Category Archives: fossil fuels and the United States’ Future

Boycott BP – British Petroleum needs to be taught an economic lesson

Posted on by
Reply

Unfortunately that may be more difficult than you think…As Terry Gross says…first the news

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/21-6

Published on Friday, May 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

Boycott BP

by Robert Weissman

Why?

Because BP must pay.

Eleven oil workers are dead. One of the largest oil spills in U.S. history continues to worsen. BP’s oil gusher at the floor of the Gulf of Mexico may be 100 times worse than BP first estimated (and 20 times worse than the company presently claims). 100 times!

BP’s oil gusher is now threatening coastal lands in Louisiana and is almost certain to destroy fisheries and the livelihoods of people who fish and shrimp in the Gulf, or rely on the Gulf for tourism business. The giant plumes of oil deep underwater will exact an unknown toll on sea life. And the spreading oil may even wind up in currents that eventually take it to the U.S. Eastern shores.

BP CEO Tony Hayward is sanguine about the whole problem. The Financial Times quotes him saying, “I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest.”

A boycott will send a message to BP that its shoddy oversight of this project and its history of environmental and worker safety violations is unforgivable. Take the BP Boycott Pledge, and commit not to buy gas from BP for at least three months. Go here: www.beyondBP.org

:}

Please read the entire article. This guy is pissed off.  And if you click on the link you go to these guys.

http://www.citizen.org/page.aspx?pid=3311

Boycott BP

Take the Beyond BP Pledge! Drive a car? Like the occasional fountain drink? Send a clear message to BP by boycotting its gas and retail store products. Don’t spend a cent of your hard-earned money to feed the bottom line of a corporation that has a sordid history of negligence, willfully violates environmental regulations, and is spewing thousands and thousands of barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico.

I pledge to boycott BP for at least three months.

:}

But these guys are more fun:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-BP/119101198107726

Kirk Stewart Lager If they cap the leaking well, they can no longer harvest profits from it…… The government is letting them keep trying all these attempts to control it right now (oil recovery system over the well head, a smaller containment dome – dubbed a “top hat”, and now the collection tube that is half ass in place)…… Cap…ping the leak means capping the profits, and apparently we can’t have that.

See More
5 minutes ago · Flag

www.wdsu.com
BELLE CHASSE, La. — Pelicans are the pride of Louisiana, but their images and species could be greatly impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Sunday, May 23, 2010.

Teresa Green I was in BigRapids Mi. today only saw one care at the local BP. And in my home town Barryton MI. There were people at the station but only one was buying gas.

6 minutes ago · · Flag

Description:
Boycott BP stations until the spill is cleaned up!…FOREVER. BP brands to boycott include Castrol, Arco, Aral, am/pm, Amoco, and Wild Bean Cafe. http://twitter.com/bayoulee. HEY MEDIA WE WANT AN “OJ COVERAGE” CHANNEL DEVOTED TO THIS BP OIL DISASTER AND WE WANT IT NOW! Boycott des stations. Boicot estaciones. Tankstellen boykottieren. boykot BP stationer. boikotti BP.?????? BP.Bojkot BP. bojkott BP. BP stasies boikot.Bojkot stacji BP.boykot BP. bojkot BP stanice.boicottare le stazioni BP. boykote BP estasyon. ?????? BP. boicot gorsafoedd BPsniðganga BP stöðvar til hella niður er hreinsað! boykot BP. boicot estacións BP. Boicotul sta?ii BP.?????? BP. BP kususia vituo mpaka spill ni kusafishwa up!????????? ???????? BP. ???? BP ????? ?? ????? ??? ????! BP t?y chay ?ài cho ??n khi ???c làm s?ch tràn lên!???????? ??.??. ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??!BP????????????????? ! ????????????????????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???! !?????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???!????? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????! (read less)
Boycott BP stations until the spill is cleaned up!…FOREVER. BP brands to boycott include Castrol, Arco, Aral, am/pm, Amoco, and Wild Bean Cafe. http://twitter.com/bayoulee. HEY MEDIA WE WANT AN “OJ COVERAGE” CHANNEL DEVOTED TO THIS BP OIL DISASTER AND WE WANT IT NOW! Boycott des stations. Boicot estaciones. Tankstellen boykottieren. boykot BP stationer. boikotti BP.?????? BP.Bojkot BP. bojkott BP. BP stasies boikot.Bojkot stacji BP.boykot BP. bojkot BP stanice.boicottare le stazioni BP…. (read more)
Website:
http://twitter.com/bayoulee

:}

There is only one problem with this. BP owns so much other crap that putting a dent in their gasoline sales will only amount to a sneeze. Did you know that BP owns Arcoa and a Solar Panel manufacturer? More tomorrow…much more.

