Global Resource Depletion OR Recycling A Waste Of Time – Which is it

shhh It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hntXAO_Rq7c

OK so which is it, are we running out of stuff or not? Is 6 Billion people too many or not? Have we cut down way too may trees or not? I believe these answers are knowable. Are the Ocean’s fished out or not?  Is Global Warming happening? The issue seems to be Price. If Global Warming were happening then carbon would be expensive. But what if price isn’t the issue when capitalists and nations treat resources as if they were “free”.

:} http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9sraruD8ho&feature=related :}

http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=3267

Blog item: Recycling? What A Waste.

By Jim Fedako

This fall, school kids across the country will again be taught a chief doctrine in the civic religion: recycle, not only because you fear the police but also because you love the planet. They come home well prepared to be the enforcers of the creed against parents who might inadvertently drop a foil ball into the glass bin or overlook a plastic wrapper in the aluminum bin.

Oh, I used to believe in recycling, and I still believe in the other two R’s: reducing and reusing. However, recycling is a waste of time, money, and ever-scarce resources. What John Tierney wrote in the New York Times nearly 10 years ago is still true: “Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America.”

Reducing and reusing make sense. With no investment in resources, I can place the plastic grocery bag in the bathroom garbage can and save a penny or so for some more-pressing need. Reducing and reusing are free market activities that are profitable investments of time and labor.

Any astute entrepreneur will see the benefit of conserving factors of production. Today, builders construct houses using less wood than similar houses built just 20 years ago. In addition, these houses are built sturdier; for the most part anyway.

The Green’s love for trees did not reduce the amount of wood used in construction; the reduction was simply a reaction to the increasing cost for wood products. Using less wood makes financial sense, and any entrepreneur worth his profit will change his recipe to conserve wood through better design or by substituting less dear materials for wood products.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI&feature=related

:}

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-20/global-resource-depletion

Published Oct 20 2010 by The Oil Drum: Europe, Archived Oct 20 2010

Global resource depletion

by Ugo Bardi

André Diederen’s recent book on resource depletion

I have been thinking, sometimes, that I could reserve a shelf of my library for those books which have that elusive quality that I could call “modern wisdom”. Books that go beyond the buzz of the media news, the shallowness of politicians’ speech, the hyper-specialization of technical texts. That shelf would contain, first of all, “The Limits to Growth” by Meadows and others; then the books by Jared Diamond, James Lovelock, Konrad Lorenz, Richard Dawkins, Peter Ward and several others that have affected the way I see the world.

I think I’ll never set up such a shelf, I have too many books and too few shelves; many are packed full with three rows of books. But, if I ever were to put these books together, I think that the recent book by André Diederen “Global Resource Depletion” would make a nice addition to the lot.

The subject of resource depletion, of course, is well known to readers of “The Oil Drum”. So well known that it is difficult to think of a book that says something new. Diederen, indeed, succeeds in the task not so much in reason of the details on the availability of mineral commodities that he provides, but for the innovative way he describes our relation to the subject. In other words, Diederen’s book is not a boring list of data; it is a lively discussion on how to deal with the implications of these data. It is a book on the future and how we can prepare for it.

To give you some idea of the flavor of the book, just a quote:

(p. 43) “… it isn’t enough to have large absolute quantities (“the Earth’s crust is so big”) and to have all the technology in place. (p. 33) … we have plenty of water in the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean and we have ample proven technologies to desalinate and pipe the water to the desert, so, why isn’t the Sahara desert green yet?”

This is, of course, the crucial point of resource depletion: what counts is cost, not amounts (I plan to use this example in my next talk!). Diederen is an unconventional thinker and he goes deeply into matters that, in some circles would be thought to be unspeakable; for instance (p. 41)

:}

Price? Really. More next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a9mx1IVZzU&feature=related

:}

Residential Energy Efficiency Can Start With The Roof

But even with the subsidies and incentives it will cost you double. So you have to ask yourself, is buying the last roof I ever will purchase worth it.

http://www.metalroofing.com

MRA
September 20, 2010

Don’t Miss Out On The $1500 Tax Credit!

