be able to make synthetic fuels out of waste like Sewage, pig manure, compost...So recycling will not only reduce landfills it will create cleaner fuels for us to burn...

We are already seeing small improvements in the way we recycle these wastes into useable fuels...

I have read several articles about how the sky will fall when peak oil is a distant memory in the rear view mirror....economies will collapse people will lose their jobs their homes...everything will crumble...

I do not believe the naysayers....All the tech that the government has been sitting on...The ingenuity of humanity...We will fufill our petroleum needs from our wastes...And truly start to harness the power of the sun for electricity. The world will change as oil runs out and the climate gets warmer...But oil will start to run out...And our carbon emissions will start to drop dramatically as we start replacing the energy used from oil with solar and wind energy.


Remember... every minute enough sun shines on the earth to power the world for 26 years... We are not even collecting one tenth of one percent here...

As for Smog auto emissions and carbon levels in America... Simply removing all the SUV's Making 40 miles per gallon required in all passenger cars...Offering incentives for buying cars with 60 miles to the gallon...We could cut fuel burned in new cars by 50%...And remember 40% of all the emissions from oil come from autos....So that is a 20% reduction in carbon emissions in the USA... That would make Even Al Gore Happy :o

The key to saving the world is reduction in consumption...We cannot keep going as per usual waiting for technology to save us...Cutting our fuel used in half means half the pollution...It reduces inflation meaning stability in world economies.. It eliminates dependency on foreign oil...

It makes the peak oil doomsday predictions obsolete like the Y2K doomsday predictions...

BTW I think the doomsday predictions are awesome...If they wake people up and scare them into demanding we spend time effort and money on alternatives for cleaner energy... Demanding we drive efficient vehicles...Cutting the amount of fuel we spend in autos in half....Demanding our electricity come from something other than oil gas and coal

Rant on fourx .....   But next time don't sugar coat it  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

I read that Ms Crowe has since stated her "one square of toilet paper" remark was a joke.    ::)  Ha.  Is so, it was a crappy one.

I posted this article in another thread - I thought this guy had done some great research, although the initial prototype & research was very expensive, it sounded to me to be a viable option that people could be looking into.

QuoteThe Prophet of Garbage
Joseph Longo's Plasma Converter turns our most vile and toxic trash into clean energy—and promises to make a relic of the landfill


http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Sassy

I remember reading the article...great stuff as per usual...

What makes me have hope is the fact that in cities like London...90% of human sewage is recycled and turned into useful things

In other parts of the world we reuse none of it or very little.

We have these water shortages...And we are needing nutrients for our soils...And energy....Recycling 100% of human waste is a way to prevent dirty water from getting dumped into the water table and oceans...It is a way to boost and replenish existing fresh water supplies...we can extract useful nutrients from it and we can generate massive amounts of Methane from it to use as a fuel or to generate clean electricity...

Muslims may not like this but I think we should all hope that the world doubles it's pork intake...

Pig Manure is loaded with Methane and it converts easily into clean synthetic Diesel.... For every pig we can extract 1 gallon of Diesel per year....Currently that equals billions of gallons....Not enough to power the world... maybe only enough for a few percent of our energy needs...But if 3 or 4% of the world's  dirty sulphur laden diesel was replaced with clean synthetic Pig manure diesel it would make a huge impact....

We do not have the capacity as of yet to completely replace the system of generating electricity and for better or worse for the next couple generations fossil fuels are a must for the world... But the answer for saving the planet and cleaning it up are a combination of achievable goals....like recycling 90% of the world's sewage...Making use of that water...and the energy that is trapped inside of it...

Like turning our landfills into energy and cleaning up the toxic chemicals

Using clean sources for fuel such as pig manure

Couple those things with a meaningful reduction in consumption (doubling the average MPG for cars in North America)....Increasing forest cover on the earth....Start phasing out out of date coal and oil fired electric plants with clean technology (solar, wind, Garbage electrical generation like Sassy has mentioned)

Combining several smaller reasonable goals towards one big goal is a way we can turn the corner and see the world clean and green

For my part I am growing as much food as possible and driving a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon...And no it is not a prius either....We should not have to spend 30,000 dollars to save money or the world... I am loving the great mileage with the price of fuel these days!

I am a poor, simplistic... something or other... Surely people with more money and time can do even more than me... If I can drive a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon everyone can...

took my saturn that I paid $900 for and spent $1200 on it and now I have a cheap car that will outperform a Prius on the racetrack...And outdistance it in fuel economy

I wish more people would make smart decisions and the Yukon Denali's would become extinct

 I am loving the great mileage with the price of fuel these days, as well, Benevolance, because unleaded fuel here is $1.35 a litre in aussie dollars- I run our car on LPG ( aka propane, I think you call it?) at 64 cents per litre- and growing much of your own food is something far more people should be doing, particularly if you have a 12 month growing period.

Well

Propane used to be a fraction of the cost...those days are long gone... It makes no sense to convert a car anymore to propane in North America...Simply because the car has 20% less power on propane...So if the cost of Propane is not 30-40% that of Gasoline it is senseless to bother with it.

We have had a spike in Gasoline prices recently here in the South...Gas has risen almost a Dollar a Gallon and Propane has dropped 10 cents a gallon making it worthwhile for now...

Propane is still about $1.90 a gallon here..And 2 years ago it was $1.50 or less...This time last year it was $2.00 a gallon...

Gasoline is $2.60 a gallon here.... So there is a little bit of savings... but due to the reduced BTU output of propane versus gasoline...The savings are negliable

Clean cheap energy generation means that more houses are heated with Electricity not propane, Natural Gas or Heating oil (diesel).....One of the most effective ways to clean the environment here in North America is eliminate fossil fuels being used for home heating... And replacing the heat source with Electricity...

Of course if there was a clear shifting trend where Electricity was overtaking Gas oil and propane for home heating...The price of these fuels would drop dramatically to try and lure new home builders to install gas oil or propane heat

A lot of places across america rely on Propane heat and it was installed a decade or more ago when propane was much much less expensive than Heating oil....It was about 1/3rd the cost of gasoline

Now there are these homes out there using these fuels for heat and they are super expensive...

I just looked on the Department of Energy website and in 5 years propane has more than doubled in price...From 87 cents per gallon as high as $1.95 per gallon

Pennsylvania State University.  Hydrogen from waste; including human   ... These should be installed all over Washington; no end of sh** there.  

http://live.psu.edu/story/11709

Gore may have chosen his place in Belle Meade for one kind of zoning issue--it is also his office, with apparently multiple staffers.

But Belle Meade does not allow, say, solar panels.  And I think some more possible helps.

I am not a big ethanol guy when Butanol is a much more effective solution...Same process basically as Ethanol...Only more BTU's of energy derived from it and a signifigant amount of hydrogen created from the process..

But here is more on the Ethanol front....Sorghum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070502/ap_on_sc/sorghum_power;_ylt=AlNw2ulLgicV08v8QkX_AZbQOrgF

Don

There is not enough biomass to completely power the world from this source...But suppose we replaced 25% of oil and gas with clean hydrogen...

Massively huge step[ in solving our growing energy crisis

And if this helps clean sewage and treat wastewater...It will solve a lot of problems worldwide for poor developing nations whose sewage and waste water run off into the water table polluting their drinking water or if it runs into the oceans killing fish etc...

Increasing clean drinking water for the world is a good thing...And if it is cheap, easy and produces hydrogen to boot it is a winner all around.

The implimentation of this kind of idea could create a paradigm shift for poor countries that have no energy for their own use...No clean drinking water and rampant health problems from sewage and waste...

Peter, I recall you saying you'd found someone who could do some things to a Saturn and make the milegae appreciably better. I didn't realize you'd gone and done it. Just what sort of things were done, what was the approach to what seems like wizardry?

Just a comment on the mention earlier that cars have 20% less power on propane- living 40 k's from the nearest petrol station which sells propane I find the gas running low occasionaly and switch to the back-up unleaded. I have never noticed any( this is in a 4.2 litre Ford with a factory fitted LPG system) difference in performance at all. In fact it seems to have more grunt on propane.

I thought the difference between gasoline and propane was more in the order of 10%, propane having fewer BTU's per unit volume.

This would be confirmed by comparing the outputs of a generator like the NorthStar Trifuel Generator. 
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_419355_419355
On gasoline it's rated at 6600 watts continuous, propane 6200 watts and natural gas 5200 watts.

I believe most people haven't a foot that's finely tuned enough to be able to tell the difference between the 2 fuels in an adequately powered vehicle. There could be differences in how a vehicle performs depending on which fuel it's optimized for. In an ideal situation the onboard computer would make some compensating adjustments when changing fuels.

BTU comparisons of some other fuels

1 gallon diesel = 139,200 BTU
1 lb hydrogen = 51,892 BTU with steam as product
1 lb coal (anthracite) = 12,700 BTU
1 lb coal (subbituminous) = 8,800 BTU
1 lb coal (bituminous) = 11,500 BTU
1 lb pine wood bark = 9,200 BTU
1 lb hardwood bark = 8,400 BTU
1 lb wood = 7,870 BTU
1 lb dung = 7,500 BTU
1 lb waste paper = 6,500 BTU
1 lb sawdust/shavings = 3,850 BTU
1 kWH electricity = 3,413 BTU
1 therm any fuel = 100,000 BTU

EDIT: added to list by MD
1 gal propane = 91500 BTU
1 lb propane = 21600 BTU

1 cu ft Natural Gas =  1075 BTU

Interesting BTU facts -- you would think we would be industrious enough to get our own. :-/

Now I know why a piece of dry bark or two kicks up the heat from the old Round Oak stove quite nicely. :)

QuoteInteresting BTU facts -- you would think we would be industrious enough to get our own. :-/

LOL ;D

Don,
Really simplistic approach to getting mileage out of the head...Not some promise to change gasoline into another type of fuel and create a chain reaction or some fabulous claim

Simply increasing compression...beyond what a car will normally run without detonation pinging or knocking...

One of the reasons diesels are more efficient is they run at much higher compression ratios...And the higher the compression ratio the more efficiently the fuel is ignited and burns...

So the head is ported and polished...To that aim...It is planed .050 of an inch...The valves are removed and relief cut...And then ceramic coated....Inside the  intake and exhaust chamber are ceramic coated....

Stuff like that...

Not cheap for the mods...But a great value if the car is to be kept for a few years....Cost for mods was $1200

Increasing the mileage by 33% from 40 to 60 miles per gallon is worth it....

Good feeling knowing that you get 60 miles per gallon....Damned good feeling

Newsletter - Fuel cell info

His windmill book is great - I have it - linked at the word windmill in the newsletter.

http://www.poormansguides.com/news-April-07.htm

work from home if possible then work toward it.Ups comes almost anywhere.Cottage industry has much going for it no commute,listen to music or not.eat when hungry etc.the Internet has helped greatly..in order for Me to do it again 911 killed the Mr haney of wood and metal furniture.theres a three day festival here in September live music and artist from all over the east..i waited till they had no customers then asked how its been since 911 half said it had picked up some the others not to pre 911.then with 10 carefully picked photos of what i build asked them what they thought would sell half pointed to one item all wood.,building lap stake canoes.odd thing its what id rather do?steel weighs 490?lbs per cubic foot,western red cedar 22lbs..the finished one person 12' canoe weighed 27lbs.way back when i got 2000 for the one here some where found a 1992 used one for sale for 3000.on a per pound basis,the next step will be to set up shop where the only thing in the room is a cd player chair or two , the essential materials and tools .no clutter makes for more efficient work time.       Do youre home work where to market .pricing.,and start it as a hobby part timejob etc in a year one can reach a good momentum.for now Im in the great rust belt.that goes from chicago toledo,detroit,all the way to the east coast.where people are under getting laid off cloud.Cottage industry will become a bigger piece of the economic pie

Well there is one big problem with the cottage industry returning to mainstream....Used to be people owned their own land and homes...Today everyone either rents or are mortaged to their limit and are looking at 30 year loans...

Which means you cannot afford to be wrong or to struggle for very long while starting up a cottage industry.

But as gasoline and other fuels get retardedly expensive you will see people look for transportation alternatives...

Working out of the home is one thing that will be looked at by a lot of people.

Land values are going to see a shift....There has been a long urban sprawl problem in America...People wanting to get out of the cities out into the country for their own little piece of paradise....

When it costs a fortune to commute to work...One thing that will change is people will once again focus on living closer to cities and their jobs cutting down their commuter costs.

Another thing is simply getting rid of the SUV and choosing to drive smaller cars with slightly less power for better fuel mileage.

Car pooling and mass transit will see some growth as well...

But the passing of Peak Oil has definately started a change in the way we live our lives...For me it was improving my car to get 60 miles per gallon....So I could afford to drive the damned thing...

We are going to see a whole new wave of cars that are not hybrids but give more than 50 miles to the gallon... Gasoline prices may go down a little...But the says of fuel for $1.50 a gallon are over....

The average price in America is well over $3.00 a gallon and it will soar to over $3.50 a gallon in the near future... This is without a hurricane or castastrophe....Just the cost of fuel...

We may see some relief at the pumps in the fall...Expect something like $2.50 a gallon... Which is almost a dollar more than it was last winter.

So people will have to start looking for ways to lower their transportation costs...

