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.

:}

Buffalo Gnats, Black Flies – I don’t care what you call them

They have made my life a living hell. The skin area around half of my neck is swollen up three times it normal size and I am in pain…So no real post today. Sorry.

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

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

Black fly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A black fly (sometimes called a buffalo gnat, turkey gnat, or white socks) is any member of the family Simuliidae of the Culicomorpha infraorder. They are related to the Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, and Thaumaleidae. There are over 1,800 known species of black flies (of which 11 are extinct). Most species belong to the immense genus Simulium. Most black flies gain nourishment by feeding on the blood of other animals, although the males feed mainly on nectar. They are usually small, black or gray, with short legs, and antennae. They are a common nuisance for humans, and many U.S. states have programs to suppress the black fly population. They spread several diseases, including river blindness in Africa (Simulium damnosum and S. neavei) and the Americas (Simulium callidum and S. metallicum in Central America, S. ochraceum in Central and South America)

:}

More Monday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUZYuWfg7NA

:}

Berms In The Gulf Part 2 – Bobby Jindal believes in running around like a chicken with his head cut off

See Booby Jindal and Billy “the blimp” Nungasser believe that if you run around acting like you’re in charge and “doing something” then voters will think you are an effective leader. But what the “near miss hurricane” showed is that they and their sand barriers are full of crap. Even worse, by insisting that BP hire local unemployed workers as clean up people, the tox results from previous oil spills show that they are also going to lead to people’s deaths. Way to go you two.

An Honest Discussion Of Louisiana’s Berm Plan
Part 2
Construction work in the Chandeleur Islands by Kyle Douglas Jeffery Photography: http://www.kylejeffery.ca/Main/Kyle_Douglas_Jeffery_Photography.html
Restoration Work on the Chandeleur Islands

The shut down on June 23 of part of the state’s dredging operations for construction of offshore sand berms was treated by Governor Jindal as a sudden and arbitrary action by federal agencies. (1) But the reality is somewhat different.

While some media stories conveyed the impression that the state’s entire sand berm plan was approved by the Corps of Engineers in late May, only six sections of the original proposal were given a permit. Two sections to the east of the river, on the upper end of the Chandeleur Island chain, and four sections west of the river were authorized by the Corps, which described them as “critical locations where greater immediate benefit is likely to be achieved with minimal adverse disruption of coastal circulation patterns.” (2)

The Corps Permit specified the source areas for sand/sediment: Ship Shoal, South Pelto, the Mississippi River Offshore Disposal Site, and Pass a Loutre for the western sites, and St. Bernard shoal and Hewes Point for the sites to the east. The location of borrow and dredge sites at the northern end of the Chandeleur Islands has been one of the areas of greatest concern. NOAA and other agencies had pointed out that creating borrow pits or dredging in close proximity to the islands could cause accelerated erosion and even compromise their stability, so using a source site a couple of miles away was a condition of the permit.

Soon after receiving its permit, however, the state began to voice its intention to source near to the islands after all, due to a lack of pipe for pumping sand and mud from a distance. The state said it would replace sand from the dredged site within a few weeks, but federal agencies agreed to this change with a much shorter time limit because of the possible effects on the island.

Despite the Governor’s repeated claims that “we don’t have a day to wait,” the state was not ready for the approved level of dredging even after it was approved. Federal officials said that “the state has been unprepared since the beginning, has caused further delay because it did not have the proper pipe available and has continued to asked for time to shift to the offshore site. According to the Interior Department, it gave the state permission for more than a week to use the closer source of sand while locating the pipe, but that allowing the state to continue dredging could have negative effects on existing barrier islands.” (3)

An official with the Department of Interior noted that if the department had allowed the state to continue digging where it was digging, they feared approaching a “tipping point” with an “impact on that island chain that may never be restored.”(4) The Governor’s reaction was to completely ignore these considerations and instead attack the federal agencies: “We haven’t heard from them before today about any concern about these islands or this area. All of a sudden now that we’re building new land to protect our coast, they’re worried about a hypothetical consequence?” (5)