:}

Jevons’ Paradox – Truth or intellectual masterbation

Posted on by
Reply

I vote for intellectual masterbation.

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

Energy conservation refers to efforts made to reduce energy consumption in order to preserve resources for the future and reduce environmental pollution. It can be achieved through efficient energy use (when energy use is decreased while achieving a similar outcome), or by reduced consumption of energy services. Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote economic security. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and thus maximize profit.

Electrical energy conservation is an important element of energy policy. Energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita and thus offsets some of the growth in energy supply needed to keep up with population growth. This reduces the rise in energy costs, and can reduce the need for new power plants, and energy imports. The reduced energy demand can provide more flexibility in choosing the most preferred methods of energy production.

By reducing emissions, energy conservation is an important part of lessening climate change. Energy conservation facilitates the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more environmentally benign alternative to increased energy production. Another method is switchingto the user friendly SM energy. This is produced at Swan Energy Savers, envirmental helpers.[1]

dot dot dot as they say…

Issues with energy conservation

Critics and advocates of some forms of energy conservation make the following arguments:

  • Standard economic theory suggests that technological improvements increase energy efficiency, rather than reduce energy use. This is called the Jevons Paradox and it is said to occur in two ways. Firstly, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use. Secondly, increased energy efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use in the whole economy. This does not imply that increased fuel efficiency is worthless, increased fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher quality of life. However, in order to reduce energy consumption, efficiency gains must be paired with a government intervention that reduces demand (a green tax, cap and trade).[6][7]

:}

Just the shear arrogance of this guy makes me vote for the truth side.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/12/180-jevons-paradox-refuted.html

Well… the doomers love Jevons Paradox. For them it is, above all, a reason not to conserve (or a reason why conservation “won’t help”). After all, why should anybody conserve gasoline? If they do so, it will (by Jevons Paradox) just cause consumption of gasoline to increase.

Now, we may not be able to refute Jevons Paradox as an empirical fact, but we certainly can refute the way doomers are using it. We can do it with a single example:
In a vast parking lot ruled by cars and low-slung superstores, Stacey Harper delivers the unlikeliest of travel alternatives: mass transit.

The 41-year-old nurse wheels a white minivan into a rain-dappled parking spot to pick up a couple more co-workers. It is 6 a.m. on a Wednesday in South Hill, and Harper is driving a van pool to work at Western State Hospital.

A year ago, Harper thought nothing of driving 36 miles from home to work alone. That was before the price of a gallon of gasoline began its steady march upward, ultimately costing her $180 to $200 per month.

:}

Please see the rest of the blog AND comments, but his point is that people that conserve energy make money. Once they do that they will rarely ever go back to wasting money. That is Jevons failed to take true consumer behavior into account.

:}

So, Do We Have To Put Up With What Is Happening In The Gulf – NO

Posted on by
2

For updates on the Oil Spew please go to too:

http://www.leanweb.org/

or

http://saveourgulf.org/

:}

For today however and unless there are dramatic developments we go back to our focus on energy usage and the environment:

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1494-kicking-the-fossil-fuel-habit

Kicking the Fossil Fuel Habit

[Article Image]

If we don’t choose to wean ourselves off oil, coal, and gas, nature will force us to quit cold turkey.

First published May 17 2010

We’ll eventually kick our fossil fuel habit. We have no choice. If peak oil doesn’t dictate the terms and timing, then climate change will force our hand. And recent events in the Gulf of Mexico reveal more immediate dangers.

Yet our response to these threats remains tepid, insufficient by any measure. Serious action is aggressively opposed by those who hold out an irrational hope that business-as-usual might continue. We seem content to let nature decide the terms and conditions on which we kick the habit. Why?

I believe there is an assumption, often implicit, that underpins the North American energy debate: clean, renewable energy is just not up to the job. For the lights to stay on, and factories to hum, we need coal and oil. This assumption is why Stephen Harper talks up the tar sands as Canada’s contribution to North American energy security. This assumption is why Canada plays possum on climate change.

But this assumption is flat-out wrong.