I hope that long haul trucking gets cut in half and we start to make use of things like rail and ships....Which are much greener methods of transporting goods and people

Good points, Leo. If you do a search for ""downsizing"" you will find a host of dissusion groups and web sites based very much on the concept Leo is describing. If you have done yours sums right and are prepared to live simply and grow much of your own food- and can do those things such as simple plumbing and housing repairs etc which most folk hire someone else to do for them- you can live cheaply and very well indeed.
I live on 12 hours work per week, for example.

Fourx

Not many people can grow anywhere near enough food to feed themselves...You can get creative and have plants inside the house in all the windows...Growing multiple crops of things like carrots or potatoes...But you cannot feed your family unless you have a  decent amount of land

For people in colder climates it is even tougher.

My theory on what is wrong with Man?for umteen generations man the animal life was very hard (the number one cause of suicide in the good old days was abscess tooth.they were in pain for years,they focussed on day to day survival. then in just a couple of generations good shoes,central heat?all the goodies great grandpa didnt. How many generations did it take to turn a wolf into a english setter bird dog.Put simply the changes in recent years creates day to day stress the species hasnt adapted to.,we dash from here to there then to the next thing on the cell phone.his life is too complicated .stress is not good for the body down size and simplify.take time to smell the roses,i can live without the rat race..just 30 or 40 years ago people had more free time,now we have a host of time saving Conviences and no time..

Hardly a spare minute. :(

This year I decided to take a few more breaks.  Exploring the local history.

I just drove my truck a hundred miles to pan gold at a dude ranch.  That ought to help combat global warming. :)

Hey Dude!   ;D ;D

It was probably well worth the time, relaxation wise.

We spent the day clearing away some more fallen timber and then exploring a few back roads in our mtn neighborhood today. Time well spent.

Growing up we always had an old 4x4 just for driving down the forestry roads...Fishing exploring...Looking for easy timber to fall on the logging roads... ;)

Try to find logs that were leaning the right way....And fall them to the road...Cut off the top and hook a chain to the log and drag it onto the road with the 4 wheel drive....And then cut the log lengths and block the rest...Throw it on the truck...

good times...

It was fun and the Gem and Mineral group I went with are a great bunch of people, but I think the dude ranch put gold in the pile for the city dudes to find.  That is the only place I found any.  I think they sort it out and concentrate it a bit as we didn't find it where we thought we would.  The rest of us will go after the rough adventurous places. :)

Most important is making contacts for future deals- trips- exploring, etc -- you meet a lot of people who know a lot of things you don't this way and usually they are willing to share if you share with them. :)

Correct me if I am wrong...But isn't there a revival to the cottage industry gold mining? Where people have no overhead they just find a place to pan and they can make a good living...

Places where commercial mining or panning is not viable are perfect for the individual now that the price of gold is outrageously high...

I wonder if high commodity prices will combine with cottage industry in other areas...Such as people in the southwest buying land in AZ and New Mexico...That used to be a dollar an acre....And install solar panels and make hydrogen from Solar...To power their homes and then sell off the surplus power to the city and the surplus hydrogen to whomever...

I know there are still some serious mines going here and I know a few who do it quietly and survive.

I know of one guy - friend of a friend who struck it pretty rich - lots of new stuff - house - boat - etc, I heard -- all the sudden the tax man showed up and started asking questions -- he sold all his mining stuff I heard but don't think they quite caught up to him completely.  I don't think he talks about it much. :)

Power Co's make it pretty rough for small guys to get in the energy business.  Co-generation plants here do get in but they are multi-million dollar affairs and some of them don't succeed.

Glenn

I was mostly talking about smaller scale powerplants that would produce roughly 3-4 times the electricity you would need...

Or I know that for fuel you can get permits and sell fuel...Biodeisel makers have to get proper permits...Something under 100,000 gallon a year or whatever...

If you installed the solar panels on your land and used the electricity to produce hydrogen....Shouldn't there be plenty of people that would buy the clean cheap energy source...

maybe it would be like dairy farmers of yesteryear....They all had smallish farms and the milk truck came and picked up their milk every couple of days...They had storage tanks...

why couldn't people have the same type of system...Where there would be a commodity price for hydrogen and companies would be established to buy it and distribute it....Like Milk...

The southwest would be prime land for such an endeavor....

At this time the political/corporate partnership between our state and big business has it set up so that you are a fool if you build something like that.  You only benefit if you can net meter and trade exact value of your power for theirs annually.  If you make extra the power company gets to buy it from you at avoided cost - about 1.5 -4 cents per KWH.  Way less than it costs you or them.  They will not let you make a living off of the energy industry -- don't want to encourage others to cut into the profit margin.  Wonder how many politicians got paid off to help set that up? :-?

http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/issuebr2.pdf

Glenn

Duly Noted...Follow the money as per usual... I imagine that this is something that will change as the technology makes this even easier to do...

You have stated what happens with electricity...Maybe the Hydrogen Economy is a way to break the power companies control...

What I mean to say is that if people started producing hydrogen and had it stored for sale to distributors...The electric companies are not the ones buying it from the local population.

As more green laws get passed that mandate electricity be generated cleaner...And mandated zero emission vehicles...The demand for things like solar generated hydrogen will soar through the roof.

What is it that they say about necessity...The creator of all genius? A paradigm shift could occur simply because of the raw demand there will be for hydrogen.

BTW...

What does a KWH cost you out there in the mountains Glenn?

Fortunately we do have true net metering; one meter that turns forward or backward. Period. No adjustments. No if's or but's. Unfortunately, I love my A/C in the summer so the power company gets paid more than they pay us. But that's cool!  :)

KwH is about 9 cents

We have a couple scales in the valley - around 10 to 15 cents.  All free here in the mountains so I don't know --- the real cost -- for me --- I don't want to figure.  Don is the one who likes all those numbers. :)

There is really not much way you are going to beat the system to make money -- maybe to use yourself, but then they will figure out a way to tax the sun.

Illinois is suing a old couple for using bio-diesel and not paying tax on it.  It's used french fry grease - fer cryin out loud.  B*stards.

Quote--- the real cost -- for me --- I don't want to figure.  Don is the one who likes all those numbers. :)

I don't even want to crunch those numbers! Although I did once and all I recall is that I was thinking "I should live so long!"

Glenn

Illinois is just setting an example for what is going to be a large industry...No state is under any circumstances going to allow you to make an alternative automobile fuel that will prohibit people from buying their fuels and paying the appropriate taxes.

If you and I drank some beers got out the old drawing board and invented a fuel cell that was so efficient you could fill up with pure water every 1000 miles and a solar panels on the roof would convert the water to hydrogen as you drove...

State and Federal governments would say the device did not meet safety standards....But really they would be saying...If we do not collect fuel tax you are not driving on our highways.

The potential for using waste oils such as frenchfry grease is limited....But Even if 1% of america's diesel needs could be met by recycling waste veggie oil....That represents a massive amount of tax revenue lost by the state and federal governments.

When you consider that we use billions and billions of barrels of oil per year...

The loss in taxable revenue is the only reason in my opinion why there is no true conservation efforts to curb our daily use of crude oil in America... We are using 20 million barrels per day minimum and the need is increasing...  If Conservation reduced it to 15 million barrels a day that is 25% reduction in Tax revenue (assuming the price would stay high.. which it would not as a sharp decline in demand would allow prices of crude and gasoline to drop severly as well)

But back to math....8 billion barrels of crude a year..Say waste veggie oil represented a potential 1% savings in crude consumption (if every drop nationwide was recycled)... that is 80 million barrels of crude...Oil is worth in excess of $60 a barrel...So 5 billion worth of crude oil....

45 gallons of crude per barrel....That is a lot of fuel...Easily a billion gallons...Which sells for $3.00 a gallon...33% of that is taxes...So a billion dollars a year in taxes is at risk from people using waste veggie oil for biodeisel.

This is why the state of IL went after the old couple.

It sucks! but you knew it was coming.... Follow the money Glen.

For the same reason Hydrogen Solar and electric cars will not be given a fair shake for many years....They represent a paradigm shift so great that whole new systems of taxation and revenue generation would have to be created by governments....

They are not going to be willing participants to something like this. The current system is a license for them to print money...We are addicted to oil...Our cars give terrible mileage and the cost of fuel is heavily taxed and very expensive....

Revenues for the feds and each state keep skyrocketing....They know we have to have gasoline...

The IRS has to send agents out after people investigating...Chasing them court battles... to try and collect monies... Gasoline is easy....Just sit back and watch people fill up their cars at the pumps and laugh all the way to the bank.

BTW

I used easy math numbers back there....the 20+ million barrels a day is accurate and so is the price of oil.... I read a little on the average taxation rate for gasoline in most states and 33% taxes is pretty accurate

Feel free to use other numbers if you have better information ;) I am never going to reach "DON" number status here people

Current hydrogen technology is another hoax being perpetrated by the oil companies and big auto corporations.  It is a decoy and will not even be feasable the way they are doing it.  They are not going after hydrogen from water either .  They are going after it from fossil fuel.  

The oil companies refuse to let go of their cash cow.

Glenn

I noticed that several mentions in the media about deriving hydrogen from Coal and Crude oil...

Rather missing the whole point of clean technology

What makes me laugh is the fact that even if we do get to a point where we use clean solar powered water derived hydrogen in our economy....Oil will still be the easiest and cheapest method of fueling for a long time....And it will be even longer before the third world develop the technologies for anything but fossil fuels.

China is the one hope for the world... Right now they are growing 10% a year and they have high levels of pollution...Soon they will start producing as much pollution as the USA :o

But China has the opposite of the brain drain...Their industries are brimming with over educated workers and technicians...China is looking for ways to save money and get green...They are trying to reduce use of fossil fuels...

Considering that they have 4 times the population of the USA...I take their intentions a little more seriously...As there is no way that they could ever hope to keep going with oil as their main mojo

I truly believe they will be on the cutting edge of green tech and  they will set examples the rest of the world will follow...

Getting green is going to save money and spur economic growth...Using less energy creating less waste and saving money on energy are all good ways to make a lot more money in industry....These are the long term benefits from China going green

The USA is so dependant on oil because their whole economy is set up around it...They got OPEC to make the US dollar the international currency which oil is bought and sold worldwide... Changing that fragile system would devastate the value of the US dollar.

Well that and all the people of power in the USA have vested interests in oil, and coal...etc... a paradogm shift today would mean other people would have access to ways to make money...There would be things in our economy that they did not control or have exclusive control over....And they strongly oppose that.

As far as hydrogen being a hoax....It depends...

What nobody is talking about right now in America are all the dirty coal plants being built...They are building as many as they can get built...Fearing strict new regulations and they expect all old power stations to be grandfathered in...

If Hydrogen is created with water and electricity it has tremendous potential for greening up the world....If the electricity comes from clean sources such as coal fired plants that recover or limit their carbon emissions...Then the gains for the environment are limitless.

I think the future of coal other than as a clean energy source where we trap and convert most of the carbon so it is not emitted...But Since everyone is on the bio diesel bandwagon.... It is interesting that coal makes very clean pure synthetic diesel that is free of sulphur and particulates...

The Nazi's started to develop this tech...It has been greatly improved upon... And correct me if I am wrong...I do not think they burn the coal or release carbon from it...I think it is pressed to the state where it liquifies....And that is where they get the synthetic diesel from.

I have no idea about the cost of synthetic diesel from coal compared to that of from crude oil....If it was comparable cost wise it would be amazing if they mandated that all diesel in America had to come from green sources...Either recycled veggie oil or synthetic coal based diesel...

Huge gains could be made for the environment....Without changing much at all really...

MR Oil would not like it...But Coal has a lot of powerful people backing it...So maybe the wants of MR Coal could counteract against the Wants of Mr Oil...

:-/

I not saying that hydrogen as a fuel is a hoax.  It could work but does have problems with metal embrittlement.

I am saying that industry/politicians  trying to make people (sheeple) believe that they are seriously pursuing hydrogen technology is a hoax.  :-/

Lets all get neutered - it is the PC "Green" thing to do.

BTW - don't exhale that CO2.  :-?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C21684156-5009760%2C00.html

...notice, although this is a.""au"" ( Australian) news site, they dont mention the Baby Bonus- ie: the fact that four grand a head goes to the mother of every new little aussie- pump them out, the Government says, while the country falls apart around their little ears, while the water runs out, and crime spirals up into the stratosphere. In most cases it's spent on a plasma TV and more booze and drugs, of course.

Interesting, Pete.  I could use an extra $40,000.00 or so.  What is their policy toward foreigners? :-?

I agree that full throttle pursuit of hydrogen is not happening and it is not going to happen any time soon...

Anyone that thinks so needs to buy some ocean front property in Arizona :o

But Hydrogen can work.... Even if we use it to heat our homes replacing heating oil....

Solar Hydrogen is clean and renewable...If the energy to make it comes from the sun it is truly pollution free... So instead of replacing a dirty fuel for one a little bit less dirty and still releasing all the carbon and being totally dependant upon oil... (as we have done switching fuels from gas, oil, diesel, propane, natural gas....) Hydrogen could replace heating oil in America and there would be 100% reduction in carbon emissions, particulate emission... etc..

I do not think it feasible to think that the gasoline or diesel engine in automobiles will be replaced by anything for at least 20 years...Maybe more... They will bring out smaller cars with less power and they will give 60 miles to the gallon or more from the factory....Which will cut emissions in half and allow people to afford the $6.00 a gallon price tag for gasoline.