The Governor may not have heard or read the federal agencies concerns in their response to the state’s permit application, or have seen the U.S. Geological Survey report last year about the status of the Chandeleur Islands and how they could be actually restored in ways that minimize adverse impacts (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5252). He could have read the comments of his own Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which pointed out in its letter to the Corps the need to “determine whether or not borrow area excavation will increase wave energy and subsequent shoreline erosion, alter littoral currents, or otherwise impact depositional processes, in a way that undermines the sustainability of inland islands, marsh, and shorelines, most importantly the Chandeleur Islands.” (6)

For views of the sand berm and other spill related issues from the perspective of a coastal scientist  please visit the Louisiana Coast Post by Len Bahr, Ph.D. Dr. Bahr is a former LSU marine sciences faculty member who served 18 years as a coastal policy advisor to Louisiana governors from Roemer to Jindal. Dr. Bahr gives the sand berm plan an official “thumbs down” here.

(1) C. Kirkham, Times-Picayune, “Louisiana officials urge feds to let dredging continue on berm to fight Gulf oil spill,” 6/24/10, www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/louisiana_officials_again_ask.html.

(2) Documents related to the plan and the state’s permit request to the Corps of Engineers have been posted at http://leanweb.org/images/stories/bpspill/emergency_permit_documents_final.pdf.

(3) C. Kirkham, J. Tilove, Times-Picayune, “State halts dredging of sand for berms,” 6/23/10.

(4) Times-Picayune, 6/24/10.

(5) Times-Picayune, 6/24/10.

(6) Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, letter of 5/13/10, http://leanweb.org/images/stories/bpspill/emergency_permit_documents_final.pdf.


SaveOurGulf.orgVisit SaveOurGulf.org to get more information about the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster from Waterkeeper organizations across the Gulf Coast and donate to Save Our Gulf!

:}

Carbon Neutral Is Different Than Energy Neutral – The difference is subtle but real

Energy Neutral is different from Carbon Neutral. Energy Neutral means it produces as much energy as it consumes. Carbon Neutral takes into account all carbon used to make the place and its usage.

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/02/lighthouse-uks.html

Lighthouse, UK’s First Zero-Emission, Carbon Neutral Home

Lighthouseuk

In England, a handful of efficient demonstration homes have been built on the grounds of the Building Research Establishment Ltd, including “The Lighthouse,” which is the first net zero carbon house in the UK.  The house is also the first to attain level six in the Code for Sustainable Homes, which indicates that it is carbon neutral. The two-bedroom house is only 93.3 square meters (barely over 1000 sq. ft.) in a 2-1/2 story building.  The building has solar panels and evacuated solar tubes on its roof, as well as making use of passive measures with ventilation chimneys.  It also incorporates rainwater catchment as part of the building design.

The materials used include highly insulated, airtight building fabric which has been designed to provide generous daylight levels and includes effective solar control, together with integrated building services based around a platform of renewable and sustainable technologies. These include water efficiency techniques, renewable energy technologies, passive cooling and ventilation, as well as mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR).

:}

http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/11/25/how-to-build-a-carbon-neutral-home/

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

How To Build A Carbon Neutral Home

Written by Reenita Malhotra
Published on November 25th, 2008

Is it possible to build a carbon neutral home? Apparently so says the Australian Home Lifestyle TV show. Watch this segment about green building construction.

Tweet This Post

0diggsdigg

:}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/japans-carbon-neutral-hom_n_111519.html

Your request is being processed…

Japan’s Carbon-Neutral Home: Leave Your Carbon Footprint At The Door

Wall Street Journal:

As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutions in a nearby “zero emissions house.”

The single-story, 2,152-square-foot house generates all the energy required for a family of four, therefore eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the Japanese government. Products inside, many already on sale in Japan, include a washer that requires no water and an air conditioner that senses where people are in a room and automatically sends cool air in their direction rather than cooling empty space. Yet the eco-friendly products also carry a steeper price tag than traditional appliances.