Clean energy – mainly solar, geothermal, hydro, wind, and unconventional biofuels – is perfectly capable of powering our economy. It can be made reliable, large-scale, and cost-effective. But that’s true only if we commit to build clean energy infrastructure on a scale comparable to the fossil-fuel apparatus built over the past century. That scale is enormous.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates we need to invest more than $45 trillion in our energy infrastructure over the next 40 years to meet future demand. That’s the kind of money we invest in fossil fuels. It’s only fair then to ask how clean energy might perform with similar levels of capital. What do you get for a trillion dollars?

That’s just the question I’ll ask in a series of 10 articles on The Mark about clean energy over the coming weeks. The answers may surprise you. Some clean technologies scale up, bringing costs down. Others hit supply constraints and can’t substantially displace fossil fuels. But make no mistake – clean energy performs if given a fair shake.

At that scale of investment, giant solar plants produce energy well after the sun goes down, at a lower cost than melting tar. Unconventional bio-fuels grown in the desert replace half the world’s oil supply. By drilling for heat instead of oil, we use enhanced geothermal energy to replace North America’s entire coal infrastructure. Our aging grid is replaced by a new continent-wide energy internet, which connects multiple, distributed energy sources.

We’re kidding ourselves if we think we can escape peak oil or move the needle on carbon emissions for anything less than trillions. Spending that much may sound absurd. But what’s the cost of the war in Iraq? According to economist Joseph Stiglitz, it’s about $3 trillion. The liquidity injected to save North American banks was more than three times that much.

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Spewexico – How many times must this happen

Posted on by
Reply

This just in from Mobile Alabama:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/gulf_of_mexico_has_plenty_of_f.html

Breaking News from the Press-Register
Local news updates from Mobile and surrounding communities

Gulf of Mexico has plenty of familiarity with oil spills

By Press-Register staff

May 04, 2010, 4:33PM

Oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has led to a number of disasters and near disasters over the past 31 years. In some cases, authorities were unable to stamp out fires or stop spills for months; in others, quick action and good luck prevented disasters from becoming worse than they could have been.

ixtoc.jpgView full size(Courtesy NOAA)Stopping the oil from the IXTOC explosion took over nine months.IXTOC (1979)
The IXTOC I was an exploratory well that blew up in the Bay of Campeche on June 3, 1979, after oil and gas feeding from the well ignited. At its height the well may have pumped upwards of 30,000 barrels of oil (1.26 million gallons) into the Gulf a day; currents eventually brought the oil to the Texas shore that August.  Engineers were finally able to cap the well on March 23, 1980.  The spill is the second-largest in history, behind the deliberate oil spills created at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.  Total cleanup costs are estimated at $498 million (about $1.4 billion in 2010 dollars).Burmah Agate.jpgView full size(Courtesy NOAA)The Burmah Agate caught fire after a collision on November 1, 1979, killing 31 sailors.

Burmah Agate (1979)

As the Texas coastline struggled against the fallout from the IXTOC, a new disaster compounded the woes. The Burmah Agate collided with a freighter near Galveston, Texas on November 1, 1979, causing the ship to explode and killing 31 crew members. The ship spilled 2.6 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and burned for over two months. Megaborg.jpgView full size(Courtesy NOAA)The Megaborg caught fire while fueling a number of smaller ships.

:}

aaaak

Please read the whole article…I had to stop before I suffocated..

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Spew Mexico – Are we repeating 1979

Posted on by
1

What happened when the Ixtoc Drilling Rig Collapsed in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979. They brought in skimmers, booms, remotely operated vehicles, and dispersants. They drilled a second and third wells to take the pressure off. It took 8 months and parts of Texas and Mexico got slimed. Sound familiar?

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

Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km north west from Ciudad del Carmen in Campeche. On June 3, 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill in history.

:}

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
May 4, 2010
Oil Spill Dispersants Are Not A Magic Solution
Dispersants, a mixture of chemicals that break up the oil and send it into the water column, are being used as a remedy on oil that is leaking from the Deepwater Horizon disaster but we and many other environmental groups have serious concerns about their use.
Oil dIspersant being applied by boat

From:
Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects (2005)
by Ocean Studies Board (OSB)

Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants, and other additives that are applied to oil slicks to reduce the oil-water interfacial tension (NRC, 1989; Clayton et al., 1993)… Reduction of the interfacial tension between oil and water by addition of a dispersant promotes the formation of a larger number of small oil droplets when surface waves entrain oil into the water column. These small submerged oil droplets are then subject to transport by subsurface currents…

In other words the dispersants act like mustard or egg yolk in salad dressing to break up the oil into little droplets that will mix with the water and allow those little droplets of oil to sink down into the water column and to the sea floor.