But Sulphur and Particulate free Synthetic Diesel from Coal....And bio diesel from recycled veggie oil.... is a way to make serious headway in reducing emissions and cleaning the air we breathe.

We phased out coal as a home heating source in America about 20 years ago...It went the way of the Dodo bird...we could likewise phase out heating oil...Make it more expensive...ban new home construction from installing oil furnaces or natural gas furnaces for that matter....

No reason why electricity cannot become the number one home heating source in America...And for those that want an alternative...Have a clean zero emission source like Hydrogen.... Sure This would increase demand on electricity...But even dirty coal fired plants have some pollution controls and scrubbers on their smoke stacks to catch the particulates.... when joe schmoe fires up the oil furnace the emissions go right out the chimney.... So 100% of the pollutants are put into the atmosphere.

Point being we can make serious gains in cleaning up the air we breathe and reducing carbon emissions without changing much at all.... No pie in the sky...Miracle tech needed to save us... Just a little legislation that makes sense and brings about minor changes in the types of fuels we use and where these fuels come from...

In that way I think Hydrogen has unlimited potential...

I read a newspaper article about a politician out in Wyoming or Montana a few years back who was pushing for all of America's diesel to come from Coal....they have unlimited coal resources out there easy to access strip mines can get it...Cheap quick and easy... would be a major source of energy that would actually clean up America...

It would reduce the amount of oil we import daily..Saving billions..And the diesel would be almost pollution free...Create a lot of jobs here in America too...

It is just a winner all the way around...

...well, with that figure floating around, Glenn, the first thing they would tell you is that you buy your own wheelchair...


...and the second thing they would give you would be the Guinness Book Of Records email address. ;)

Wow

Spent some time going through US government sties on energy and fuel consumption...and researched the proposals for Syn Diesel plants in Montana

here are some figures

1 ton of coal makes 1.5 barrels of oil....There are 115 billion tonnes of easily accessible coal (strip mines)...So that equates into 172.5 billion barrels of Diesel


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/08/02/build/state/25-coal-fuel.inc

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_821dsta_dcu_nus_a.htm

Okay...

America is consuming a little over 4 million barrels of Diesel per day...That includes all home heating, vehicle use, farm use, locomotives, ships, military use...

This equates into 1.5 billion barrels of diesel per year.... So there is enough coal in Montana to supply the USA with diesel for 100 years. (115 actually if you did not have to use coal to generate electricity to make the synthetic diesel etc..)

The problem is cost...

One liquifying plant that would make 150,000 barrels a day would cost 7.5 billion dollars. And America would need 30 of these plants to meet their total Diesel consumption needs. That is 225 billion dollars!!!

The other huge problem is the amount of coal that would have to come out of the ground.... 4 million barrels a day equates to 2.7 million tonnes of coal per day..... In some of the links they are proposing building large mines that will produce 12 million tonnes a year...They would need to build 83 of these mines to supply enough coal to make sure there was enough diesel for america...

America already produces 1.1 billion tonnes of coal per year...Which would be enough coal for diesel...But we would be without electricity and we could not make steel...etc.

So America in essence would have to double the amount of coal they mine each year...And they could in turn make enough synthetic diesel to meet their own needs.

Montana has 24 % of America's coal second to only Wyoming...But New Mexico, The Dakotas are loaded with coal also

Montana is only producing 4% of america's coal currently...So Montana coal is pretty much an untapped resource they shell out 45 million tonnes a year

So if all of Montana's coal that is currently being mined went for Diesel production....America would run out of Diesel each year on January the 17th....

Yes folks 17 days worth of Diesel

So the Montana Governor has his head in the clouds... When he says Montana can end US dependence on Foreign oil.

Not that this is not a great idea....But it is a massive undertaking...It would cost an astronomical amount of money....

The people that own interests in Coal are powerful and they should balance out against the people that have interests in Oil...

It is worth noting that there is a trend currently to stop mining Coal in PA, WV, KY, IL,IN because it is low the low sulphur variety.... Well synthetic diesel solves that problem....

As more mines are developed out in WY,MT,ND, CO of the low sulphur variety....That will allow high sulfur coal to be used for synthetic diesel in the mid west and east

I am still a little skeptical about how they will deal with the carbon..I mean doubling the coal we use will double the carbon we have to deal with from coal...

the Governor in Montana says they will use it to inject into natural gas and oil wells to increase production and revive depleted wells... I remain skeptical

A low cost process needs to be perfected where they combine the Carbon with something else to make a  element that will not contribute to global warming..

For example... combine the Co2 with salt water and desalinize the water and the carbon should be added to the minerals in the salt water and when the water is purified you get pure water and the minerals plus the carbon...

I am not a chemist...I saw a smelter in New Brunswick work a dozen years ago where they  converted the sulphur dioxide coming out of the smoke stack into usable chemicals that they sold and prevented the toxic chemicals from being emitted out the smoke stack...

Not having to buy 4 million barrels of oil a day from the middle east and Venezuela would be a big economic boost to America...

Also there would be record profits from the synthetic diesel...They can produce a gallon of diesel for a buck....They could add  another buck in taxes to make the government happy and still sell it cheaper than the diesel we are buying now...And make a lot of money....

Quote...well, with that figure floating around, Glenn, the first thing they would tell you is that you buy your own wheelchair...


...and the second thing they would give you would be the Guinness Book Of Records email address. ;)

I put the numbers in there for Don's benefit.  He likes to calculate. :)

Dang it, Pete.  I'm not that old. :-/

In todays real world, Peter, successful hydrogen inventors - the ones who do it near free from water, and can prove it, mysteriously die.  

Seems they do better if they take the money and keep their mouth shut. :-/

Big Oil buys Sacramento
May 16, 2007, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-court14may14,1,7287489.story

Who's afraid of Big Oil? Apparently, California's elected officials. Gasoline prices are stuck well above last year's record highs and about 50 cents above the national average. Yet state politicians are not saying or doing a thing, except for raking in political cash from the oil companies and flying around the world on their dime. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ... once claimed that he was so rich he did not need anyone else's money. Yet as gasoline prices were breaking last year's record of $3.38 a gallon, Schwarzenegger collected a $100,000 check May 1 from Chevron, the West's largest refiner. Just three days earlier, it reported a $4.7-billion first-quarter profit, up 18% over the same period last year. The contribution brought Schwarzenegger's take from Chevron to $665,000 (making it his 15th largest donor) since 2003, and his total political tribute from the energy industry is now $4 million. According to a recent Schwarzenegger fundraising solicitation, Chevron's $100,000 buys the company special briefings with the governor. Refiners such as Chevron have discovered that they can make more money by producing less gasoline. So they do. They have, over more than 20 years, deliberately reduced their capacity. Chevron refined 22% less oil in the U.S. during the first quarter of this year than in the same quarter of 2006. Yet its total profit on U.S. refining increased 66%. Making less gasoline, it made much more money. Oil companies poured $90 million into California political campaigns during the 2006 election cycle. This display of sheer political muscle deters even well-meaning politicians from clashing with Big Oil. Democrats take Big Oil's millions too. The state Democratic Party accepted $50,000 from Chevron just last week.
AAA wants gas-price inquiry

May 16, 2007, The San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco's leading newspaper)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/16/BUGVAPRFRQ1.DTL

AAA asked the U.S. Senate Tuesday to investigate why oil companies are making huge profits at a time when glitches at gas refineries have caused pump prices to soar. "We are concerned about the number and frequency of refinery outages this year in light of the large profits the industry has been reporting," AAA Public Affairs Director Geoff Sundstrom told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. "AAA doesn't know why refiners appear to be failing at this task, but we do think it would be worth the committee's time and trouble to find out." Sundstrom spoke at a Senate hearing at which lawmakers asked energy experts to explain the spell of unplanned refinery shutdowns that have thrown gas supplies into disarray from coast to coast, boosting average pump prices to a record $3.09 per gallon in the United States. California Energy Commission spokesman Bob Aldrich said his agency does not investigate the industry but does track its practices. This year the big story was a series of glitches in the annual switchover from winter gas to a differently formulated summer gas. Tom Kloza, publisher of the Oil Price Information Service ... said the surprise this year was that refineries outside California also had unplanned problems with their normal spring maintenance. "I did not think we'd see the same downtime elsewhere in the country," he said. Sean Comey, spokesman for AAA of Northern California, said the gas refining business is unusual because it seems that even when production goes down, prices and profits go up. "When most industries have production problems, profits suffer as a result," he said.

Glenn

I guess the only way for this type of tech to make it is to publish it free on the web... Sure the guy that invented it gets nothing...But...The world benefits from it and he does not go missing or get poisoned...

Benevolance, there's a bill before Congress to allow hemp to be grown...
Dr. Ron Paul's Truth Prescriptions http://www.ronpaul08.blog-city.com/
By: Rand Clifford
Another cheer for Congressman Ron Paul! Anyone frothing up hate-radio reptiles into virtually shedding their skins has to be doing something right. Dr. Paul is doing many things right, after breaking the political paradigm of parroting bullshit, by introducing truth. His latest truth blast was point-blank into the face of Rudy Giuliani at the South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary "debate", a place where it seems truth and meaning are anathema. Dr. Paul revealed American foreign policy as the root cause of hatred and terrorism against the United States. Giuliani must've felt like a quail-slaughtering partner of Cheney's—though slippery politician that Giuliani is, heat in his feet raced up under his collar and he declared that he had never heard such a theory in his life! He even asked Paul to retract it; in the grips of honesty, Dr. Paul not only refused, but pointed out the CIA's seasoned theory of blowback. Has Giuliani never imagined that if you punch someone in the face, they might punch you back? He parroted the pathetic illusion that our freedom and democracy is what drives terrorists bonkers, along with our freedom for women, and freedom of religion. If the GOPers don't succeed in banning Dr. Paul and his tin-foil hat from future "debates", don't be surprised to see marijuana cited as the reason for his lunacy.

Dr. Paul is the chief sponsor of H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007". All nine original co-sponsors are Democrats, Representatives: Jim McDermott (WA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Pete Stark, George Miller and Lynn Woolsey (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barney Frank (MA), Maurice Hinchey (NY). Dr. Paul insists: "It is indefensible the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop. The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located oversea instead of in the United States. By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit—all without spending a single taxpayer dollar."

Health Canada confirmed that 48,060 acres of hemp were grown in 2006, with farmers reporting it as one of the most profitable crops they can grow. In the U.S., the National Conference of State Legislatures have passed a pro-hemp resolution. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture support commercial production of industrial hemp. Fifteen states so far have passed pro-hemp legislation. So why are American farmers still prohibited from growing the world's most valuable and versatile natural resource? The reason is a classic example of how power in America works against The People.

February, 1938, Popular Mechanics magazine's cover story was called New Billion-Dollar Crop. The article was about hemp, and the invention of a machine which they said, "solves a problem 6,000 years old." Called a decorticator, the machine removes the fiber-bearing cortex from the hemp stalk, greatly reducing the human labor involved. Imports of raw hemp and manufactured hemp products produced by "coolie and peasant labor" would be replaced with domestic hemp, providing thousands of new American jobs. The article's huge error was in claiming that hemp would not compete with other American products. Such competition had already killed domestic hemp the year before the article was published, blindsiding our hemp industry with an illegal tax law ostensibly targeting "the killer weed from Mexico".

William Randolph Hearst and Pierre du Pont were the two power brokers most responsible. Hearst leveled cross-hairs on hemp after 1916, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture invented a process for making paper from hemp hurds—the pulp leftover after fiber stripping. Hearst owned vast timber acreage, and his paper manufacturing companies such as Kimberly Clark and St. Regis stood to loose billions in profits to superior and eco-friendly hemp paper. So with his chain of newspapers, Hearst declared war on hemp by first conjuring it into marijuana, killer weed from Mexico. Hearst's lurid ooze of yellow journalism prodded marijuana hysteria into gullible Americans for twenty years—marijuana was the most dangerous drug ever vomited from Hell by Satan himself, the most pernicious threat to civilization imaginable! Du Pont's role...by 1937 he not only had patents on the horribly-polluting sulfuric acid process for making paper from wood pulp, along with patents to make plastics from oil and coal, but DuPont's array of petrochemical synthetic products including rayon, nylon and polyester were set to make billions, as long as competition from superior, natural hemp products could be eliminated.

Industrial hemp is not marijuana, having such low amounts of the THC which puts the high in marijuana. Nevertheless, in 1937, Congress passed the prohibitive and illegal (taxes are meant raise revenue, not prohibit behaviors) Marijuana Tax Act. The entire Congressional process was almost as lurid as ooze from Hearst's yellow journalism—in fact, "testimony" was dominated by Hearst's very own marijuana hysteria. Andrew Mellon, owner of Mellon Bank, one of only two banks (con't at above link)

George Washington grew hemp.

http://www.populistamerica.com/liberty_whiskey_and_hemp

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/washington/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.18566996/pNo_18566996/id_6579818/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_   no I don't think George was a stoner.