The house uses a wind-turbine generator and a photovoltaic generation system, which directly converts light into electricity, to produce about 15 kilowatts of energy a day, nearly five times the amount used by a regular household. The government has presented the house as one of its contributions toward helping the world cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutio…
As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutio…

Filed by Dave BurdickReport Corrections

More in Green…

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Living In A Cave Or The Next Best Thing – They have nearly zero energy use

People all over the world live in caves. I am not talking about subsistence living either. Downtown Minneapolis is pretty much underground or connected by underground walkways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_City,_Montreal

Montreal’s Underground City (officially RÉSO or La Ville Souterraine in French) is the set of interconnected complexes (both above and below ground) in and around Downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It is also known as the indoor city (ville intérieure), and is the largest underground complex in the world.[1]

The lower floors of the Eaton Centre between the McGill and Peel metro stations.

Not all portions of the indoor city (ville intérieure) are underground. The connections are considered tunnels architecturally and technically, but have conditioned air and good lighting as any building’s liveable space does. Many tunnels are large enough to have shops on both sides of the passage. With over 32 km (20 mi) of tunnels spread over more than 12 km2 (4.6 sq mi), connected areas include shopping malls, apartment buildings, hotels, condominiums, banks, offices, museums, universities, seven metro stations, two commuter train stations, a regional bus terminal and the Bell Centre amphitheatre and arena.[citation needed] There are more than 120 exterior access points to the underground city. Each access point is an entry point to one of 60 residential or commercial complexes comprising 3.6 km2 (1.4 sq mi) of floor space, including 80% of all office space and 35% of all commercial space in downtown Montreal.[citation needed] In winter, some 500,000 people use the underground city every day. Because of its Underground City, Montreal is often referred to [by whom?] as the “Double-Decker City” or “Two Cities in One”.

:}

OK so it is really really cold in Montreal. The point is caves do not really need heating and cooling. Hot water can be supplied by solar or geothermal and that just leaves your electrical needs. They also do it where it is really really hot.

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

Coober Pedy is a very small town, roughly halfway between Adelaide and Alice Springs, that has become a popular stopover point and tourist destination, especially since the completion of the sealing of the Stuart Highway in 1987.

Interesting attractions in Coober Pedy include the mines, the graveyard, and the underground churches. The first tree ever seen in the town was welded together from scrap iron. It still sits on a hilltop overlooking the town. The local golf course – mostly played at night with glowing balls, to avoid daytime temperatures – is completely free of grass, and golfers take a small piece of “turf” around to use for teeing off. As a result of correspondence between the two clubs, the Coober Pedy golf club is the only club in the world to enjoy reciprocal rights at The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews.[4]

:}

http://www.outback-australia-travel-secrets.com/coober-pedy-underground-homes.html

Coober Pedy Underground Homes
Think A Dugout Is A Hole In The Ground? Think Again!

Coober Pedy underground homes are not what you expect.

The idea of living underground usually triggers thoughts of dark, damp and cramped spaces.

It doesn’t help that those underground homes are called “dugouts” in Coober Pedy… Or that people are told that they are abandoned mine shafts…

But as I said, Coober Pedy dugouts are not what you think.

You really have to go and have a look at some of those homes yourself, or stay in underground accommodation in Coober Pedy. You’ll probably end up dreaming of an underground home yourself. I certainly did.

Historic Coober Pedy Dugouts | Modern Coober Pedy Underground Homes

Historic Coober Pedy Dugouts

Coober Pedy Dugout

The early Coober Pedy dugouts were indeed the holes that had been dug in search for opal.

Back then opal mining was back breaking manual labour, so the earliest Coober Pedy homes were no bigger than they absolutely needed to be.

:}

Tomorrow more on Energy Neutral Houses.

:}

Every Discussion Starts The Same Way – The Sun is the biggest object in the solar system

Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIYiGA_rIls

You would think that we would take advantage of that.

http://nineplanets.org/sol.html

The Sun

Sol

Hardcopy

The New Solar System
Summarizes what we’ve learned from interplanetary explorations in the last 25 years. My primary reference for The Nine Planets.