Tax CreditThe $1500 tax credit for energy efficient upgrades to homes is still available. Homeowners who make energy efficient updates to their home, including the installation of a painted or coated Energy Star® labeled metal roof before December 31, 2010, may be eligible for a tax credit worth 30 percent of the installation costs (materials only), up to $1,500 per home.

To Receive The Tax Credit:

  1. Find a Contractor near you to discuss a new metal roof for your home.
  2. Confirm that the metal roof you select is a prepainted or coated Energy Star-labeled metal roof with pigmented coating/paint film specifically designed to reduce heat gain, and obtain certification from your contractor or the manufacturer
  3. Have the metal roof installed on your principal residence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. For further information on the requirements for tax credit eligibility click here and/or consult with your tax advisor.
  4. Fill out IRS Form 5695 Residential Energy Credits when filing your taxes for 2009 and/or 2010.

Find a metal roofing contractor in your area today to take advantage of this great opportunity for savings before it’s too late. Visit MetalRoofing.com for more information or contact Alli@MetalRoofing.com for questions about the tax credit.

Why Metal? Tell Us Your Metal Roofing Story and Win

For the past decade we have been telling homeowners and contractors about the many benefits of residential metal roofs. Now, we’re turning the tables, and asking you to tell us why you chose metal in our “Tell Us Your Metal Roofing Story” Facebook contest.

All you have to do is tell us why you chose metal and submit a photo of your beautiful roof via our application on the MRA’s Facebook contest page. Get 10 people to “Like” it via Facebook and you are entered in the contest. The lucky winner will be rewarded with a $500 gift card to Home Depot. Plus, we will be making a donation in the winner’s name to their local Habitat for Humanity chapter and the contractor that installed the winning metal roof will receive a free Silver Level Metal Roofing Alliance membership or $1,000 towards a Gold level membership.

Ask the Experts Photo Gallery Tax Credit
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Blogger
MRA - Metal Roofing AllianceMetalRoofing.com is an online metal roofing information resource provided to homeowners and metal roofing contractors and manufacturers by The Metal Roofing Alliance. The Metal Roofing Alliance is committed to protecting your privacy.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

A Site Dedicated To The Worst Pollution On The Earth – They found their niche

The world has gotten so polluted that there is a site devoted entirely to that.

http://www.worstpolluted.org/pollution-facts-2009.html

Pollution Facts

Pollution is a Global Killer

Pollution likely affects over a billion people around the world, with millions poisoned and killed each year.  The World Heath Organization estimates that 25 percent of all deaths in the developing world are directly attributable to environmental factor.1 Some researchers estimate that exposure to pollution causes 40 percent of deaths annually.2

Pollution is Regarded as a Major (and quickly emerging) Factor in Disease

People affected by pollution problems are much more susceptible to contracting other diseases.  Others have impaired neurological development, damaged immune systems, and long-term health problems.

Women and Children are Especially at Risk, Children are Most Susceptible

Children are physiologically different and more vulnerable than adults. In some cases they have higher exposures since they eat, drink and breathe more per kilogram of body weight than adults and tend to ingest a lot more dirt and house dust than adults from their crawling around and playing outside.

While children only make up 10 percent of the world’s population, over 40 percent of the global burden of disease falls on them.  Indeed, more than three million children under age five die annually from environmental factors.

Death is Not the Only Toll of Exposure to Pollutants

Pollution causes chronic illness, neurological damage and shortened lifespan. For instance, the presence of lead in children lowers I.Q. by an estimated 4-7 points for each increase of 10 ?g/dL.3 Our database identifies populations around the globe with blood lead levels ranging from 50 -100 ?g/dL, up to 10 times the WHO reference levels for protection against neurological damage.

:}

More Tomorrow.

:}

I Wish Illinois Cared For Us As Much As California Does – Sniff

It’s Jam Band Friday..Yippe…Yahoo – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EapcVSB7U4U

:}

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/tips/index.html

California Energy Commission Consumer Energy Center

tips page graphic 1 tips page graphic 2 page title
navigation spacer image
two color top bar
www.consumerenergycenter.org / tips

CONSUMER TIPS to $AVE ENERGY AND MONEY

Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Most people think they mean the same thing, but they don’t.