We have some rather simple, cost effective solutions - even in building vehicles, but it doesn't bring in the money to the corporate interests or take money out of our pockets "taxes" to keep us madly working, making a living to survive...  :-/

Interesting history on Washington  :)

Hemp is a great crop...As long as they do not grow the stoner kind of hemp... It has all kinds of uses...Rope, Paper, Clothing... Should be very profitable

it makes a nice fabric.,In 1987 John Gardener wrote a scolding letter in national fisherman magazine on hull shapes were wrong and oil was gonna do what its doing he got it right..He was curator mystic seaport wrote numerous books on the old designs with good plans.turn of the last century they had low power engines and went to hull shape to get maximum speed long length to beam they were able at a good speed on low power.a electric boat with hull designed for it is now practical in most situations and the silence great.,gas guzzlers will become more and more  expensive and it will go full circle..aqcross from the cabin is dual and even triple big block speed goats barreling along and house boats 85 feet tby 18 feet wide two have heli pads?gas at the dock is 4$ and will go up ..it has 1250 miles of shore line and the damns leaking water has been dropped for repairs 3 company's build houseboats,the local economy thrives on the summer people.another 1973 oil squeeze will turn them into dinosaurs..mr Gardener passed away at 92 will prove correct .

CAP & TRADE MONEY MARKET SCHEMES & CARBON TAXES (http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind2.htm)
excerpt:
"When Gore was Vice-President where was his drive to have the EPA accomplish so many more goals in this country to reduce pollution and improve public health?
Gore, however, is apparently not advocating that we work within the framework of the EPA, with their offices in every State, to once again make this an agency work toward reducing harmful pollutants. And Gore has not allegedly challenged the Bush Administration who has closed almost all, if not all, of the EPA's libraries built with taxpayer funding. The silence has been deafening as the Bush Administration made political appointments to the EPA, who then proceeded to edit and censor official scientific assessments and studies, while making massive budget cuts. And the silence has continued for years giving a pass to the Bush Administration as they made changes to EPA regulations which are now allowing polluters to pollute more in the United States, thus reversing years of progress.

And why wasn't Gore out in public, speaking, and working toward pollution reduction during the eight years he was Vice-President of the United States? Now he is almost completely ignoring the EPA in order to promote a money market scheme, which he calls "The Carbon Exchange Market." He expects that everyone, including large, special interest corporations, will automatically pledge to reduce emissions and that these emissions will be automatically "...converted into tradable credits...If participants reduce their emissions below their target, they can sell their carbon credits on the exchange for a profit...if they fail to reduce their emissions, they must buy credits from others..." Why aren't their calls for rules, regulations, and penalties for non-performance instead?

Thus, it appears that Gore and other corporations intend to make money through this type of investment scheme. There is just one problem. This scheme appears to globalize pollution through trading, buying, and selling. The end result is that polluters will continue to pollute and buy from a long list of those who have real or fake pollution credits to sell. It is a great idea for those special corporate interests that established this money making market scheme because they will make fantastic profits...but it does not regulate or reduce the pollution that is responsible for climate change and the polluting of our air, rivers, and streams. And it will not make a significant reduction in the pollutants that are causing declining human health, a rise in childhood asthma, and other respiratory problems."

"The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling"

:-/ :-/

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Great, Don. :-/  I just put on my Speedo's and now it's time to pull out the goose down comforter. ::)

dunno what that meant glenn

too much info with the speedos man

Sassy; If this new trade scheme can lower emissions I am all for it. For a while large corporations will have a way to keep polluting... but you see countries that do not pollute will sell their emission credits and it will fuel economic development...And companies that are green will sell their emission credits...And to that end it will be funding and pushing low emission business and green technology.

As the credits get more expensive it will become prudent for companies and countries to push for green tech because there will not be enough credits to buy and they will become too expensive.

by getting them to agree to minitor their emissions and work in a defined system we are starting the world to really working towards reduction

Bush would never agree to widespread cuts in emissions...Mr Oil will never allow that

The rest of the world cannot just cut their emissions in half while the USA just keeps on polluting...So even if the credit system is flawed...it at least gets the entire world into some sort of agreement.

It was great that some of the western states here in America held conferences with the mayors and govenors and they all talked about things they can do to reduce pollution...They initiated some economic reforms and proposed cuts for the future in emissions.... But in the scope of the whole usa and meaningful long term green tech and emission reductions it is a small stone thrown in a big pond

More must be done

I just meant minimum clothing for global warming, Peter.  I didn't want to say I just ironed my birthday suit for global warming and now I need a quilt.  That would give you some kind of weird mind picture that possibly you couldn't live with -- or don't want to. ;D

There - see - you made me do it anyway. :o

Glenn I pretty much have to turn the mental picture machine off when talking to you man ;)

Dang it -- I guess if I can't shock you, then This wrinkled ol' birthday suit won't do me any good -- better fold it back up and put it away. :-/

Desalinization the wrong way??

http://english.pravda.ru/news/science/93630-0/

QuoteGlenn I pretty much have to turn the mental picture machine off when talking to you man ;)

Here you go Peter.  My solution to global warming but....

I Just Don't Look Good Naked Anymore (http://www.ucalldatmusic.com/mp3files/naked.mp3)

(http://www.ucalldatmusic.com/images/naked%20cover.jpg)

Order it or see more (http://www.ucalldatmusic.com/naked.htm)

Glen

I agree that de-salinization can be a bad thing....If you dump the pollution of the salt water back into the ocean...But the brine can be used for other things and is a potential resource that can be utilized...

Also They also need to make sure that they use sound practices around the ocean to make sure pollution does not get into the water.

There was a super point in the article that said major cities should start with recycling all their waste water before turning to de-salinization  :)

I think I have made that point about oh ten times here in the past.

What the article did not say was that the vast majority of places where there is mass de-salinization occurs there is no fresh water to save...For example in the middle east...

I think we should double the amount of water we de-salinize globally....More water means more food and a healthier life for the worlds poor. There do need to be regulations to make sure that there is no pollution dumped into the ocean from the process though.

As for salinity increasing in the worlds oceans...I doubt that...As the polar ice caps melt the salinity decreases...They are pure water...icebergs that is...all the ice breaking off the north and south pole ice sheets is the purest water on the planet....

So - my next question to you, Peter, is .... are you ignoring the song?  :-?;D

did not giver it a listen Glenn....

I will go check it out just for you

had a listen

Dunno man get back to me in 30 years and I will be able to relate to it ;)

You are probably being overly optimistic, Peter --- A health food nut like you probably doesn't take in enough preservatives to make it last more than another 20 years or so. ;D

never heard it put that way man...

I am not a health food nut...I mean we eat a roast a week a chicken every week... It is not like we are vegans or anything extreme...

We drink beer if we feel like it... Even eat homemade chocolate chip peanut butter cookies.

But Yeah nothing comes out of a can for me anymore...and no deep fried anything... trying to eat only whole wheat....To eliminate high fructose corn syrup... Stuff like that.

And despite being good I still could stand to lose 5 pounds or so...I have a good start on a spare tire... :-[

So maybe I will be singing that song sooner than later :-/

No worries, Peter-- I'm just funnin ya--- you shouldn't start to notice it until you reach at least 35. :)

So now we know what the problem is, worms!   :-/  :-?  :D

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63227

06/25/2007 09:20 AM                  ID: 63227
Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming
       

Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Worms are being used commercially to compost organic material and is in preference to putting it into the landfill. The German government wants 45% of all waste to be composted by 2015.

"Everybody... thinks they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming. People are looking into alternative waste treatments but we have to make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire," said Frederickson.
     
       Source: www.mrw.co.uk

Glenn

It is okay to fun at me...I am different I do not care...I was telling my wife the other night at supper we had a guest her cousin over to join us at supper... And We ate a simple meal of Wholewheat pasta.. pasta sauce from our tomatoes and herbs from the wife's garden... Fresh bread that we made

It tasted great and My wife and I were totally psyched about how good and healthy it was...We were trying to explain to her cousin that we both got a natural high eating meals we made largely ourselves and from food we grew was especially awesome....Or eating homemade bread..etc...

He looked at us like we were weirdos....  He smokes reefer...I think we lost him when we said we got high naturally without the drugs...All we needed was life... :-/

They don't have a clue, Peter.  That's why I never smoked it -- I want my lungs to be pink when they fry me. :o

well mostly pink...

Pollution and being around other smokers will put green fspots on your lungs...

But yeah I have never smoked anything in my life drugs or cigarettes...
worst thing about my diet is I love coca cola...And it has high fructose corn syrup which is bad for you...

If I could cut that out of my diet I think I would be eating and living super healthy...

We do not exactly eat a mediterranean diet....We do try to eat fish once a week... Veggies every night with supper...Lots of Greens and Tomatoes...My Irish side comes out in that I eat potatoes like mad...

We love to cook sirloin roasts and chickens..We eat each once a week....

The best thing about cooking from scratch is that you control the sodium fat and sugar...  We make Stews and soups.. but we do not use salt... or canned goods that contain sodium. So you can have the things you like and eat like a king...And not kill yourself by eating poisons

We have converted my wife's mom to a no canned good diet where she is aware of her sodium and sugar....And she all of a sudden is a 60 year old without high blood pressure....and she found the extra 10 or 15 pounds just sort of disappeared.

I hope my pineapple live and grow... I told my wife that I want to start eating a lot more snack foods that are fresh fruit... I know they are killer expensive in the stores... but if I can grow my own pineapple to add to the other fruits I grow....I can cut back on the cost of eating healthy.

A guy showed me how to cut off the top and plant it back in the ground...I hope it works out.....I absolutely love pineapples :)

...they take a while to grow, that's the only problem. I'm a big fan of potatoes as well, I have three rows of Pontiacs, each row about twenty feet long, ready to dig. They are nicest, I find,  dug up small and immediatly washed and boiled with a few springs of mint in the water, and served topped with butter. Yum.

I guess she could be 23 feet long, Pete -- the old ones were biggies.

(http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/lakeelmo/pont5901a.JPG)


Peter, I am of the belief that salt - sodium won't hurt you unless you have a specific problem with it.  A newer study agrees with me.   Older ones didn't.

 :) Three of those would bump your fuel bill up a little- ah, those were the days.

I think they could generate a little global warming themselves.  I think it may have been a '60 I moved to CA with.

the bubble top roof is an american classic in styling of vintage automobiles...

to that end I am in search of a 62 chevrolet bubbletop (cheap)

Keep yer eyes peeled Glenn

Now, to get back to "global warming"  ;)  I just read an interesting article...

Our Dead & Dying Trees (http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind4.htm)  

It brings up some issues that should be investigated that could be causing the widespread weakening & death of trees throughout the US.  

..from the article: ""Why are our public officials ignoring this problem...not taking tree ring and soil samples to find out why are trees are stressed and dying? "" Ring samples would show the series of similar events keyed to the cycle of solar flares and increased activity- 11 years, from memory. There really is nothing new in this..the difference is the instant and widespread impact of alarmist comments due to widespread access to the Net.

My point in this article was more about the "contrails" or "chemtrails" if you will, weather manipulation & HAARP that super heats the plasma in the ionosphere  (HAARP is in Gakona, Alaska)  official site:   http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/index.html  

That article subtlely alluded to all of that but didn't put out the "conspiracy" words like "chemtrails".  

I believe we have the natural cycles of weather as influenced by the sun, I do not believe that we are having "global warming" per Al Gore.  Other planets are warming up, also.  Some scientists say we are just coming out of the last ice age...  the Bible says the world is "waxing old like a garment" & that "all creation is groaning" due to the fall of man.  So, there is a lot more evidence to the contrary of what Gore preaches than the "science" that agrees with him.  

Has The Great Global Warming Swindle documentry been shown in the US, Sassy? Fascinating stuff, and quite remarkable in the way it has raised the hackles of the Green Zealots here.

I think that might have been the one John posted awhile back shortly after the thread on Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, don't know for sure.

A Inconvenient Fact (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651)

QuoteA Inconvenient Fact (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651)

Amen! And right along the same lines as my old post under "Thought For the Day"

http://www.countryplans.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1144358928/100

Use more wood! Grow trees and cut 'em down!

The Southern Pine Council promotes the use of raised floors when building new (instead of building slab-on-grade. It uses more wood, good for the southern pine wood industry. They also make a point of illustrating flood insurance saving if the building is above the ground. According to their website a home raised 2 feet will have the flood insurance premium cut by more than 50%! Plus a raised house actually looks better to my eye than the houses that sit a a near ground level slab.

Then you toss in the "carbon credits" that growing more trees provide. (I use that as a figure of speech.) This is especially true if the use of more sustainably grown wood means a reduction in the use of other energy consuming materials. The production of portland cement for concrete uses large amounts of energy for example.

http://sres-associated.anu.edu.au/fpt/cfb/cement.html    scroll down to the bottom....

"Cement production is one of the most energy intensive of all industrial manufacturing processes. Including direct fuel use for mining and transporting raw materials cement production takes about 6 million Btus for every tonne of cement (based on Portland Cement Association, 1990 data). The industry's heavy reliance on coal leads to especially high emission levels of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and sulphur. Most of the energy consumed is for operating the rotary kilns.