The Compact NASA Atlas of the Solar System
This ‘road map’ of the solar system is the definitive guide for planetary science.

Our Sun is a normal main-sequence G2 star, one of more than 100 billion stars in our galaxy.

        diameter:    1,390,000 km.
        mass:        1.989e30 kg
        temperature: 5800 K (surface)
                     15,600,000 K (core)

The Sun is by far the largest object in the solar system. It contains more than 99.8% of the total mass of the Solar System (Jupiter contains most of the rest).

It is often said that the Sun is an “ordinary” star. That’s true in the sense that there are many others similar to it. But there are many more smaller stars than larger ones; the Sun is in the top 10% by mass. The median size of stars in our galaxy is probably less than half the mass of the Sun.

The Sun is personified in many mythologies: the Greeks called it Helios and the Romans called it Sol.

The Sun is, at present, about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium by mass everything else (“metals“) amounts to less than 2%. This changes slowly over time as the Sun converts hydrogen to helium in its core.

The outer layers of the Sun exhibit differential rotation: at the equator the surface rotates once every 25.4 days; near the poles it’s as much as 36 days. This odd behavior is due to the fact that the Sun is not a solid body like the Earth. Similar effects are seen in the gas planets. The differential rotation extends considerably down into the interior of the Sun but the core of the Sun rotates as a solid body.

Conditions at the Sun’s core (approximately the inner 25% of its radius) are extreme. The temperature is 15.6 million Kelvin and the pressure is 250 billion atmospheres. At the center of the core the Sun’s density is more than 150 times that of water.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiSkyEyBczU

:}

In fact hard as it is to believe…Jupiter and the Sun constitute 95% of the matter in the solar system..We be pretty small.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

The Sun is the most prominent feature in our solar system. It is the largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar system mass. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun’s disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths. The Sun’s outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000°C (11,000°F). This layer has a mottled appearance due to the turbulent eruptions of energy at the surface.

Solar energy is created deep within the core of the Sun. It is here that the temperature (15,000,000° C; 27,000,000° F) and pressure (340 billion times Earth’s air pressure at sea level) is so intense that nuclear reactions take place. This reaction causes four protons or hydrogen nuclei to fuse together to form one alpha particle or helium nucleus. The alpha particle is about .7 percent less massive than the four protons. The difference in mass is expelled as energy and is carried to the surface of the Sun, through a process known as convection, where it is released as light and heat. Energy generated in the Sun’s core takes a million years to reach its surface. Every second 700 million tons of hydrogen are converted into helium ashes. In the process 5 million tons of pure energy is released; therefore, as time goes on the Sun is becoming lighter.

Sun  Diagram

The chromosphere is above the photosphere. Solar energy passes through this region on its way out from the center of the Sun. Faculae and flares arise in the chromosphere. Faculae are bright luminous hydrogen clouds which form above regions where sunspots are about to form. Flares are bright filaments of hot gas emerging from sunspot regions. Sunspots are dark depressions on the photosphere with a typical temperature of 4,000°C (7,000°F).

The corona is the outer part of the Sun’s atmosphere. It is in this region that prominences appears. Prominences are immense clouds of glowing gas that erupt from the upper chromosphere. The outer region of the corona stretches far into space and consists of particles traveling slowly away from the Sun. The corona can only be seen during total solar eclipses.

The Sun appears to have been active for 4.6 billion years and has enough fuel to go on for another five billion years or so. At the end of its life, the Sun will start to fuse helium into heavier elements and begin to swell up, ultimately growing so large that it will swallow the Earth. After a billion years as a red giant, it will suddenly collapse into a white dwarf — the final end product of a star like ours. It may take a trillion years to cool off completely

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmDWvGKLzBE

:}

According to the world’s leading experts, also known as Rocket Scientists.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html

Electromagnetic radiation

Electromagnetic radiation consists of electrical and magnetic energy. The radiation can be thought of as waves of energy or as particle-like “packets” of energy called photons.