Energy conservation means reducing the level of energy use by turning down a thermostat, or turning off a light, or turning up the temperature of your refrigerator.

Energy efficiency means getting the same job done while using less energy. Efficiency is usually done by replacing an older, less efficient appliance with a new one.

In this section, you’ll find both energy conservation and efficiency tips for your home, office, school, car or truck, and other areas.

You’ll learn how to get your home ready for summer or winter. You’ll learn how to be prepared in case the power goes out. And you’ll learn some interesting facts about energy.

TIPS FOR YOUR SCHOOL

Energy Tips for Schools

TIPS FOR YOUR VEHICLE

Energy Tips for Your Vehicle

:}

More next week.

He is so good- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSZzvTQiy4w

:}

The Face Of Global Warming – World food shortages and fires

It is jam band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2zkvE_uQg

Well it has started. The SUN came back on and the nearly 3 year solar “quiet” has ended. The next 11 years could be some of the most fascinating and horrific witnessed since WWII, WWI, or the Civil War here in America. I am not jumping for joy or anything but we are going to get closer to the Sun at the same time and our tip towards the Sun…what we call summer is going to “tip” a little more, so it will probably get hot pretty fast. This isn’t bad for a warm up so to speak…But if you want to close your eyes and pretend it isn’t happening you can’t do better then Kelly Clarkson.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4sJMcgeDe0&feature=related

:}

http://www.theage.com.au/world/russia-bans-grain-exports-as-drought-consumes-crops-20100806-11ohl.html

Russia bans grain exports as drought consumes crops

ANDREW KRAMER, MOSCOW

August 7, 2010

Heatwave, drought and now the wildfires, like this one in the western region of Ryazan, are the worst in Russia's modern history. <i>Picture: AFP</i>Heatwave, drought and now the wildfires, like this one in the western region of Ryazan, are the worst in Russia’s modern history. Picture: AFP

RUSSIAN Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has banned all exports of grain after millions of hectares of wheat have withered in a severe drought, driving up prices around the world.

Russia is suffering the worst heatwave since record-keeping began here, more than 130 years ago.

”We need to prevent a rise in domestic food prices, we need to preserve the number of cattle and build up reserves for next year,” Mr Putin said in a meeting broadcast on television. ”As the saying goes: reserves don’t make your pocket heavy.”

:}

Must take a music break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ7FWZcwotM:}

:}

The abrupt ban – earlier this week, a deputy agricultural minister had said no such measure would be taken – shows Mr Putin retains the right to marshal state power in defence of Russian interests.

Russia’s emergencies minister has warned that the wildfires raging in the west of the country could release radioactive particles from land contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Sergei Shoygu said laboratories were monitoring a potential release of contaminants in Bryansk region, on the border with Ukraine. The region was sprayed with caesium-137 and strontium-90 after the Chernobyl explosion in 1986.

”In the event of a fire there, radionuclides could rise together with combustion particles, and a new zone of pollution will appear,” he said.

The wheat export ban is widely seen as a move to address rising resentment over the heatwave and the fires.

:}

Go to the article to read the rest. I can’t go on. More next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svxP2LjBg_4:}

:}

Algae To Fuel – What is the current status

Jack Lundee asked if he could do a guest post. I am not fond of algae as a fuel source. Well, I am neutral about it. I think it is counter productive to continue to lust after liquid fuels. Still given the second article I list it is plausible as they say on Myth Busters.

http://everythingleft.wordpress.com/

Fed-Funded Algae Fuel Research making a Strong Comeback

Algae fuel is a biofuel, which is derivative of algae. In 1978, Former President Jimmy Carter pulled the trigger on a 25 million dollar research project into algae fuel production. To make a long story short, the project was somewhat unsuccessful because of the inability of scientists to find a way to make the organisms produce lipids gifted enough to be turned into biofuels, that is, in a high volume, low cost style.

One of the biggest concerns during early research was the fact that burning this algae fuel still released CO2 into the air. Nonetheless, the burning varies much so in that it doesn’t produce any new CO2 emissions like that of fossil fuels. This was a minor concern however, as the fuel was never really able to be inexpensively mass produced.