[highlight]In the U.S.A. for the approximately 80 million tons of cement used in 1992, roughly 0.6% of total energy used in the U.S.A. was required. Cement represents only about 0.06% of G.N.P. [/highlight]illustrating its energy intensiveness. "

From another source...
[highlight]• We use concrete as a material second only to water.
• For every ton of cement produced approximately one to one and a quarter
tons of carbon dioxide are produced.[/highlight]


FYI, here's a climate change calculator. According to it a ton of CO2 could be absorbed by 3 trees. Couldn't find what size. Lots of other interesting things there too.

http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/

Now with all that said, here is a rebuttal (pro concrete). Certain types of concrete structures, thin shell monolithic domes in particular, can be both economical to build and very safe structures. But not something you're going to build yourself.

http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/wilson/index.html

The last Sunday paper had a story about airlines being the biggest contributers to global warming and they expect huge increases in air travel.  I am a fan of trains myself and I do not understand why our airline industry is given tax dollars to keep itself afloat and they refuse to support the trains.  I know trains take a lot longer but they ave the technology now to make the faster trains and they could build them right above the existing freight trains spaces so it wouldn't take much more room.  There are new technoligies for electric and magnetic trains and the terrorist factor is reduced considerably because even though there is a lot more area to watch on the ground they can be monitired by electronics.  That is just one area tht can be improved upon with substantial results.  Another is telecommuting.  Most of the work desk jobs entail is easily done from a home office or over the phone why do these people have to spend precious time and resources driving to work and back every single day.  I know if I were the boss if I couldn't trust my workers to get the job done no matter where they worked I wouldn't trust them with the job at all.  Just my thoughts onthis whole global warming thing.  I also think hemp is the fastest growing renewable resource we have available and this country better move quickly to get that industry moving ahead because the trees are going fast and from what I hear concrete is pretty hard to get in this part of the country at times.  

High speed train travel excels in short hauls, up to 150 miles. It may even be advantageous for trips of up to 400 miles, when airport check-in, security check, etc. times are taken into account. So, if the US had a better, more widely available high speed rail system in the most populated areas there could be some great advantages. You still have to get to & from the train though. However, I don't believe trains will ever catch on here for longer distance travel.

Warren Buffet believes in train freight. His Berkshire Hathaway company just bought a large number of shares in the Santa Fe Burlington Northern RR. Freight trains make a lot of sense for long distance, not time-critical shipments.

[I also don't believe the federal government should prop up failing enterprises. That extends to subsidies of all kinds; farm, industrial, mortgages, etc.]

Concrete, or rather the cement that is one of the components of concrete, has been subject to world wide shortages, and price increases for a number of years now. Mostly this is due to the building boom in the People's Republic of China. Locally here in NM, there have even been times when redi-mix transit concrete has been subject to daily quotas because of the shortfall in the cement. That's even with having one of the approx. 200 US Portland Cement plants on the edge of town.

Mainland China's building boom is also responsible for sharp increases in the world's supply of steel.  

FYI, 60% of the world's available construction cranes are currently in China, most of them in Shanghai. As of the end of 2005, Shanghai had 15,000 buildings over 18 stories tall, and they are still building. Mind boggling.

Information from The Society of American Foresters indicates the number of acres of forestland in the United States has remained essentially the same during the past century. As well the standing inventory (the volume of growing stock) of hardwood and softwood tree species in US forests has grown by 49 percent between 1953 and 2006.

The SAF has a website   http://www.safnet.org/aboutforestry/index.cfm    The full report can be downloaded by clicking on the View the Online Report link in the first paragraph.

Lots of good info, MtnDon!   :)

There certainly are a number of jobs that could be done via telecommuting. Some already are.

My brother-in-law has been telecommuting for over six years now. He's a district manager for a large global conglomerate. He works from his upstairs home office wearing shorts and sandals most of the time. He does have to keep more or less normal hours because he has business contacts over a wide area. The company saves on commercial office space. He has a company vehicle but the mileage use is way down. He personally can save on clothes and has more real personal time. He does have to dress in a suit at times, mostly to receive company brass or make calls on retail clients along with their sales rep. Great thing!

There are a lot of jobs though, that on the surface could be done from home, but probably won't be because of information security concerns. I have some background in banking and customer service. It would seem that this sort of job could be done from an American workers home just as well as from a call center, especially a call center in India. [The bank I worked for do not utilize any out of the country service centers for its US customer base.]

I would never want to see anyone in a job like this, with access to all my personal information working from other than a secure central location. As it is, employee misuse of company resources and customer information is a problem throughout the telephone customer service industry; cell phones, catalog sales, mortgages, insurance carriers, credit card companies, government offices (some of the worst unsecured places), you name it. Please don't be alarmed and immediately pull your money out of the banks and put it in a sock under the mattress.  :) The bank I worked for had extremely tight security in its centers. Paper was not even used for making temporary notes. Either the Windows notepad or something similar was used; it could not be saved or printed. Cell phones, PDA's etc were not allowed on the work desk. Computer workstations would record if a floppy disk or USB flash memory was inserted.

Heck, every second not spent speaking to a client is recorded. When the recorded voice at the beginning of the call says the call may be recorded... they are not kidding. A large number of calls would be monitored... both the conversation and all the screen activity. It can be watched like a video, real time or recorded.  Yes, very Big Brotherish, but the security of your information is at stake. In an off site location there could be no security of the information.

If you've ever wondered about who it is who counts the money you deposited in the ATM, it's done on a clean table in a sterile secure room, one item at a time, by two people and recorded by a video system. The local bank emplyees never see the inside of the ATM.

FYI, a few years ago there were over 2 million telephone customer service reps in the USA. Most employed by insurance carriers, insurance agencies and brokerages, and banks and credit unions. Four States—California, Texas, Florida, and New York—employ 30 percent of customer service representatives. Delaware, Arizona, South Dakota, and Utah, have the highest concentration of workers in this occupation.

Security of information, BTW, is why I feel more secure in making purchases over the Internet. The order is handled by the computer system. The people there will never see anything other than what you ordered and how you want it shipped. The credit card info remains blocked from their access. Of course, you have to hope that the company itself is doing all it can to safeguard your information. Even if you only deal in person in a brick and mortar store you have to have the same trust if you use credit cards or personal checks.

Another FYI, did you know that a store like Home Depot can use your credit card number to check back months to see what you've purchased. This can be done by those trained in processing customer returns and special orders, not necessarily by a checkout cashier. It is handy if you can't find the receipt for something you want to return. Even without the paper, if they can find the item in your purchase record it's as good as having the receipt (depending on how service oriented the employee is.) . I imagine the same things might apply at many other establishments.

A final note on cement. (from a cement industry paper)

The cement manufacturing industry contributes about 5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

To make matters worse, the chemistry of cement-making results in as much carbon-dioxide as the energy used to make it.

Sassy I believe that there are cycles of weather...It is not something that people should doubt really unless you do not believe that there have been ice ages...

The one thing about global warming that does scare me is that even with 6.5 billion people the world the stratosphere is a unbelievably enormous place.  We have been massivley polluting the world for 400 years since the start of the Industrial revolution...Burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

I do not believe what we are seeing now is a cycle that is natural because there is no evidence of a warming trend that you can point to that goes back 100 years. major weather patterns shifts and cycles are something that take hundreds and hundreds of years to complete...

we are seeing rapid warming of the planet..Much too quick to be a cycle or pattern... remember that we have been keeping accurate notes of the weather for thousands of years and we have not experienced anything like this

What this is (in my opinion) is the  net result of the build up of pollution and carbon emissions from industry combined with the reduction of forest cover on the planet.

We need to think of this like the earth had no air that was breatheable... If this was the case and you had little groups of trees in Glass domes producing oxygen it would take tens of thousands of year to get the air to accumulate so we could breathe it naturally.... If there was millions of Domes with trees in them covering half the world producing air it would still take a long time to make enough for us to breathe...Perhaps a couple hundred years...

I use this analogy because this is how the warming effect of carbon is changing our world...We started 400 years ago to spew out pollution from fossil fuels..It has gotten worse and worse and now that we are really churning it out at a unfathomable rate for the last 100 years or more...we are seeing a change in the environment because of it.

Tomorrow we could eliminate all pollution and all carbon emissions by man and it would take generations for balance to be reached and for the barometer to see any relief.

The world is so big and there is so much air that the amount of pollution that was needed to change the weather is much higher than anyone has calculated...And the recovery time is going to be much longer as well.

that is once we stop polluting ;) and replant the trees we have cut down

What about the chemical spraying from airplanes?  The weather manipulation that goes on?  HAARP & other centers around the world that use electromagnetic forces to super heat the plasma in the ionosphere?  You don't think that is having a lot of effect on the weather?  China alone has 35,000 people whose job is to shoot chemicals into the atmosphere to effect the weather - they are planning on making sure there is no rain during the Olympics to spoil things.  

Weather manipulation has been going on since the early 1950's...  Super heating the plasma in the ionosphere... no one knows what the long range effects are to our weather & atmosphere...  :-/  spraying all kinds of chemicals from airplanes - microscopic aluminum to reflect the suns rays... I could go on & on - there are lots of places you can read about these things - I've listed links on several of the threads here in "off-topics"

I was at a trauma conference today & the speaker - he speaks internationally, goes to 3rd world countries (was just filmed by National Geographic - show will play in fall; last year Discovery Channel filmed him  when the group drove the "Road of Death"... ) anyway, he mentioned that his younger brother had been shot several times in Iraq - he had been at Walter Reed hospital for a month & now he was in septic shock...

I was talking to him during the break - he'd just gotten a call that his brother was doing a bit better... anyway, we'd been discussing "terrorism & catastrophic accidents" & he'd lectured on gunshot wounds & radiologic exposure.  Several types of spent bullets were passed around for us to look at, including an armor piercing round.  I asked him if he'd seen many patients with sicknesses caused by depleted uranium (DU) - he wasn't even familiar with DU.  I started telling him about it.  Right now there is a congressman that is trying to pass a bill that will make sure everyone who has served with the military in the Middle East gets screened for exposure to radiation.  He seemed very interested...  I was surprised that he wasn't familiar - he has been on international research boards for trauma...  (the bullets are coated in DU)

Don't you think that all the pollution from DU is effecting the weather?  Not to mention people's health...

Depleted uranium is new to me to but I do remember hearing something about it awhile back.  I didn't know they were coating bullets withthe stuff though that is very scary because once that war is over then guess who is left to find those casings, as in all wars, the small curious children.  No goo d is ever going to come of that war and I can't help but wonder if anyone is even still looking for Bin Laden.   All I hear is IRaq, Iraq, Iraq, shouldn't we be gettin gafganistant in order by now?  Let those damn Iraqi's take care of their own damn dumasses.  They let that tyrant rule for many years they should have to face up to that.  Ok that is my rant as for global warming, yes we do have the same amount of trees available as there were int he early 1950's BUT that was during the height of the timber/logging industry since that time we have learned that we have to keep that many trees AT LEAST growning jsut to try to protect the watersheds and even that isn't working very well.  The watersheds are in serious trouble and it has been my experience that one thing that really gets people upset is lack of water, particularly good clean drinking water.  The reason I support the hemp farming is bcause the hemp can refresh the mountains and the watersheds in a very short time, it is a weed that can live with very little water while the roots break up the hard packed earth and mulch to increase the soil health.  The hemp is also a useful product for fibers, building products, and oils.  Don't get me wrong here though I do not support bio fuel plans, they take more resources than they save.  NO the world has to come to grps with solar and wind energy and maybe the hydrogen cells ( I don't know much about hydrogen cells so I am not sure about aht) I do know that a household can live quite well with solar and/or wind these days though even here in the far north.  Every little thing we do helps and if every person does every little thing they can to stop the fossil fuels burning then we can save this planet, maybe.  I think it is horrible that we have sent young people to war and spent billions of dollars to support a foriegn industry that is failing, that hates our country, that ruins our world, and we do not insist that the government take action to get people off the fossil fuels addiction and onto some healthier power supplies.  yes cars will continue to run on fuels but the new hybrids are wonderful, I was doubtful but they bought one where I worked and I drove it and I loved that car, it did just fine ont he big hills and mountain passes we have here better than many gas guzzlers.  We can also do a lot more with public transit and our environment.  

Bio fuel might be feasible if they would make an efficient fuel... Ethanol only produces 85% of the BTU or energy per gallon compared to gasoline... Butanol is the Biofuel we need to look at making...It gives 130% per gallon of Energy compared to Gasoline...

And in the process of making it the  by product is pure useable hydrogen for fuel cells and such

See that is a good answer to that bio fuel debate.  I hope someone gets that figured out, that ethanol is going to be the next big waste of taxpayers dollars.  

Answer to all of the above is follow the money.

Hydrogen cells are currently a joke -- powered by fossil fuel - hydrocarbons -- so expensive no one will be able to afford them.  No infrastructure to support them.  They are an oil industry charade to make the gullible 95% of the population think they are actually really doing something.  A smokescreen..

Our children dying in an unjust power and oil war = New $2.6 million home for Cheney. Rummy there first at only $1.5 million. I guess Cheney doesn't mind slumming as long as it's his old buddy, Rummy.  Hope they get their new neighbor.  No worries.  Big Dick's daughter doesn't like boys anyway.  Come to think of it MJ doesn't like girls. :-/

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/05/1970438.htm

Biofuel advances - real advances - not as long as the oil boys control the gov.