Visible light, infrared rays, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation differ in their energy. Six bands of energy span the entire spectrum (range) of electromagnetic energy. From the least energetic to the most energetic, they are: radio waves, infrared rays, visible light, ultraviolet rays, X rays, and gamma rays. Microwaves, which are high-energy radio waves, are sometimes considered to be a separate band. The sun emits radiation of each type in the spectrum.

The amount of energy in electromagnetic waves is directly related to their wavelength, the distance between successive wave crests. The more energetic the radiation, the shorter the wavelength. For example, gamma rays have shorter wavelengths than radio waves. The energy in an individual photon is related to the position of the photon in the spectrum. For instance, a gamma ray photon has more energy than a photon of radio energy.

All forms of electromagnetic radiation travel through space at the same speed, commonly known as the speed of light: 186,282 miles (299,792 kilometers) per second. At this rate, a photon emitted by the sun takes only about 8 minutes to reach Earth.

The amount of electromagnetic radiation from the sun that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is known as the solar constant. This amount is about 1,370 watts per square meter. But only about 40 percent of the energy in this radiation reaches Earth’s surface. The atmosphere blocks some of the visible and infrared radiation, almost all the ultraviolet rays, and all the X rays and gamma rays. But nearly all the radio energy reaches Earth’s surface.

Particle radiation

Protons and electrons flow continually outward from the sun in all directions as the solar wind. These particles come close to Earth, but Earth’s magnetic field prevents them from reaching the surface.

However, more intense concentrations of particles from flares and coronal mass ejections on the sun reach Earth’s atmosphere. These particles are known as solar cosmic rays. Most of them are protons, but they also include heavier nuclei as well as electrons. They are extremely energetic. As a result, they can be hazardous to astronauts in orbit or to orbiting satellites.

The cosmic rays cannot reach Earth’s surface. When they collide with atoms at the top of the atmosphere, they change into a shower of less energetic particles. But, because the solar events are so energetic, they can create geomagnetic storms, major disturbances in Earth’s magnetic field. The storms, in turn, can disrupt electrical equipment on Earth’s surface. For example, they can overload power lines, leading to blackouts.

:}

Monday – Let’s all live in caves.

You knew I’d have to play it, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6tV11acSRk

:}

Meditations On All Things Solar – Let us start with the big guy himself

That is right the Sun creates all the energy on the Earth. Well, the Sun or its cousins because the heavy metals that we use for our version of “nuclear power” were created in Suns of the past that blew up. The oil, natural gas and the coal we burn are nothing but dead congealed plants and animals nurtured by the sun. Really think about it what is “natural gas”. The stink of the dead from the past. So why do we do that? We can get all the energy we need directly from the Sun? The point is that if the capitalist system can sell you bottled water then it surely can sell you petroleum products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Sun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the star. For other uses, see Sun (disambiguation).
This article is  semi-protected.
The Sun Sun symbol.svg
The Sun seen through X-ray
Observation data
Mean distance
from Earth
1.496×108 km
8 min 19 s at light speed
Visual brightness (V) ?26.74 [1]
Absolute magnitude 4.83 [1]
Spectral classification G2V
Metallicity Z = 0.0177 [2]
Angular size 31.6? – 32.7? [3]
Adjectives solar
Orbital characteristics
Mean distance
from Milky Way core
~2.5×1017 km
26,000 light-years
Galactic period (2.25–2.50) × 108 a
Velocity ~220 km/s (orbit around the center of the Galaxy)
~20 km/s (relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighborhood)
396.5±3.0 km/s[4] (relative to the cosmic microwave background)
Physical characteristics
Mean diameter 1.392×106 km [1]
109 × Earth
Equatorial radius 6.955×105 km [5]
109 × Earth[5]
Equatorial circumference 4.379×106 km [5]
109 × Earth[5]
Flattening 9×10?6
Surface area 6.0877×1012 km2 [5]
11,990 × Earth[5]
Volume 1.412×1018 km3 [5]
1,300,000 × Earth
Mass 1.9891×1030 kg [1]
332,900 × Earth[5]
Average density 1.408×103 kg/m3 [1][5][6]
Different Densities Core: 1.5×105 kg/m3
lower Photosphere: 2×10?4 kg/m3
lower Chromosphere: 5×10?6 kg/m3
Avg. Corona: 1×10?12 kg/m3 [7]
Equatorial surface gravity 274.0 m/s2 [1]
27.94 g
28 × Earth[5]
Escape velocity
(from the surface)
617.7 km/s [5]
55 × Earth[5]
Temperature
of core
~15.7×106 K [1]
Temperature
of surface (effective)
5,778 K [1]
Temperature
of corona
~5×106 K
Luminosity (Lsol) 3.846×1026 W [1]
~3.75×1028 lm
~98 lm/W efficacy
Mean Intensity (Isol) 2.009×107 W·m?2·sr?1
Rotation characteristics
Obliquity 7.25° [1]
(to the ecliptic)
67.23°
(to the galactic plane)
Right ascension
of North pole[8]
286.13°
19h 4min 30s
Declination
of North pole
+63.87°
63°52′ North
Sidereal rotation period
(at equator)
25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1]
25d 9h 7min 13s [8]
(at poles) 34.3 days [1]
Rotation velocity
(at equator)
7.189×103 km/h [5]
Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%[9]
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Sulfur 0.12%
Neon 0.12%
Nitrogen 0.09%
Silicon 0.07%
Magnesium 0.05%
This box: view • talk • edit