Now, there are definite signs of hope in the field of algae-based biofuels, as a number of firms and fortune 500 companies are delving into the research, investing billions of dollars. Alternative energy and carbon emission reduction efforts are widespread, funded by large collaborate organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative.  Fathered by ex-President Bill Clinton and Doug Band ( http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10498/clinton-heaps-praise-on-band-family/ ),  the CGI ( http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ )  has made large strides in the San Francisco Bay area, reducing fleet emissions in large numbers. Even more recently, Google made an astounding investment of $38 million dollars into wind farm production.

Ultimately, Exxon Mobile has been one of the largest cooperators/investors into algae-based biofuels, setting aside nearly $600 million dollars as of 2009. In their quest for alternative energy, they joined with Synthetic Genomics Inc., to research and develop next-generation biofuels produced from sunlight.[ http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/14/14greenwire-exxon-sinks-600m-into-algae-based-biofuels-in-33562.html ]

But why algae? Here are some major reasons why algae would be a great substitute:

  • Grows in a wide range of climates
  • Lower water intensity than corn or cellulosic ethanols
  • Ability to potentially mitigate CO2
  • Liquid fuels formed are the only one of their byproducts
  • Byproducts are potentially the most valuable

All in all, the 40 percent lipid yield of some species (according to some studies) can produce up to 10,000 gallons of oil per annum (1 acre). This is far more productive than Soy or cellulosic ethanol, which range between 50 to 2700 gallons. [ http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html ]

As in any study, there are drawbacks, and for most companies, it’s the failure to indentify the right strains of algae for high lipid concentration. Also, there are elements like contamination or predation, and dealing with the complicatedness of de-watering and oil withdrawal; all processes which have yet to be perfected.

On July 1, the department of energy (DOE) announced the investment of $24 million for approximately 3 different research groups. Their mission is to target all these obstacles in the mass production of algae-based biofuels. Sustainable Algal Biofuels Consortium, Consortium for Algal Biofuels Commercialization and Cellana LLC Consortium will all perform separate tasks in hopes of igniting an algae fuel based society.

Jack Lundee – Follower of all things green and progressive.

:}

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/08/03/converting-algae-into-fuel.html

By Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation

The algae that keep salmon and shrimp a bright pink might keep jet airplanes and automobiles running someday.

It’s no secret that government, scientists and industry are devoting considerable resources and talent to developing renewable, cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly energy sources, the path to energy independence and to reducing the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels.

Click here to find out more!

One solution could come from the fatty acids produced by certain species of salt water algae.

“All photosynthetic plants take water, sunlight and carbon dioxide and make either sugar or fatty acids,” said Dr. William L. Roberts, a professor in the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at North Carolina State University. “We want the ones that produce a lot of fatty acids.”

He and his colleagues, four biologists and three engineers, are working on ways to produce and extract these fats from Dunaliella, a microscopic species of algae, and convert them into fuel on a large scale, much larger than is possible today. Their research is funded by $1.99 million over four years from the National Science Foundation as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The North Carolina State University project is one of several teams in the nation studying the potential of algae as an energy source, and with great promise. This year the Department of Energy has awarded more than $100 million for bio-fuels research, an investment that includes a recently announced $24 million to specifically address the challenges in the commercialization of algae-based fuels.

“This is going to be one of the most important and dominant industries of the future because we will run out of fossil fuel,” Roberts said.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

Carbon Neutral, Energy Neutral, And Carbon Set Asides – The world can be soooo confusing

Everybody wants to be green but nobody wants tell you what that means exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset

Carbon offset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Wind turbines near Aalborg, Denmark. Renewable energy projects are the most common source of carbon offsets.