So once the oil sinks everything is fine right?

Well, no, not really. The oil is still in the marine environment and can still impact fish and bottom dwelling organisms and potentially allow toxic materials to move up the food chain as bottom dwelling organisms become contaminated and then are preyed upon by large organisms like crabs and shrimp and then the crabs and shrimp are preyed upon by fish, the fish by larger fish etc., this is called bio-accumulation.

More from:
Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects (2005)
by Ocean Studies Board (OSB)

One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resources managers face during a spill is evaluating the environmental trade-offs associated with dispersant use. The objective of dispersant use is to transfer oil from the water surface into the water column. When applied before spills reach the coastline, dispersants will potentially decrease exposure for surface dwelling organisms (e.g., seabirds) and intertidal species (e.g., mangroves, salt marshes), while increasing it for water-column (e.g., fish) and benthic species (e.g., corals, oysters).

In other words the dispersants may help to decrease shoreline impacts but will increase impacts to things that live under the water.

This is obviously a big concern to those of us who enjoy eating oysters, crabs, shrimp, speckle trout, redfish and all of the other wonderful seafood that comes from the Gulf and Louisiana’s coastal estuaries.

Another concern we have about the dispersants is that they themselves are toxic. We have learned from the Natural Resources Defense Council that the dispersant being used in the Deepwater Horizon disaster is Corexit 9500.

From the Corexit 9500 Materials Safety Data Sheet:

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
PRODUCT
COREXIT® 9500
APPLICATION :
OIL SPILL DISPERSANT
NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING
HEALTH : 1 / 1
FLAMMABILITY : 1 / 1
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme

COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous.

Hazardous Substance(s)
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
Propylene Glycol
Organic sulfonic acid salt
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
**EMERGENCY OVERVIEW**
WARNING
Combustible.
Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition – No smoking. Keep container tightly closed. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Avoid breathing vapor. Use with adequate ventilation. In case
of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of soap and water.
Wear suitable protective clothing.
Clearly any workers handling this product need to be supplied with the proper protective gear.

Corexit 9500 is also known to be toxic to marine life. A report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. entitled Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products states that, “Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527,  and Corexit 9580 have moderate toxicity to early life stages of fish, crustaceans and mollusks (LC50 or EC50 – 1.6 to 100 ppm*).”

We hope that the EPA and US Fish and Wildlife Service are closely monitoring the use of these products and monitoring for impacts to the environment.

A further area of concern is the unprecedented deployment of dispersants into the leaking oil at the site of the leaks almost 5,000 feet below the surface.

The oil spill Unified Command reported on May 1, 2010 that response crews worked through the night using an ROV to dispense 3,000 gallons of sub-surface dispersant at a rate of nine gallons per minute. BP and NOAA are evaluating the results of the test procedure to determine its feasability for continued use.

The Unified Command also reported that, as of May 1, 2010, 142,914 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 68,300 gallons are available.

If you see anything fishy happening on your waterways don’t hesitate to call the Lower Mississippi Riverkeerp hotline at 1-866-MSRIVER

Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

All I can say is this is gona be bad..

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf – The tragedy continues

Posted on by
1

It is Jam Band Friday – but I am too sad for it today…:+{

I continue to support our sister group LEAN. According to the news the oil has reached the S. Louisiana Coast and the seas have kicked up making containment impossible. The Gulf is doomed.

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
APRIL 29, 2010
Oil may already be impacting the Louisiana shoreline
Forecast location for oil for 6:00 p.m. on April 29, 2010
Forecast location for oil

From the Unified Command:

Forecast is for increasing SE winds today and then strong, persistant SE winds of 15-25 kts from tonight through saturday night. These winds will continue to bring the oil towards the shoreline. Satellite imagery from this morning indicates the western edge of the oil is 7-8 miles from the delta, but oil was observed during overflights yesterday afternoon several miles off SE pass in the Mississippi River Convergence – This could be the leading edge of the tarballs becoming concentrated in this region. Shoreline impacts could hence occur as early as this morning, if the onshore winds are strong enough for the oil to escape the convergence zone, Shoreline impacts become increasingly likely later in the day and into Friday with the strengthening onshore winds. Morning overflight observations will be critical in assessing the strength of the convergence zone.