The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. It has a diameter of about 1,392,000 kilometers (865,000 mi), about 109 times that of Earth, and its mass (about 2 × 1030 kilograms, 330,000 times that of Earth) accounts for about 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.[10] About three quarters of the Sun’s mass consists of hydrogen, while the rest is mostly helium. Less than 2% consists of heavier elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others.[11]

The Sun’s color is white, although from the surface of the Earth it may appear yellow because of atmospheric scattering.[12] Its stellar classification, based on spectral class, is G2V, and is informally designated a yellow star, because the majority of its radiation is in the yellow-green portion of the visible spectrum.[13] In this spectral class label, G2 indicates its surface temperature of approximately 5,778 K (5,505 °C; 9,941 °F), and V (Roman five) indicates that the Sun, like most stars, is a main sequence star, and thus generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Sun fuses 430–600 million tons of hydrogen each second. Once regarded by astronomers as a small and relatively insignificant star, the Sun is now presumed to be brighter than about 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy, most of which are red dwarfs.[14][15] The absolute magnitude of the Sun is +4.83; however, as the star closest to Earth, the Sun is the brightest object in the sky with an apparent magnitude of ?26.74.[16][17] The Sun’s hot corona continuously expands in space creating the solar wind, a hypersonic stream of charged particles that extends to the heliopause at roughly 100 astronomical units. The bubble in the interstellar medium formed by the solar wind, the heliosphere, is the largest continuous structure in the Solar System.[18][19]

The Sun is currently traveling through the Local Interstellar Cloud in the Local Bubble zone, within the inner rim of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way galaxy. Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth, the Sun ranks 4th in mass.[20] The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at a distance of approximately 24,000–26,000 light years from the galactic center, completing one clockwise orbit, as viewed from the galactic north pole, in about 225–250 million years.

:}

The sun will come out tomorrow tomorrow tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jdpc7aaAlQ&feature=related

:}

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

:}

More On Green Wash – Somebody should start the Boo Hiss Award for the worst offender of the year

I had no idea when I started this meditation how many sites there were that focused on the topic of Green Wash. Here is another with an excerpt of an article they cite. It will come complete with music tomorrow I hope.

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/

Site Goal #1:Help consumers become more savvy about evaluating environmental marketing claims of advertisers.

Site Goal #2:
Hold businesses accountable to their environmental marketing claims.

Site Goal #3:
Stimulate the market and demand for sustainable business practices that truly reduce the impact on the environment.