A carbon offset is a financial instrument aimed at a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) and may represent six primary categories of greenhouse gases.[1] One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

There are two markets for carbon offsets. In the larger, compliance market, companies, governments, or other entities buy carbon offsets in order to comply with caps on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. In 2006, about $5.5 billion of carbon offsets were purchased in the compliance market, representing about 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2e reductions.[2]

In the much smaller, voluntary market, individuals, companies, or governments purchase carbon offsets to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, electricity use, and other sources. For example, an individual might purchase carbon offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by personal air travel. Many companies (see list[3]) offer carbon offsets as an up-sell during the sales process so that customers can mitigate the emissions related with their product or service purchase (such as offsetting emissions related to a vacation flight, car rental, hotel stay, consumer good, etc.). In 2008, about $705 million of carbon offsets were purchased in the voluntary market, representing about 123.4 million metric tons of CO2e reductions.[4]

Offsets are typically achieved through financial support of projects that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the short- or long-term. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Others include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.[5] Some of the most popular carbon offset projects from a corporate perspective are energy efficiency and wind turbine projects.[6]

:}

http://ezinearticles.com/?Carbon-Neutral—What-Does-It-Mean?&id=339090

Carbon Neutral – What Does It Mean?

Recently, there have been a lot of environmental buzzwords floating around. It can be difficult to find a clear definition. I’ll explain what the term “carbon neutral” means, and why it’s important.

You might think that carbon neutral simply means that something does not release any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is true to an extent, however it is too simple a definition. It is possible to release CO2 into the atmosphere and still be carbon neutral, so long it is balanced by a CO2 reduction elsewhere.

Biofuels are carbon neutral, even though burning them releases CO2. How can this be? Well, the carbon in the biofuel comes from photosynthesis, where CO2 is captured from the atmosphere by a plant and turned into glucose. The glucose can then be turned into more complicated molecules such as sugars, starches, oils and proteins. Sugars and starches can easily be converted into bioethanol, while oils can be converted into biodiesel. Carbon is removed from the atmosphere, stored in plants for a few months, then released when the biofuel is burned. For every gram of CO2 released by burning a biofuel, there was a gram removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis just a few months ago. This perfect balance is why biofuels are carbon neutral.

Alternatively, the term carbon neutral can be used to describe energy that does not cause the release of any CO2 at all. For instance, solar cells, wind turbines and hydroelectric turbines generate electricity without releasing CO2. Nuclear power does not release CO2 during the generation process either.

There is a problem with this, however. Currently, virtually all forms of carbon neutral energy actually involve the burning of fossil fuels. The crops for biofuels are harvested using machinery that burns fossil diesel. This is because fossil fuels are a great deal cheaper than biofuels. Some ways of producing biofuels are controversial because so much fossil fuel has to be used in the production process. Some sources of bioethanol are in this grey area. Solar cells, wind and hydroelectric turbines are all produced and transported using fossil fuels to some extent. The technology exists to make these things truly carbon neutral, but it is hopelessly uneconomic at this time. Nuclear power involves the burning of fossil fuels in the mining and transport of uranium, the building of power stations, and the disposal of waste. When uranium becomes scarce, mining it will consume even more fossil fuels:}

:}

http://www.leonardo-energy.org/meaning-zero

The meaning of ‘zero’

By Bruno De Wachter / Published on Wed, 2010-05-05 05:30

‘Zero energy building’ and similar terms

Picture by Ian Britton on FreeFoto.com

Picture by Ian Britton on FreeFoto.com

You would think that no word has a more unambiguous meaning than ‘zero’: nothing is nothing. Not so in today’s world of green building. Labels like ‘zero energy building’, ‘nearly zero energy building’, and ‘zero carbon building’ are frequently used, but lack any standardised or official definition. The same can be said of the expression ‘bâtiment à énergie positive’ that is used in France.

‘Zero energy’ might play well commercially, but it is a clumsy label from a scientific point of view. No house or building can be built and maintained without energy. Strictly speaking, even manpower should be considered energy, and it brings along carbon emissions via food production and by the simple act of breathing. This illustrates that the meaning of ‘zero’ depends entirely upon where you draw the system’s boundaries.

The most narrow and also the most deceptive definition is to take only the electricity consumption of the building into account. The annual electricity production of the PV cells on the roof equals the annual electricity consumption of the building, and hey presto, you have a zero energy building. Who cares about the natural gas boiler in the basement?

Nearly zero energy

:}

Nearly zero..ha..haha…more tomorrow.