Some info from here. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8037737380004144726&q=who+killed+electric+car&total=209&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Serious breakthroughs on running IC engines on hydrogen - water hydrogen/oxygen, end in death.

http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

We are not free to do such things, so sorry to keep things from looking rosy in the near future. :(

I read somewhere that BC Canada had their fleet running on hydrogen cells and that it was working out very well for them.  Even the bigger trucks and stuff were on the Hhydrogen cells.  I can't remember where I read it but I think it might have been on a google search for hydrogen cells cars.  I don't trust the corporate structure in our country so I always look to see what the other country's are doing too.  I know that explosions were a big reason the cars were not working out early on but I think they came up with some help for that.  All the technology is so new that of course it willt ake some refinning but I jsut hope that they get something going or at least improve the public transit systems accross the nation.  I know I can take a train to Seattle and back for about $100 that is about what it costs me to drive without the wear and tear on my car and me being a country girl driving in city traffic, it makes it worth it to not take my car.  BUT if I take the kids or others along then there is no savings taking the train it actually costs a lot more than drivng. I do believe public transit should be heavily subsidized when people can save $$$ taking public transit they will use it.  When they cannot save $$ they will continue to use their own vehicles and that actually costs taxpayers more than subsidiing the transit systems, in road repairs, extra patrols, global warming and just plain chaos on so much traffic on the roads.  If you could take a train or bus for $10 anywhere in the state and $100 anywhere in the nation people would be parking their cars and taking the transit.  I don't think it would affect the automobile industry to much either because people would still want to own a car for those weekend trips and after hours travel.  I bet it would put a dent in the oil industry's pocket though.  IF they can keep the costs down more people will choose to travel bus or train than air too and that can really help with the global warming issue.  Right now they are considering adding additional fees to air travel to help withthe global warming issue but additional fees don't help anything allt hey do is make it harder for people to go anywhere and raise the costs of living accross the board more green options for travel is what we need.  

Quoteadditional fees to air travel to help with the global warming issue[highlight][/highlight]

The key to the issue of global warming -- follow the money.

It is another scam to extract millions of dollars from the - "I don't know what it is but if you say it is so take my money and protect me from it" --Sheeple

The government and big business are well aware of how to separate us from our money.

What I love personally is the scientific reports that have been released lately showing how  plants and animals are making green house gases.

Last week there was a story on how the elk and reindeer in Greenland were causing green house gas... I have seen stories about dairy cattle and methane as well.

Trying to create a spin that says "oil, coal, automobiles are not responsible for the climate changes.."

This is a very dangerous and disturbing trend...What are the people to do...Cover the arctic wipe out all the caribou elk and reindeer so we can drive more SUV's and not totally screw the environment? ::)

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory [highlight]"Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself."[/highlight]

Interesting, Sassy. Confirms where I stand; not convinced that GW is the end of the world as we know it. But I do believe in wise use of resources, cars that get us better fuel mileage, etc. But without proof I am hesitant to jump on the bandwagon. No science is ever done by consensus anyway. Science requires proofs, not opinions, extrapolation and conjecture.



I believe that government can do nothing better than private industry. If government does anything it is bound to cost more in the end. Why? Because there is no motive for government to do it better; no motive to do it economically or efficiently. Any task private industry tackles (capitalism if you will) is done solely to make a profit while providing a service or product. That is true whether the company is an individual self employed person or a multi billion dollar a year publicly traded corporation responsible to its shareholders. There can be bad apples at both ends of the spectrum, but given time things will shake out and honest businesses/corporation will shine

The only thing government is better at is picking our pockets with an increasing array of hidden and visible taxes, increasing the size of the bureaucracy and making war.

Government gets all its money from our individual pockets. If the government subsidizes anything the money comes out of our individual pockets. If it's not clear by now, I am against government subsidies of any kind, as much as I'm against the ever increasing myriad rules government imposes on our personal and our small business lives.

Capitalism/free market is good - it is when gov't interferes by subsidizing & bailing out those businesses.  The free market should determine who will make it & who won't.  

There should be guidelines but in our day & age, there are rules, restrictions, fees, taxes, etc etc on everything we do.   It's getting to the point that the independent business is run over by the gov't controlled mafia.  :-/

Regarding Butanol as an alternate fuel. I did a quickie search and see that it does have some advantages over ethanol. One to to watch for as far as claims for fuel economy; I want to see real world tests and want to see the economics of production looked at before thinking it's an answer. I have never believed ethanol to be the answer (except for race cars). But here again we have the government deciding to encourage its production and use. So far all I'm certain about is that more corn is being plnated as the cost of a reduction in other food crops. The corn is going into industrial uses rather than being used as food. Most foods will increase in cost; many already have.

I did see that BP Biofuels, a division of BP one of the big petro-chemical companies is pusuing Butanol as an alternate fuel. I don't think they're getting any special government funding to do that. Someone there simply believes it might be a better solution and if they get there first, well there's money to be made. I see no problem with that.

QuoteCapitalism/free market is good - it is when gov't interferes by subsidizing & bailing out those businesses.  The free market should determine who will make it & who won't.  

Couldn't say it better myself, Sassy!   :)  

I am waiting to see how this mortgage crisis thing works out... yes, it would be terrible to loose a home because the ARM ran out and the new rate broke your wallet. But as far as I'm concerned nobody should buy a home, or whatever else, unless they know for certain how they are going to pay for it.

I am totally sympathetic to folks who suffer a personal catastrophe not their fault; health, death, unexpected job loss, stuff like that. But no sympathy here for those who purchase beyond their needs and abilities or who purchase upon speculation.

don

They have come up with a new method of producing Butanol and part of the process is generation of Pure hydrogen for Fuel cells... it is  formed from the waste and I think if I remember correctly as much as 15% hydrogen is produced for every part butanol.

And it would be cheaper to produce than Ethanol... So you get more energy out of it than ethanol...It is cheaper, and you get signifigant amounts of hydrogen that can be used in clean technologies to eliminate fossil fuel use and pollution.

No wonder the government stonewalled Butanol and is pushing ethanol ::)

people also need to understand that not much of anything needs to be done by way of modification to cars to run butanol...ethanol will corrode fuel tank and lines and older cars will not run on it easily... Butanol is something you can pour in the lawnmower, the 4x4 or your 30,000 car... no modifications needed... This truly makes it a winner as an alternative fuel source as people get an alternative clean fuel and they do not have to buy anything or do anything to their cars to get it...

Oh and btw... Butanol is clean...

No Noz and Sox emissions from it...And it reduces the CO2 levels by over half. Overall hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by over 95% compared to burning gasoline.

yes folks it is that clean...and you do not need to buy a $30,000 prius to go green... just get in the old clunker... drive to the pump and fill er up.

Cost per gallon of Butanol is $1.35 a gallon to make...So there is all kinds of room for the government to tax us to death on it and make their money.

We talked about the Hydrogen by product from making butanol through the biomass production method... One other thing of note...The waste biomass after making butanol  can be used to make natural fertilizer, or even feedstock

So all around it is a win win for the environment...

BTW, for those out there who would reply that butanol stinks: it doesn't. Butyric acid stinks, and is part of the old method of producing butanol. The new method doesn't involve butyric acid -- and the final product, butanol, smells sweet.

www.butanol.com

Plant a tree?? Screwed if you do or if you don't...  :-/

"Forget planting trees to negate your SUV's contribution to global warming -- according to Stanford University atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira, forests in the wrong location can actually make the Earth hotter."

full article...

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/12/69914

It leaves you wondering what to do. Tress look nice... go on and plant 'em!! ;D

Do not believe the hype that trees are not the answer...

Trees cool the earth...They clean the air and keep precious water from running off.. they prevent desertification and soil erosion...

So better water.. better soil... better air quality...More soil...

and they say trees are not the answer...

It is all bullshit...Just one of those neo con scientific reports to contradict the ever growing amount of evidence that carbon build up is warming the earth. This study tells us that trees and nature are warming the earth instead...

Which the heavy industry and oil guys want the report to say....because if it is trees that are causing all the problems in the environment...Then they should not have to build pollution free factories or spend money to limit emissions etc.....

Let's blame this on the trees...

Holy F you C k!

PG&E POLICY BODES POORLY FOR CALIFORNIA
By Michael Shaw

September 10, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Peter Darbee has been the chief executive officer of California's Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for approximately two years. Pacific Gas and Electric was the first utility to support California's global warming legislation. This should come as no surprise as PG&E's commitment to "Sustainable" policy was evident as far back as the 1992 Rio UN Conference where the globalist Sustainable program and the global warming agenda were laid out and embraced by chosen participants.

Since then, PG&E has been active in the promotion of setting the stage for limiting the prospects of individual opportunity and collective improvement. The Company was one of few business participants (Ken Lay on behalf of Enron was another) to engage on Bill Clinton's "Council for Sustainable Development." In summary, Sustainable Development calls for the abolition of private property, the formation of world government and a reduced human population. This is accomplished via the program of so-called "Three E's."

The Three E's are equity, economy and environment.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Shaw/michael10.htm

QuotePG&E POLICY BODES POORLY FOR CALIFORNIA

More "it's for the common good" [highlight]garbage,[/highlight] and I'm being polite.

Don't know why I always feel the need to post a lot of political articles the day before I go back to work but hopefully, someone reads them.  I think it's important that we are aware of what our gov't is doing & how it effects us as owner/builders/gardners etc.

EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SOON

By Rosalind Peterson
November 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Prepare yourself for more water shortages, floods, droughts, and a sharp decline in food supplies in the United States when U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445, that were introduced on July 17, 2007, are voted into law. These identical bills, titled: "Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2007", are moving forward at a rapid rate in Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Please note that these bills were not referred to Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection Agency, or Forestry, and that you were not invited to debate the merits of these bills by your elected representatives.

"It is the purpose of this act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather mitigation policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather mitigation and research." The Board of Directors will be comprised of eleven members and only one member shall be a representative of the Department of Agriculture. There are no members of the public to be appointed to this Board, no EPA representatives, no Natural Resources or Forestry representatives, and there are no provisions for county, state, public, or agricultural oversight of these programs prior to implementation.  con't at link below...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm

anyone keeping up with the new eco friendly batteries the ultra capacitators? 10 times the energy stored over lead acid and no nasty chemicals either... they charge in a fraction of the time and last almost forever....

The Zenn electric car is going to get them as their power source this fall and the range of the electric car will go from 35 miles to 350 miles just by changing the battery...

the Zenn is a neat car because it plugs in at home and in some states you can drive for as little as 1 cent per mile

Quotethe range of the electric car will go from 35 miles to 350 miles just by changing the battery...

I've heard of them. The skeptic in me says we'll have to reserve judgment until they've been in use for six months to a year. There's no free lunch.

Maybe someone can tell us what you do with your electric car in the winter and it's chilly to downright cold?  We wouldn't want Homegrown in WI to freeze her bu## off driving into town, would we?

Maybe a wood burning stove?  :-/

I say we look at the Amish. We go horse and buggy. Plus side it has ambient surround sound...... ;D

This thread has lain dormant for a while....

One 'picture' that has been used a lot with reference to the dire effects of global warming is the dire straits of the polar bears. We have been told by Al Gore "that for the first time, polar bears have been drowning in significant numbers." However the study, where most people who bandy this about, by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the  World Conservation Union, really states that out of 20 distinct subpopulations of polar bears only one or possibly two in the Baffin Bay area were declining. More than half were known to be stable and two subpopulations were actually increasing.

Global polar bear population has actually increased from around 5000 in the 1960's to around 25,000 today, through stricter hunting regulations. The two populations that have been in decline are in areas that have been getting colder in the last 50 years! The two increasing populations in the Beaufort Sea area are in an area that is getting warmer! There has been a single sighting of 4 dead bears after an "abrupt windstorm" in an area housing one of the increasing populations.

The best studied polar bear population lives on the west side of Hudson Bay. That its population has declined 17 percent from 1200 in1987 to 950 in 2004 has received much news coverage. However, not mentioned is that since 1981 the population has soared from just 500. Moreover nowhere in the news do you hear that each year some 300 - 500 bears are shot globally, with an average of 49 shot each year on the west side of Hudson Bay. Even if we take the case of decline at face value it means that we have lost 15 bears to global warming and 49 each year due to hunting.

All we hear in the news are exaggerated and emotional claims that are not supported by the real data.

IF we are really losing 15 bears a year to global warming we can easily remedy that by allowing the shooting of fewer bears, at much less cost than that proposed by the ill advised Kyoto Protocol.

Most of the above from Cool it; The skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming, by Bjorn Lomborg

They bend the story as needed to fit their desires or to increase their profits.  Usually somewhere there is an angle that is not the subject they lead you to believe they are talking about.

Yeah there are a lot of bullshit reports and quotes...What I do not understand is why people are fighting kyoto and other pollution controls? I mean who out there believes that pollution is good or that emissions are not causing harm to the environment...

No agreement to cut pollution levels is going to be perfect...But if the world cuts their emissions then the world is cleaner, greener and our natural resources are more secure... It should be as simple as that.

Yet any time there is any idea to make a meaningful change and go green for the planet it is met with heavy resistance by the industrialized world

America is the world's #1 polluter...And we lash out in anger at the notion that there needs to be pollution reforms

This notion itself to me is sickening....

I don't like some anonymous group of people somewhere in the world dictating the rules that the United States should be governed by...  you can bet that our best interests are not on their minds - more like the international bankers' & propagandists'.  That's why I don't support the Kyoto agreement... 

Besides, I think China & India pollute more than the United States - I'll have to get some numbers - China isn't under the Kyoto guidelines, has never bought into them...  people that go over there to visit say the pollution in the air & water is terrible.  The US has cleaned up a lot of stuff - I'm all for clean air & water - that's what makes me so angry about the damnable chemtrails the gov'ts spray on a daily basis around the world.  Peter, I haven't heard you respond to that even one time - what about the chemtrails?

I take pictures of them doing their near daily spray runs after which the entire sky clouds over.