A flyover on Wednesday, April 28 at 2:00 p.m. (CDT), continued to show a large, rainbow sheen with areas of emulsified crude, approximately 16 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

On April 28 at approximately 4:45 p.m. (CDT), the response team conducted a successful controlled burn and is evaluating conducting additional burns.

More than 174,060 feet of boom (barrier) has been assigned to contain the spill.  An additional 243,260 feet is available and 265,460 feet has been ordered.

To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 18,180 barrels (763,560 gallons) of an oil-water mix. Vessels are in place and continuing recovery operations.
76 response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

98,361 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 75,000 gallons are available.

Five staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines.  These areas include:
Biloxi, Miss., Pensacola, Fla. Venice, La., Pascagoula, Miss., and Theodore, Ala.

Weather conditions for April 29 – Winds from the southeast at 5-15 mph, choppy rough seas.

To report oiled or injured wildlife, please call 1-800-557-1401.
To discuss spill related damage claims, please call 1-800-440-0858.
To report oil on land, or for general Community and Volunteer Information, please call 1-866-448-5816.

Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

Global Warming Critics Are Being Paid – That’s why there always is an angry post

Posted on by
Reply

any time anybody mentions Global Warming in a supportive way. For a long time I was puzzled by how fast and how consistently the Global Warming nay sayers put comments up on articles or blogs or whatever source and how angry they were. After I read the Reuters article  below it suddenly dawned on me that they are being paid to do it. Such prompt and vicious attacks must be a FULL TIME JOB.

Now before you get all back about it. First, there is a right wing conspiracy. The Koch Bros and Massey to name a few billionaires certainly have staff members dedicated to Climate Deniers. But that could only account for say what 30 or 40 people doing it. That is a lot. But consider another supplemental alternative. Exxon Mobile at best guestamate (and they don’t even know really) employs 90,000 people and BP employs another 85,000. Just those 2 companies employ enough people to account for every man, woman and child in Springfield Il. and the surrounding area. What if they let it be known that for a half-hour a day, or like when you have some downtime, it is OK to use company computers to harass climate scientists, journalist who right articles supportive of Climate Change and environmental organizations? Just in one week they could contribute 90,000 hours of cruising the net time and attacks. Anyway this is part of the article that I found at PEAKOIL:

http://peakoil.com/?p=53923

But came from here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P00A20100426

Climate debate gets ugly as world moves to curb CO2

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April 23, 2010. REUTERS/Mukesh Gupta

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April 23, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Murderer, liar, fraud, traitor.

Science |  Green Business |  COP15

Climate scientists, used to dealing with skeptics, are under siege like never before, targeted by hate emails brimming with abuse and accusations of fabricating global warming data. Some emails contain thinly veiled death threats.

Across the Internet, climate blogs are no less venomous, underscoring the surge in abuse over the past six months triggered by purported evidence that global warming is either a hoax or the threat from a warmer world is grossly overstated.

A major source of the anger is from companies with a vested interest in fighting green legislation that might curtail their activities or make their operations more costly.

“The attacks against climate science represent the most highly coordinated, heavily financed, attack against science that we have ever witnessed,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, from Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

“The evidence for the reality of human-caused climate change gets stronger with each additional year,” Mann told Reuters in emailed responses to questions.

Greenpeace and other groups say that some energy companies are giving millions to groups that oppose climate change science because of concerns about the multi-billion dollar costs associated with carbon trading schemes and clean energy policies.

For example, rich nations including the United States, Japan and Australia, are looking to introduce emissions caps and a regulated market for trading those emissions.

More broadly, the United Nations is trying to seal a tougher climate accord to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation blamed for heating up the planet.

Other opponents are drawn into the debate by deep concerns that governments will trample on freedoms or expand their powers as they try to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impacts of higher temperatures.

“There are two kinds of opponents — one is the fossil fuel lobby. So you have a trillion-dollar industry that’s protecting market share,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in California, referring to the oil industry’s long history of funding climate skeptic groups and think tanks.

“And then you have the ideologues who have a deep hatred of government involvement,” said Schneider, a veteran climate scientist and author of the book “Science as a contact sport”.

:}

“THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT”

Scientists and conservationists say some anti-climate change lobbyists are funded by energy giants such as ExxonMobil, which has a long history of donating money to interest groups that challenge climate science.