:}

Carbon Neutral Houses – They be real cool

http://www.2people.org/pub/page/show/article/10596

Carbon neutral homes by 2016

The British government has recently opened the comment period on a major plan to revise the building code. The revisions phase in regulations ensuring that all new homes are built carbon-neutral by 2016. Other elements of the plan include:

  • Code for Sustainable Homes: national standard to inform home buyers about the environmental performance of homes offered for sale.
  • Energy Performance Certificates: national standard to inform home buyers about the energy efficiency and running costs of homes offered for sale.
  • Urban planning policy to support lower carbon emissions and resiliency in the face of climate change.
  • Water Efficiency standards
  • Review of Existing Buildings: While the new regulations cover new construction, the government looking at ways to upgrade existing homes and buildings.

:}

http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dcs_first_carbon_neutral_home_hits_the_market/1652

DC’s First Carbon Neutral Home Hits the Market

by Mark Wellborn

image

Back in September, we reported that DC’s first carbon neutral home was being built in Capitol Hill. Yesterday, the much-anticipated property hit the market.

The three-bedroom, 3.5-bath home at 19 4th Street NE (map) was gutted and renovated by GreenSpur, Inc., a DC-based building and design firm that uses sustainability techniques to deliver homes that are energy efficient as well as cost effective.

After overcoming a labyrinth of regulatory hurdles and permitting nightmares given the property’s location four blocks from the Capitol, GreenSpur enlarged the home (from 1,000 to 2,100 square feet), hand dug the basement and, in keeping with their mission statement, made it completely green but priced comparably to other (non-carbon neutral) homes in the area.

:}

Then there is this. Wiki makes a political statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

Carbon neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

“Carbon neutral” redirects here. For other uses, see Carbon neutral (disambiguation).
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2010)

Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference. It is used in the context of carbon dioxide releasing processes, associated with transportation, energy production and industrial processes.

The carbon neutral concept may be extended to include other greenhouse gases (GHG) measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence—the impact a GHG has on the atmosphere expressed in the equivalent amount of CO2. The term climate neutral is used to reflect the fact that it is not just carbon dioxide (CO2), that is driving climate change, even if it is the most abundant, but also encompasses other greenhouse gases regulated by the Kyoto Protocol, namely: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Both terms are used interchangeably throughout this article.

Best practice for organizations and individuals seeking carbon neutral status entails reducing and/or avoiding carbon emissions first so that only unavoidable emissions are offset. The term has two common uses:

  • It can refer to the practice of balancing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, with renewable energy that creates a similar amount of useful energy, so that the carbon emissions are compensated, or alternatively using only renewable energies that don’t produce any carbon dioxide (this last is called a post-carbon economy).[1]
  • It is also used to describe the practice, criticized by some,[2] of carbon offsetting, by paying others to remove or sequester 100% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the atmosphere[3] – for example by planting trees – or by funding ‘carbon projects‘ that should lead to the prevention of future greenhouse gas emissions, or by buying carbon credits to remove (or ‘retire’) them through carbon trading. These practices are often used in parallel, together with energy conservation measures to minimize energy use.

:}

Climate neutral. Who is zooming who here. Did somebody just make up a phrase to create the new denier strawman. Yah think.

:}

Global Warming – Why it must be happening and why Humans must be causing it

The Sun is cooling and shrinking. Scientists have predicted that this was going to happen and in addition they predicted that a little ice age might occur. There was much positing that there were longer solar cycles then just the moderately well understood 11 year cycle. The thought was that the Sun waxed and waned every 300 or 400 years. No one was sure. Then an amazing thing happened. As the solar flares died down the Earth heated up. That was when scientists turned to man and the atmosphere to try to get some answers. The answer appeared to be that all of the GASES (not just co2 but every gas we throw off – there are 20 or more) we dump into the air are heating the planet up. This could lead to climate destabilization. Well the Sun is still quiet. For 2 1/2 years the Sun has been quiet. That is unprecedented in the 150 years at least that we have been observing the solar cycles. For much more on this subject please see one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800-whats-wrong-with-the-sun.html

What’s wrong with the sun?

Video: Sun spots

SUNSPOTS come and go, but recently they have mostly gone. For centuries, astronomers have recorded when these dark blemishes on the solar surface emerge, only for them to fade away again after a few days, weeks or months. Thanks to their efforts, we know that sunspot numbers ebb and flow in cycles lasting about 11 years.