:}

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/10/ftc-cites-kmart-tender-dyna-e-for-false-green-claims/

June 10, 2009

FTC Cites Kmart, Tender, Dyna-E for False Green Claims

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged Kmart Corp., Tender Corp., and Dyna-E International with making false and unsubstantiated claims that their paper products were “biodegradable.”

FTC charged the companies with making the following deceptive biodegradable claims:

  • Kmart Corp. called its American Fare brand disposable plates biodegradable.
  • Tender Corp. called its Fresh Bath-brand moist wipes biodegradable.
  • Dyna-E International called its Lightload brand compressed dry towels biodegradable.

Kmart and Tender have agreed to settle the cases against them while the case against Dyna-E will be litigated. The FTC says with the recent growth in “green” advertising and product lines, the agency will continue its efforts to ensure that environmental marketing is truthful, substantiated, and not confusing to consumers.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Green Wash – The enviromental pollution that keeps giving

George Bush and his deregulationistas turned green into a bad name. From their expansion of organic products from 120 to well over 1,000 to their attempt to promote something mythologically called clean coal, the Bush administration was hell bent on destroying the environment.  Tragically he may be remembered as the man who set aside more ocean square miles as a wild life sanctuary than any other president…but that is another story…

here is a great site for it:

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

SourceWatch needs your financial support to survive and thrive. If you’ve found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now.

Greenwashing

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s climate change project.

Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.

The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwash as “the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment.” This definition was shaped by by the group’s focus on corporate behavior and the rise of corporate green advertising at the time. However, governments, political candidates, trade associations and non-government organizations have also been accused of greenwashing. [1]

The 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined greenwash as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.” [1]

In 2008 the environmental group Greenpeace launched a website Stop Greenwash to “confront deceptive greenwashing campaigns, engage companies in debate, and give consumers and activists and lawmakers the information and tools they need to … hold corporations accountable for the impacts their core business decisions and investments are having on our planet.” [2]

Contents

[hide]

The allure of greenwashing

:}

Of course Green Peace has to have their say:

http://stopgreenwash.org/

What’s this all about?

Every day, Americans are bombarded with advertising about environmentally friendly goods and services. But how many really are green, and how many are just pretending?

dddot dddot dddot

About Shell Oil they say:

At a time when the fate of this federally protected area is so vulnerable and at risk of being altered forever by oil, Greenpeace felt it necessary to shed light on the ironic fact that Shell has used the place to brand its own image as green and actually caring about the environment.

The oil company ran a full-page print advertisement in National Geographic Magazine and several other publications, which featured a color picture of a diver swimming through deep blue water featuring brightly colored fish and coral. The statement in the middle of the ad says: “What do we really need in today’s energy hungry world? More gardeners.”

More gardeners? If that’s really what we needed, we could just stop drilling for oil all together right? All we need is more gardeners.

But Shell doesn’t really mean that at all.

They know that in today’s energy hungry world, oil is the food and the company’s main priority. Even through the thickest green glasses, few are going to dispute that fact.

The rest of the text on the advertisement reads that a Shell employee and marine biologist has been working with the company to protect the area.

But how much could the oil giant really be protecting when the company also actually drills near the vulnerable sanctuary.

The advertisement and words on the page are clearly for show.

Shell does have close ties to the Flower Gardens. In fact, an executive from Shell Canada, Rebecca Nadel serves on the sanctuary’s advisory council. Also on the team for the sanctuary is James Sinclair of the now notorious Minerals Management Service. At first glance, it doesn’t exactly look like those employed to protect the sanctuary are representing the most responsible organizations.

Shell has a cozy bed in sanctuary bureaucracy.

The company however, does donate money to Flower Gardens. The Green Life reports $5,000 of direct funding each year. However, the site also acknowledges that it costs nearly six figures to run one advertisement in National Geographic. For a drop in the bucket, the oil giant rebrands its image as being concerned with the underwater sanctuary.

:}

More tomorrow

:}.