According to a Greenpeace report released last month, ExxonMobil gave nearly $9 million to entities linked to the climate denialist camp between 2005 and 2008.

The report, using mandatory SEC reporting on charitable contributions, also shows that foundations linked to Kansas-based Koch Industries, a privately owned petrochemical and chemicals giant, gave nearly $25 million.

Koch said the Greenpeace report mischaracterized the company’s efforts. “We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases,” the company said in a note on its website.

ExxonMobil makes no secret of funding a range of groups, but says it has also discontinued contributions to several public policy research groups.

:}

“We’ve never experienced this sort of thing before,” he said of the intense challenges to climate science and the level of email and Internet traffic.

All the climate change scientists with whom Reuters spoke said they were determined to continue their research despite the barrage of nasty emails and threats. Some expressed concern the argument could turn violent.

“My wife has made it very clear, if the threats become personalized, I cease to interact with the media. We have kids,” said one scientist who did not want to be identified.

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Megan Goldin)

:}

Please see the entire article. It is amazing in its even handedness but here is the kicker for me. 2 hours later at 9:58 this comment pops up:

where is the proof? how can you prove that carbon dioxide making up 2% of the warming gasses is responsible for 100% of the temperature change? You can’t. there is no way you can show that evil industrialism is hurting the precious gaia. but you can move to a north korean work camp and unplug from modern industrialist society. Get a new guilt free life in a NPRK work camp! get close to nature under a steel ball tipped leather whip!

boomba Report As Abusive

:}

Earth Day’s Coming Up – Energy conservation, we have come a long way

Posted on by
Reply

But we have so far to go. I can remember the days when R13 was over the top in terms of insulation. Nobody would ever need that much. Now we are are encouraging R60 in the attic. But we have so far to go. Don’t get me started on other parts of the world. There is no way we can supply decent housing to 7 billion people, but they will all want televisions.

http://www.homeenergy.org/article_full.php?id=699

March/April 2010
House of Pressure

by Anthony Cox and Melissa Byrd

A Model of Energy Efficiency

The New River Center for Energy Research and Training (NRCERT) in Christiansburg, Virginia, is a division of Community Housing Partners (CHP), a nonprofit development corporation that serves the needs of low-wealth and low-income residents in the Southeast. NRCERT was established in 1999 to provide training to emerging professionals in the fields of in weatherization and whole-house performance skills. NRCERT also performs research for leaders in the field. This research has resulted in significant technical advancements for the weatherization and building performance industries.

NRCERT’s training emphasizes a whole-house approach to home performance, using detailed curricula and innovative models to support these training efforts. Its goal is to create homes (both new construction and retrofit) that are good for people, good for the environment, and good for business. Technicians are taught to reduce energy consumption, address the health and safety of occupants, and assess how the building envelope, appliances, and occupants interact with one another.

One of the teaching tools is the House of Pressure, which Anthony designed in 1995 for himself. He designed this tool to help visually demonstrate to his peers the complicated science of air pressure. At the time, Anthony was a weatherization crew member with New River Community Action.

Not Your Typical Dollhouse

The House of Pressure visually demonstrates pressure and air flow dynamics within a residence, using pressure diagnostics. It is a model of a single-family home, made of a clear, high-strength plastic laminate called Lexan that can be written on with a dry-erase marker. The interior of the House can be viewed from all four sides. It gives the instructor the ability to create and control air flow with working scale reproductions of the mechanical air distribution systems that are found in most homes.

The House features an operable forced air duct system, a clothes dryer, a bathroom fan, a fireplace, and a water heater. There are smoke generators in the water heater and the fireplace to demonstrate the dangers of backdrafting; and a smoke generator in an exhaust pipe in the garage to show the danger of CO infiltration from a garage into conditioned space. (The menacing theme of Jaws plays when backdrafting occurs, as a warning that smoke is coming back into the House!)

An automated performance testing (APT) device from the Energy Conservatory measures the air pressure levels in eight different locations in the House. It uses Microsoft Excel to project those pressure levels onto an LCD screen, so that audiences can view the pressure levels and the direction of air flow in every room. It’s like having eight manometers going at the same time, so when you make changes to one part of the House, you can see how they affect every other part, with immediate feedback from the APT.

Testing the Model Is the Same as Testing a Real House

To get accurate results, it’s important to understand how to set up and use diagnostic equipment—and the House of Pressure is no exception. An illustrated laminated sheet with instructions comes along with the model. The instructions show how to set up the measuring equipment to perform various tests on the model, and also how to use the equipment in the field. It even has color-coded hose hookups for using the digital manometer.