But for the past two years, the sunspots have mostly been missing. Their absence, the most prolonged for nearly a hundred years, has taken even seasoned sun watchers by surprise. “This is solar behaviour we haven’t seen in living memory,” says David Hathaway, a physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

The sun is under scrutiny as never before thanks to an armada of space telescopes. The results they beam back are portraying our nearest star, and its influence on Earth, in a new light. Sunspots and other clues indicate that the sun’s magnetic activity is diminishing, and that the sun may even be shrinking. Together the results hint that something profound is happening inside the sun. The big question is what?

The stakes have never been higher. Groups of sunspots forewarn of gigantic solar storms that can unleash a billion times more energy than an atomic bomb. Fears that these giant solar eruptions could create havoc on EarthMovie  Camera, and disputes over the sun’s role in climate change, are adding urgency to these studies. When NASA and the European Space Agency launched the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory almost 15 years ago, “understanding the solar cycle was not one of its scientific objectives”, says Bernhard Fleck, the mission’s project scientist. “Now it is one of the key questions.”

Sun behaving badly

Sunspots are windows into the sun’s magnetic soul. They form where giant loops of magnetism, generated deep inside the sun, well up and burst through the surface, leading to a localised drop in temperature which we see as a dark patch. Any changes in sunspot numbers reflect changes inside the sun. “During this transition, the sun is giving us a real glimpse into its interior,” says Hathaway.

When sunspot numbers drop at the end of each 11-year cycle, solar storms die down and all becomes much calmer. This “solar minimum” doesn’t last long. Within a year, the spots and storms begin to build towards a new crescendo, the next solar maximum.

What’s special about this latest dip is that the sun is having trouble starting the next solar cycle. The sun began to calm down in late 2007, so no one expected many sunspots in 2008. But computer models predicted that when the spots did return, they would do so in force. Hathaway was reported as thinking the next solar cycle would be a “doozy”: more sunspots, more solar storms and more energy blasted into space. Others predicted that it would be the most active solar cycle on record. The trouble was, no one told the sun.

:}

Please finish the article. It is very long and there is a scholarly debate in the comments section about where the center of the Earth’s gravity is. This is kindofa hoot if you understand it. It is true our jokes are different from other peoples.

:}

I was going to post more about green washing But I kept getting this BP stuff

It is Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALU5g6Qqi08?

What – do these people think?  That if BP goes bankrupt that the world would be a better place…please stop and think about it…

doug –

When we started our Boycott BP campaign, we knew we had to get their attention in a language BP understands – profits. Now, we know it’s working:

A chain of Convenience Stores in Philipsburg, Pa decided to debrand three of its BP-branded stations:

“We are debranding BP. We will no longer be associated with BP by the end of the month. We are doing this because of the backlash and bad publicity from the handling of BP’s catastrophe,” Sean Lay, vice president of operations, said in the report. “We don’t want to be associated with them anymore. We’ve had enough.”[Convenience Store News]

Our campaign has been covered by everyone from the New York Times to industry trade newspapers. You can be sure that BP is paying attention. Now, let’s turn up the heat.

Boycott BP until they plug the leak and clean up the mess
Join the Boycott today and we’ll send you a free bumper sticker to help spread the campaign

In spite of these early effects of the boycott, BP corporate headquarters is still playing games with the numbers and continues to escape accountability. Just this morning, the government updated estimates of the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf to be much higher than BP originally stated.

And yet, BP continues to deny the extent of the problem. A report from NPR asks: “BP officials insisted this week they have found no large plumes of oil concentrated underwater, although it begs the question: if the oil isn’t concentrated in the water, where is it?”

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKA3tNoK8zM&feature=related )

And

ALERT: U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican Leader John Boehner want taxpayers to help pick up BP’s tab for environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. Tell John Boehner: No BP Bailout!

Douglas —

How is this for outrageous? Republican Leader John Boehner actually suggested that American taxpayers should be hit with the bill to help clean up Big Oil giant BP’s spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And it gets worse…
Sign  the Petition

In making this outrageous suggestion, Boehner was agreeing with one of the Republicans’ biggest shadow groups – a group that has pledged to spend more than $50 million this cycle attacking Democrats and trying to elect other Big Oil protecting Republicans to Congress. But it gets even worse than that…

Boehner’s suggestion of a taxpayer-funded bailout for Big Oil giant BP came after he and other Republicans accepted more than $188 million combined in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. This calls for an immediate response from Grassroots Democrats.