They are stealing our solar power too.  Maybe we can stop them by pursuing the pollution angle if not the chemtrail angle.  These trails do not dissipate like normal contrails, which generally disappear in a few miles behind the plane.  Ice sublimates- vapor dissipates - chemtrails spread and dominate the sky with white cloudy overcast.

(https://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d184/glennkangiser/P1000757.jpg)

(https://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d184/glennkangiser/P1000759.jpg)

(https://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d184/glennkangiser/P1000761-1.jpg)

This may be where the Pentagon lost part of 2.3 trillion dollars that they will not talk about.  Top Secret.  We must not tell the public what we are spraying over them...even if it is their money.  They may object.  Look up once in a while if you don't believe me. 

Natural flight patterns look like fireworks from major centers if plotted on a map.  These are intentional grids not even close to natural flight patterns.  I am a pilot and know what they look like.  I have seen these guys in the sky when I was flying - too close for comfort with no warning and told by Air Traffic Control that they were not there.  I was seeing things.  Like hell.  I was at 10,000 feet over Redding. CA area when this happened.

Quote from: Sassy on January 16, 2008, 03:08:15 PMThat's why I don't support the Kyoto agreement... 

Ditto.

The expected temperature rise if we do nothing at all is 4.7 degrees F by the year 2100.  I have read that Kyoto matters very little for the climate. That even if all the countries in the world signed up and followed the guidelines that in reality there would be extremely little change in climate. That we would still reach the temperature rise of 4.7 F in the year 2105. Not a good deal for the billions that would be spent. These figures are not from some wacko anti environmentalist group. They come from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].

India, China and other developing countries are growing their economies and are not likely to sign to Kyoto. The deputy director of China's Office of Global Environmental Affairs has stated, "You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions."

The earth has been warmer than it is now before. It has also been colder. Greenland had settlements at one time, and they grew crops. Yes the earth is in a warming period. Yes, the build up of human caused CO₂ has caused at least some, a good part, of the rise. But warmer may not be as bad as the envirowackos want us to believe.

In the UK during the heatwave of 2003 about 2000 people died from heat related causes. That made extraordinary big news worldwide. However, left unsaid for the most part was the fact that in an average UK winter about 25,000 die from the cold. And that during the cold winters of 1998-2000 about 47,000 died from cold related causes in the UK in each of those years. A single episode of 2000 heat deaths garners the worlds attention whereas the cold related deaths of 25,000 brings hardly a ripple.

For the UK it has been calculated that a rise of 3.6 F in temperature would result in 2000 more heat deaths, but a reduction of about 20,000 fewer cold deaths. Not a bad deal.

Here's an interesting comparison. Helsinki, Finland to Athens, Greece.

We humans are adaptable. There is an optimal temperature for any location. This is the temperature at which there are the fewest deaths. Going above or below this temperature causes an increase in deaths. In Helsinki this temp is 59 F. In Athens the optimal temp is 75 F. The optimal temp is also very close to the average summer temp. The actual temp goes above the optimal temp less frequently than the actual temp goes below. In Helsinki the optimal temp is only exceeded 18 days a year and below the optimal temp 312 days. Research shows that 55 people die from temps above the optimal and 1655 people die from temps below the optimal. Well, you say, it's Finland, the frozen north, you expect more deaths from cold.

On to Athens where the optimal temp of 75 F is exceeded 63 days a year, below optimal 251 days a year. The death toll from excess heat in Athens is 1376 people. The death toll from excess cold is 7852. Again more people die from cold in Athens, than from heat. Startling?

So we're adaptable. We live well at 59 F and at 75 F. If the average global temp rises there would be many fewer cold deaths than deaths from the rise in temp. A warming world would save lives.

One last thing for now on the temperature. The lower temperatures increase more than the higher temperatures. In the last century global winter temperatures have risen more than summer temperatures, and night temperatures have risen more than daytime temperatures. Moreover winter temps have risen more in colder areas than in the warmer areas. Most of this has occurred in the northern hemisphere. Only Australia and New Zealand have had their daytime temps increase.

Temps have been recorded in central England since 1659. There has been a clear reduction in the number of cold days, but no increase in the number of hot days. We don't hear about this stuff in mainstream news. Disaster sells papers and draws viewers; good news does not.

'nuff for now.

What exactly do you think they are spraying Glen?

Tests have shown some barium and various other things.  Research chemtrails on Rense or the net.  Some of it seems a bit out there but it is obvious that it is happening.  Also there is a theory it may be something to do with HAARP -- weather modification for warfare or other reasons. 

A couple bills have been recently submitted to allow it, but that's because it is already happening.

The military said they would like to own the weather by 2025.  To implement such a large project they have to be already working on it. 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/af2025.html

http://www.rense.com/general50/owningweather.htm

http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html

Look up in the sky before you dismiss it all as conspiracy.  Something is going on.  The odd winter weather can be affected by HAARP also - some of the grids may assist it.  They have found they can steer the jetstream with HAARP by heating the ionosphere and one article mentioned that the sprayed grids may be to measure it's effects via satelite.

Here is a start -- no particular reason for choosing this source.  http://educate-yourself.org/zsl/dearionosphericphysicist07sep03.shtml

Okay lets talk turkey about some of the pollution issues.

If China or India have surpassed America in Greenhouse emissions it was only the last month or so...For the last hundred years the USA has been the worlds largest polluter...And think about this...If China does surpass the USA in emissions it is not that big a deal considering that they have 5 times the population and right now are at about the same level of pollution...

That fact itself should  bring this into clarity for Americans how we have used the world as our septic tank.

Kyoto is not perfect...And yes other countries are involved in the decision making process...America could have been an integral part of that process.. only they have refused by and large to have anything to do with it...

A loss of habitat or forest is not that big an issue for a country the size of America...But consider how small the countries in Europe are and how fragile their eco systems are....And then Consider our water and air pollution are carried directly to them via the jet stream.

America is extremely selfish.... China has started to get serious about cleaning up their environment..They have slowed population growth and they have started to make the green economy in China Profitable...China will clean up their act I fear long before America Does.

And it shocks me quite frankly when people here are against things like Kyoto or environmental controls...When refusing to advance restrictions on air pollution give coal and oil a green light to continue business as usual....Where placing restrictions on emissions and setting goals for lowering emissions year by year would drive the green economy here in America...It would allow Solar and Wind tech to grow...It would allow America to rebuild a efficient mass transit rail system And get the bulk of the inefficient truckers off the roads...

There might be slight changes in the way we do business...But ensuring the air and water is clean is worth it...and for every job that is lost to a dirty tech another opens up in green tech....Actually there are more jobs and a stronger economy in using everything throwing nothing away..Profit margins go up when we recycyle and turn what used to be garbage into something useful. Innovation will always allow there to be limitless possibilities for this economy... America has a great Climate...All kinds of natural resources (water, trees, Arable land, minerals.) America will always have a strong economy so long as they use innovation

I just do not see how you compare air quality restrictions to the Federal Reserve. The Fed gives us nothing of importance...They do nothing to improve the quality of our life and we do not need them...

Air quality restrictions ensure better air and water...Which benefit everyone...And ultimately allow more green tech to be implicated. We need clean air and water...We need green tech...We need to wean ourselves of dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels for the most part....Going green will save this country billions... it will reduce the foreign trade deficit and it will reduce the national debt...

This is a win, win, win situation

Peter, I am not against pollution control - making our air, water & land clean - I remember just 20, maybe only 10 yrs ago when people would talk about Europe & other foreign countries not being able to drink their own water - that they had to drink bottled water & low & behold, here in the US most people are drinking bottled water.  We are still blessed that we can drink our well water at our place in the mountains & the valley. 

But, there is a small town a few miles from Kerman - 30 miles, maybe.  They started out with a little cheese factory - great for the little town's economy...  there are city, state & federal restrictions on pollution - but this factory which has now grown into the world's largest, pumps out a million gallons of polluted water a day!  Think of that - and only recently have people gotten on the band wagon & the company is being sued.  The city fathers must have known what was going on, most everyone else must have known - it's probably new arrivals who have bought homes/land there that are making the stink.  Actually the lawsuit was settled in 2005, it looks like...

"Cheese Maker, State Settle

California water-quality enforcers have agreed to drop all allegations of wrongdoing against the world's largest cheese factory in the biggest water pollution case in Central Valley history, according to a tentative settlement released Tuesday. In exchange, Hilmar Cheese Co. of Merced County will pay $3 million to be divided between the state and a Hilmar-commissioned study of groundwater pollution of the food processing industry as a whole, according to the agreement."  http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/99/oped2987.asp

So, lets make even more laws, lets invent more permits, rules, regulations, strangleholds on the people - who usually suffer from those?  My guess is you & me, the little guy... the big companies, corporations get by with murder...  we have the Patriot Act - is it making us more safe?  Heck no, it is only taking more of our freedoms away & the so called terrorists (read gov't goons) are running wild over the citizens.  So, who's going to oversee these big international spies who are checking out how much we are polluting? 

Have you read & understood the UN's Agenda 21 yet?  I think you made a comment on the "LibertyGarden" site out of Santa Cruz, CA http://www.libertygarden.com/gateway/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd  They explain Agenda 21 & Sustainable Development pretty good... 

Sassy nice article and all... you are sidestepping this issue and getting off track...

Stop trying to go all over the place...There are exceptions to every rule... Stick to the basics... The basics of this is that cleaner water and air are good...taking steps to protect our natural resources are good...Setting guidelines for pollution and emissions to prevent future pollution and to clean up existing pollution is also good.

It does not have to be a bad thing when the international community gets together to agree on matters of pollution control...In the past they have led to the elimination of CFC's and the replacement of leaded gasoline with unleaded gasoline...Also things like Low Sulphur Diesel fuel have come about from pressure for change from the international community on pollution.

Kyoto is far from perfect...But the goal of it is to reduce emissions from the industrialized nations of the world. A very worthwhile goal...As china and India experience more growth and have their economies grow they will be brought under scrutiny by the international community also...

Pollution is the slavery type issue of this century...200 years ago some countries abolished slavery and others continued with slaves...And the international community frowned upon it and put pressure on the countries with slaves until it became abolished worldwide... The same thing will happen with rampant unchecked out of control pollution and emissions.

It is very sad that people in America are opposing responsible change in the way we use resources and pollute the earth... our excuse is the equivalent to a 4 year old arguing with their mother...
But mom, everyone else is doing it... what about susy johnson....

And then your mom says... if susy johnson jumped off the bridge would you?

Where is our moral consciousness?  Cleaning up america is the right thing to do.... period... Cleaning up the world is the right thing to do... period... People are looking at this all wrong...taking steps to greener america will pay dividends forever in this country..having cleaner air and water will lower medical bills and mean less money spent in the future to clean water and air for consumption...More trees means better more regular weather patterns...it means cooler temputures cleaner air...Less desertification and so on and so forth

Why is it people in this country are opposed to cleaning up america when we as americans will directly benefit from cleaning up the air and water we consume?...Conserving energy and using more efficient appliances and vehicles means lower fuel and energy charges it means less dependency on foreign oil...It will drive the economy getting more for less.. meaning everyone will have more money to spend on other goods with their energy needs being met...

going green does not have to be something that hurts us at all..It can be very beneficial ecologically and economically...But we are so damned concerned about what some other country is doing we cannot do what is right and what needs to be done to protect our health and well being.

It sickens me

Now, now, Benevolance - I think the individual - you & I are making steps to decrease pollution - I don't need a foreign gov't to tell me to keep my "nest" clean...  I use very little power when I'm at our house in the valley, we have solar & wind power in the mountains & use it to pump our water & run everything else, unless, of course, the gov't has been spraying chemtrails all over the skies & have blocked the sun like they do almost everyday!  What pollution is that causing?  What is happening to our ionosphere?  The holes in the ozone layer have been at the arctic & antarctic points where the magnetic pull is stronger & closer to the earth's surface than anywhere else - that's where they have the big High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programs - Russia has lots of them, they started them in the 50's, we have our share... 

If we were following gov't regulations, we would be required to hook up to the grid because the citizen isn't capable of taking care of himself "if you won't take care of yourself, the state of California will take care of you" per the local building & safety office & California law... If we were following all the laws & regulations in place right now we couldn't have afforded to build our cabin with basically the dirt beneath our feet & fallen trees, recycled windows, appliances & the sweat of our brows (ok, we did use some machinery, but they were older, repaired machines) it would have been AGAINST THE LAW! Oh, BTW, even though our ground perked well, we probably would have been required to install a $25-$30,000 engineered septic system per the county's clean water regulations...  shall I go on?  Normally, most people who own their own land, take care of it.  Heck, even when I rented, the places looked a lot better when I left them than when I moved in!  People who don't care, aren't going to care if there are laws in place, either...  re the trashing of our country by illegal aliens while our illustrious leaders stand by & watch.

All the pure water, pure air laws & regulations will not help if billion $$ corporations are slapped on the hands when they pollute (cheese factory) - all the Kyoto treaties/agreements in the world are not going to stop them... 

I am not deviating from the point - I understand what you are saying - what I'm trying to point out is the letter of the law doesn't necessarily work - you've railed against the many laws & regulations on countless occasions...  if we want to live in a totally regulated, totalitarian gov't, put everyone in the Halliburton Camps the gov't is preparing right now for those who think & do for themselves...