The House of Pressure can be used to

  • demonstrate blower door testing, using a digital manometer and a Minneapolis Duct Blaster;
  • demonstrate zonal and pressure pan testing;
  • show how duct leakage diminishes health and safety, comfort, durability, and energy efficiency by creating leaks in the supply ducts and/or the return ducts;
  • demonstrate the effect of thermal bypasses;
  • show pressure and thermal boundaries; and
  • simulate backdrafting conditions.

There are operable doors from the bedroom and bathroom to the central living area that show how air flow takes place in a house with a central return duct system. Pressure relief methods can be shown and discussed. Combustion appliance zone testing can be shown by following a worst-case test procedure using a digital manometer.

:}

Please read the magazine every month…as Yoda says…do not try…do

:}

My Dad Owned 3 Dodge Desotos – In the early and mids 60s

Posted on by
1

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

What a difference 50 years make. My dad loved these cars. They weighed a ton, had huge engines and got 10 miles to the gallon when gas was 15 cents a gallon. Now we are switching to electricity. What a world we live in.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmEpXnjJj0 )


1958 Dodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeSoto_%28automobile%29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

1952 DeSoto DeLuxe hood ornament.

The DeSoto (sometimes De Soto) was a brand of automobile based in the United States, manufactured and marketed by the Chrysler Corporation from 1928 to 1961. The DeSoto logo featured a stylized image of Hernando de Soto. The De Soto marque was officially dropped 30 November 1960, with a bit over two million built since 1928.[1]

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sN-srcAgH8 )

The DeSoto make was founded by Walter Chrysler on August 4, 1928, and introduced for the 1929 model year. It was named after the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto. Chrysler wanted to enter the brand in competition with its arch-rivals General Motors, Studebaker, and Willys-Knight, in the mid-price class.

Shortly after DeSoto was introduced, however, Chrysler completed its purchase of the Dodge Brothers, giving the company two mid-priced makes. Had the transaction been completed sooner, DeSoto never would have been introduced.

Initially, the two-make strategy was relatively successful, with DeSoto priced below Dodge models. Despite the economic times, DeSoto sales were relatively healthy, pacing Dodge at around 25,000 units in 1932. However, in 1933, Chrysler reversed the market positions of the two marques in hopes of boosting Dodge sales. By elevating DeSoto, it received Chrysler’s streamlined 1934 Airflow bodies. But, on the shorter DeSoto wheelbase, the design was a disaster and was unpopular with consumers. Unlike Chrysler, which still had more traditional models to fall back on, DeSoto was hobbled by the Airflow design until the 1935 Airstream arrived.

Aside from its Airflow models, DeSoto’s 1942 model is probably its second most memorable model from the pre-war years, when the cars were fitted with powered pop-up headlights, a first for a North American mass-production vehicle. DeSoto marketed the feature as “Air-Foil” lights “Out of Sight Except at Night”.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGBKy5iMRBw )

After wartime restrictions on automotive production were ended, DeSoto returned to civilian car production when it reissued its 1942 models as 1946 models, but without the hidden-headlight feature, and with fender lines extending into the doors, like other Chrysler products of the immediate postwar period.

Until 1952, DeSoto used the Deluxe and Custom model designations. However, in 1953, DeSoto dropped the Deluxe and Custom names and designated its six-cylinder cars the Powermaster and its V8 car the Firedome.

At its height, DeSoto’s more popular models included the Firedome, Firesweep, and Fireflite. The DeSoto Adventurer, introduced for 1956 as a high-performance hard-top coupe (similar to Chrysler’s 300), became a full-range model in 1960.

DeSotos sold well through the 1956 model year. That year, for the first, and only, time in the marque’s history, it served as Pace Car at the Indianapolis 500.[2] In 1955,[3] along with all Chrysler models, De Sotos were redesigned with Virgil Exner‘s “Forward Look”. Exner gave the DeSoto soaring tailfins fitted with triple taillights, and consumers responded by buying record numbers. The 1957 had a well integrated design, with two variations: the smaller Firesweep, based on the concurrent Dodge; and the Firedome and Fireflite (and its halo model Adventurer sub-series), based on the larger Chrysler body. As was conventional in the era, subsequent years within the typical three year model block were distinguished by trim, bumper, and other low cost modifications, typically by adding bulk to bumpers and grilles, taillight changes, color choices, instrumentation and interior design changes and often additional external trim.