Visit our newly-launched website, BoehnerBPBailout.com to sign our petition denouncing John Boehner’s Taxpayer Funded Bailout for Big Oil giant BP – then help spread the word on Facebook and Twitter.

Now, for all the other happenings from the campaign trail, check out our latest edition of @Stake.

Your Response to Republican Congressman Don Young’s Oil Spill Outrage
Sign the  Petition
Republican Leader John Boehner’s suggestion of a taxpayer-funded bailout of BP wasn’t the only Big Oil outrage by the GOP recently. Alaska Republican Congressman Don Young claimed that BP’s spill in the Gulf is “not an environmental disaster.” Thanks to you, we held him accountable.

More than 95,000 of you signed our petition denouncing Congressman Young’s ludicrous comments! You also sent a powerful message to other Big Oil-protecting Republicans that grassroots Democrats will be there to hold them accountable. Thanks again for speaking out!

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkJWTQpvADU&feature=related )

Then there are the people bragging about defeating a resolution…a resolution mind you.

Dear doug,

Good news! With your help, on Thursday, the Senate voted to reject Senator Murkowski’s “Dirty Air Act” – a proposal that would have destroyed 40 years of progress on clean energy by gutting the Clean Air Act and stripping the EPA of its power to regulate the pollution that causes climate change.

The vote was close – 53 to 47 – but your calls and letters made the difference, putting the pressure on Congress to do the right thing.

Thanks to you, we won this fight – but the oil that continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico daily is a vivid reminder of the continued danger of depending on fossil fuels. With your help, we will continue to push for comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation that will give us greater economic security, reduce pollution and global warming, and transition America to a cleaner energy future.

Thank you again for your activism and support. We will be in touch in the days and weeks to come with more ways of getting involved.

Sincerely,

Michael Town
Campaign Director, SaveOurEnvironment.org
info@saveourenvironment.org

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GdsrywWNQU&feature=related )

And

Dear doug,

Yesterday, thanks to your hard work, the U.S. Senate did the right thing — voting with the climate science and against a resolution that would have stripped the Clean Air Act’s protections against climate pollution.

The Senate is to be commended for defeating Senator Lisa Murkowski’s disastrously misguided proposal. But the truth is, in the face of the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history, Senator Murkowski’s resolution never should have even reached the Senate floor.

The fact that we had to work to defeat this legislation is a testament to the continued strength of the fossil fuel lobby. But the fact that we did defeat it gives us fresh momentum for the months ahead, as our nation confronts the costs of our dependence on fossil fuels more directly than ever.

This summer, we can and must set our nation on the path of independence from oil and other dirty energy.

Will you donate to support Repower America’s campaign to pass comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation this summer?

We must confront the growing plumes of oil now consuming the Gulf Coast and soon to affect much of the Eastern Seaboard. We must pass comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation — our best hope of staving off the catastrophic climate change that will dwarf the Deepwater Oil Disaster in scope and devastation. And we must accomplish all this despite the millions of dollars that big oil will spend to defeat us.

Yesterday’s vote shows that when we work together, we can defeat these forces. Over the last two years, over 250,000 of us have taken action to protect the Clean Air Act, including:

  • Submitting over 180,000 comments to the administration urging the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act’s limits on greenhouse gases,
  • Making over 30,000 phone calls opposing Senator Murkowski’s proposal and
  • Writing over 7,200 letters to the editor.

This summer, it’s time to take exactly the same tenacity and commitment we have shown on these attacks on the Clean Air Act and win the biggest prize of all: comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation that transitions our economy to clean energy.

Donate now to support our campaign to Repower America:

http://cpaf.repoweramerica.org/cleanairvictorynd

We’ve won an important battle. Now, it’s time to win the war.

Al Gore
Founder
The Climate Protection Action Fund

:}

Please get out of my mail box.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mskqBz2cZTA&feature=related

:}