The gov't's, handlers, controllers, whatever you want to call them, will charge the carbon tax, regulate away private land, close down the national parks & public lands so no one can use it because they might leave a footprint or use too much toilet paper...  then only allow big corporations to build cities where we can all be corralled & monitored while these very same people continue with their weather manipulations, mass pollution & so on - but you & I will be under control  d* d*

Good thoughts but bad outcomes on life & liberty - that's not selfish - that is living on God's earth - He said to take care of it...  most of the big corporations certainly don't care about anything more than the bottom line - profits... most of our gov't leaders don't care about much more than power, looking good & what it profits them. 

So, I have to again, politely disagree with your methods of regulation   :-*

Global Warming, Inc.  Carbo-gedden, the Conclusion

"As populist and conspiratorial as this may seem, I really do believe that America's petroleum policy has been shaped in large part by the avarice and selfishness of a few. Lately, this assertion is made flesh in the form of the world's greatest global warming profiteer: Al Gore, Inc.

Despite his reception of the Nobel Peace Prize and incessant fawning praise from the mainstream media, the fact remains that before adopting climate change as his cause celebre`, Al Gore was nothing more than your run-of-the-mill American career politician whose run was over. And with only a degree in Government to fall back on after the 2000 election, he desperately needed a new gig...

This isn't to say that Gore hasn't been consistently at the vanguard of the climate-change issue since it first came on the scene, or rather, since he first forced it there. Indeed, this may be the only constant thread of rhetoric, and perhaps belief (you'll see what I mean in a minute), in his political life. Gore held Congressional hearings on CO2 and climate change in the late 1970s and again in the '80s, wrote numerous articles and editorials on the subject, published 1992's Earth in the Balance — and of course, starred in 2006's hugely successful "documentary" on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, for which he also wrote a companion book in that same year.

However, I maintain that it's easy to "believe" in something that's profitable — either in terms of political image or in monetary terms. For me, the proof is in whether someone walks like he talks. You decide if The Reverend of Gaia (Gore actually attended divinity school in the early '70s) is "living the word" or just profiting from it:

    *
      According to BusinessWeek and other sources, Al Gore's 20-room, 8-bath Nashville mansion drained more electricity from the grid per month than 20 average American households combined in 2006 — the same year his book and "documentary" called on Americans to conserve electricity. This represents an increase in consumption of 13.5% over the previous year.
       
    *
      Not ashamed enough at merely over-consuming electricity, habitants of Gore's home and guesthouse sucked an average of nearly $1,100 a month worth of natural gas in 2006.
       
    *
      Instead of walking to save greenhouse gases, Gore and his entourage drove five cars the roughly 500 yards from his hotel to the screening of An Inconvenient Truth at the Cannes Film Festival.

Aside from this kind of hypocrisy, Gore has leveraged his pet cause to morph himself from a public servant who, according to Newsweek, barely made the millionaire list on paper in 2000 into a "green" consulting juggernaut now worth an estimated $100 million or more. Consider also:

    *
      Gore claims to offset his mammoth personal carbon footprint by buying carbon credits from a company, Generation Investment Management (an institutional asset management firm specializing in opportunities positioned to cash in on global-warming-driven policy changes), of which Gore himself is the Chairman and Founding Partner. To say he stands to gain financially, as this firm's global clean-energy investments pay off, would be an obscene understatement. He's not buying pollution absolution, he's simply funneling that money into investments that are poised to ripen on the strength of his own hot air.
       
    *
      Last November, Gore was named as a new partner in a famously successful venture-capital firm, Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers, symbolically leading their "Greentech" division — a strategic alliance with Gore's firm, Generation Investment Management. Though Gore has stated that his entire upfront salary will go to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection (which he Chairs, coincidentally), he stands to rake in tens, maybe hundreds of millions down the road as KPCB claims its 30% profit stake as "green" start-up firms that Gore helps them cherry-pick for funding go public or are sold.   

If you look at all this from a certain point of view (an objective one), what we've basically got here is a politician with a flair for opportunism shrewdly pre-positioning himself to profit from climate change hysteria that he may or may not believe in — then collaborating with Hollywood big-shots in making a high-profile movie that, along with a willing media, pumps such hysteria to a fever pitch. Obscene profit, accolades, Nobel prizes and freedom-robbing legislation ensues... "
Jim Amrhein
Freedoms Editor, Whiskey & Gunpowder  http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/2008/20080116.html

Maybe I didn't make myself clear before. I do believe CO₂ is causing some or even the greatest amount of the warming climate. I do believe greenhouse emissions should be reduced. But I also believe that a few fear mongers in conjunction with the media have exaggerated the rapidity of the increase to come. I also believe by rushing headlong into Kyoto we will be spending much more money than we'll ever see returned in the form of benefits to worldwide humanity.

Too much is blamed on global warming without proper scientific backup. Media and those wishing to make a name latch onto anything that is fearful and run with it. Like I said before not all warming may be bad.

The whole greenhouse gas thing is rife with inaccuracies and half truths. That's what sickens me. A warmer world will produce more rainfall. It may be distributed differently than today, the south of the US getting less, but there being more in other areas.

There has been some melting of coastal shelf ice in one area of Antarctica, but have you read that as a whole the continent of Antarctica is getting colder, the temperature at the south pole has been declining since record keeping began in 1957. Scientific studies indicate Antarctica is soaking up water at a higher rate than Greenland is melting. And the breakup of that ice shelf did not raise ocean levels as the ice was floating. Melting floating ice does not cause a rise in water level. Try it with a glass of water and an ice cube or two.

Contrary to Al Gore the penguins as a whole are not in grave danger either. Their situation is much like the polar bear situation I previously mentioned. One population of penguins had a sudden decrease in the 70's, but has remains stable since. Another even larger population has increased more than 40% over the past 20 years.

It's been said that occurrences of malaria will increase and there will be many more deaths, all due to global warming. Not true. There will be more people at risk of malaria as the world warms. But we in the USA have basically eradicated malaria here. People used to die from malaria in the USA. In the 1920's 2% of the US population got malaria. We don't have to worry about malaria anymore because of better health treatment, better nutrition, increased city population over rural and mosquito control. We've proved that malaria can be controlled, eradicated, so in a warming world malaria is a non issue. Or at least it can be dealt with as we've shown.

There are many more inaccuracies, fallacies, omissions and outright distortion of the facts concerning climate warming.

So I'll finish today by saying that I believe, and there are many real scientists in agreement, that the popular image of the effects of climate warming are massively exaggerated toward scary scenarios. Yes, there are damages but there are also benefits. I'd like to see more balanced coverage, more common sense and less hysteria.

Oh...

Quote...international community gets together to agree on matters of pollution control...replacement of leaded gasoline with unleaded gasoline..

The USA and Canada took the lead out of gasoline under their own initiative, not from any pressures from other countries. Last I knew leaded gasoline is still used in some countries in Africa, Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. It wasn't until 2000 that it was totally illegal to sell leaded fuel in most European countries. I believe those countries still using lead are phasing it out. But the USA and Canada did it first. The last time I was in Mexico (2 - 3 years) leaded fuel was still being sold.

QuoteThe basics of this is that cleaner water and air are good...

Absolutely true. And in the USA both are cleaner in most respects today than 20-25 years ago, and we have more people.

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet     

Residents insist Greenland's freezing temperatures don't mean global warming has been called off

While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.

On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.

'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.'

Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.

Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html

Don

I am not arguing in any sense that Kyoto is great...And there is no control over anything in america...It is very broad...they simply want to reduce emissions...how America cleans up is upto america...be it using more mass transit..Cleaner electrical generation...More efficient vehicles...

There are always all kinds of smaller points to any treaty...But the meat and potatoes is to cut total carbon emissions...As for Unleaded Gasoline...If there had been a specific treaty 20 years ago that all the indutrialized countries signed then Unleaded fuel would have been eliminated in europe 20 years ago instead of only recently...But the point is that they faced criticism from greenpeace and other organizations until they got their shit together and cleaned up the fuel....though to be fair gasoline in Europe is not a huge issue since 50% of all cars are diesel there...

And in America the new stringent rules for Particulates for Diesels are insanely low.. New Diesel cars in America are going to be virtually pollution free...Acid Rain is going to be a thing of the past. The average consumer in America with their cars have cleaned up their act and done their part with emission pumps cat convertors and more efficient cleaner fuels.

But big business is getting a free ride in America...They are building Coal fired electricity plants at a record pace...Fearing that new tough restrictions will eventually come so they are building as many as they can now so as to get them "grandfathered in"...Mr Coal and Me oil are  free to pollute as much as they want to...No restrictions or advancements to control and capture their emissions

Sassy

Yes it is frustrating when the local factory gets their way and the government looks the other way for a sum of money... But that will occur whether or not America decides to greatly reduce their total carbon emissions.

America can clean up their air even more and reduce their emissions...Choosing to use rail and Boat to move freight instead of a zillion long haul trucks...Will reduce emissions and fuel use dramatically...Large trucks are the second largest air polluter in america...after power generation.

If 6% of america was covered with solar Panels they could provide all of the electricity needs with virtually no pollution or emissions...About the size of new Mexico (sorry don you gotta move ;) ) Point is that Solar, hydro and wind power could provide upto 50% of the electricity needs for america and we could cut the emissions in half...Not to mention reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

Sassy yes you and I both conserve energy...I looked at the power bill for my wife here at the house and you would likely not believe the bill... We are using like 180 kilowatt hours a month.. I was downright shocked...That was after AC season stopped you understand.. I scrounge heat by saving pallets from going to the landfill...and put them through the rosewood heater in my house.....And we wash our dishes by hand instead of using the machine (we have one)..and so on and so forth...But I have been trying to figure out what a off grid system will cost me and how much power I will need and all of that and I learned that the average american house uses 10,000 KWH a year and my wife and I use something like 2000 KWH...So we do try to conserve as much energy as possible.....

I have done a lot of reading and there are easy to do things that will dramatically eliminate nasty pollution..Like buy recycled paper products...or write a letter to your local politician to force them to allow Hemp to be grown for paper...Pulp and Paper per ton pollute more than any other processed material in America...It takes more energy to make a ton of paper than it does to make a ton of crude oil...And there is more pollution to the water table...Wood needs to be chemically bleached...Where as using hemp for paper does not...It is virtually pollution free as a source of paper... And it would create more jobs growing hemp than not cutting down trees for paper products.. and so on and so forth... So there are solutions and it will not kill the american economy..It will strengthen it... and it will improve the quality of life in America....Better use of our resources means we can do more for less and we all benefit from that.

But we have to sidestep the pharma companies the petroleum companies the coal companies and impliment change that will allow a paradigm shift to occur... As of now they have a stranglehold on our lives controlling society and milking us for as much of our money as humanly possible.

There is a reason Bush does not want to see Oil hit $125 a barrel it is because it will piss us off and innovation will be the driving force of the economy and we will overcome our addiction to oil....And big businesses do not want that at all... they want slow gradual increases that we will accept instead of sudden spikes that piss us off and start us to asking questions as to why we even play this stupid game anyways?

This type of mentality is the same reason that they do not want to be part of Kyoto..because that would mean people would be looking for ways to improve the way we use our resources...They would start looking at new ways to make energy to make paper.. to process metals and minerals...

Think of it like the horse and buggy or the wooden ship... Britain was the world power for centuries without question because of naval supremacy. The day the first Metal Frigate ship set sail that dominance was gone forever and the world was up for grabs... The same kind of thing happened to the horse and buggy manufacturers when cars came along...

Well Mr oil Mr Coal and Mr Paper would all see their dominance over us end and they would have new companies with new products that would replace their companies and products... Sure they could change or buy out whoever comes along...But it is cheaper and easier to get us to close our eyes and continue to pay too much for oil paper drugs etc... Anything that could start a change in the way we do things is a huge threat to them and they do whatever they can to eliminate those threats so business can continue as usual.

Global warming caused by co2 is a complete fraud. This is nothing more than an attempt at controlling energy use by the UN. They want to be able to tell everyone on the planet who can and can't use what energy. Next thing you know they'll try to outlaw my woodstove and force me to use electricity or natural gas for heat so I have to buy it at over inflated price. Some places in the US already have laws banning fireplaces and wood stoves. There are lots of worse pollutants going into the air than co2. Maybe they should focus on something real like the trash problem or the carbon monoxide ozone emmissions that create brown clouds over the cities in the summer. Or better yet all the fertilizers and pestisides that end up in the water from run off. This is classic smoke and mirrors and the whole world has fallen for it.

here's a link to the "white paper" research that was presented in 1996 "Weather as a force multiplier:  Owning the weather by 2025"

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

(https://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e44/kathykrn/ScreenShot005.jpg)  Just an excerpt - black carbon aerial spraying by bodies of water to cause the air to heat & evaporation to occur for rain clouds to form?  What does the black carbon do towards causing increased pollution, global warming  ???

Prince Charles 'Appears' at an Energy Summit

By Andrew C. Revkin

Prince Charles gave a keynote lecture at a summit meeting on advanced energy technologies in Abu Dhabi on Monday — not in the flesh, but as a three-dimensional hologram. By not flying there and back, he avoided adding about 20 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (the carbon cost of flying him and his entourage), according to conference organizers.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/prince-charles-appears-at-an-energy-summit/index.html?hp

At the link there's a video of the summit meeting with Prince Charles there as a hologram...  interesting technology - so who/what else have we seen that wasn't really there?