The 1958 economic downturn hurt sales of mid-priced makes across the board, and DeSoto sales were 60 percent lower than those of 1957 in what would be DeSoto’s worst year since 1938. The sales slide continued for 1959 and 1960 (down 40 percent from the already low 1959 figures), and rumors began to circulate DeSoto was going to be discontinued

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6vxrs_S_o )

By the time the 1961 DeSoto was introduced in the fall of 1960, rumors were widespread that Chrysler was moving towards terminating the brand, fueled by a reduction in model offerings for the 1960 model year.

For 1961, DeSoto lost its series designations entirely, in a move reminiscent of Packard’s final lineup. And, like the final Packards, the final DeSoto was of questionable design merit. Again, based on the shorter Chrysler Windsor wheelbase, the DeSoto featured a two-tiered grille (each tier with a different texture) and revised taillights. Only a two-door hardtop and a four-door hardtop were offered. The cars were trimmed similarly to the 1960 Fireflite.

The final decision to discontinue DeSoto was announced on November 30, 1960, just forty-seven days after the 1961 models were introduced. At the time, Chrysler warehouses contained several million dollars in 1961 DeSoto parts, so the company ramped up production in order to use up the stock. Chrysler and Plymouth dealers, which had been forced to take possession of DeSotos under the terms of their franchise agreements, received no compensation from Chrysler for their unsold DeSotos at the time of the formal announcement. Making matters worse, Chrysler kept shipping the cars through December, many of which were sold at a loss by dealers eager to be rid of them. After the parts stock was exhausted, a few outstanding customer orders were filled with Chrysler Windsors.

:}

Have a good weekend.

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

:}

How Much Do You Lose To The Utility Company While You Work Or Are Asleep

Posted on by
1

The phenomenon is called Vampires. These are devices that suck power to maintain function. The Clock on your alarm clock, the chip in your sound system that saves your “functions” setting, the clock on you microwave. This may not appear to be a local issue like I have been posting this week but it is very personal to me. The State of Illinois has a huge office building that houses many members of our local legislature and their staffs. It was built when power was cheap and the cleaning goes on at night. There are no light switches what so ever and SO THE LIGHTS STAY ON ALL NIGHT. This is the Count Dracula of all vampires and I have sworn for the last 30 years that I would get them turned off and I have failed. Yet I persist.

http://www.vampirepowersucks.com/Default.aspx

US total
See it happen - Augmented Reality Calculate your energy loss Get the iPhone app

Vampire Power / Vampire Energy Awareness

Standby Power Wastes $10 Billion of Electricity Annually in US Alone

Just as Count Dracula preys upon the innocent, Vampire Power or Vampire Energy, or the energy drawn from items like electronic devices that are plugged in but not in use, drains “blood” from the energy grid wasting 10 billion dollars annually in the U.S. alone. This Web site is your single source for helping you to take a bite out of Vampire Power or Vampire Energy, to save both energy and money.

Put a stake through Vampire Power and check out the About Us page for more information on how to combat this blood sucker once and for all. Go to the Spread The Word section to show your support and stay up to date on the latest news about Vampire Power prevention. Bring the fang marks of Vampire Power to life and see just how much you’re “bleeding” by visiting the Vampire Power Experience. Consider us your newest garlic supplier — you’ve been warned, Dracula.

:}

Please write Governor Quinn and tell him to TURN OFF THE LIGHTS IN THE STRATTON BUILDING.

Drive a Stake Through
Vampire Power

As a developer of eco-friendly chargers and power management systems, iGo lives and breathes power, but one thing that always bugged us is how much Vampire Power sucks. Even when your electronic device or appliance is completely turned off, Vampire Power is sucking energy.

Some devices simply take power to run internal circuits or memory while others waste energy by continuously trying to recharge devices that have already been fully charged. Just about everything plugged into your home and office draws power from the wall. Think about it, even if you always turn off your gadgets when you’re not using them, most electronics don’t actually turn all the way off! The typical American home has 40* products that are constantly drawing power and 10% of all electricity is wasted on Vampire Power. Vampire Power sucks away 10 billion dollars** annually in the U.S. alone.

The good news is that there are ways to reduce Vampire Power by changing our behavior and through products such as chargers and surge protectors with iGo Green™ Technology. That’s why, in conjunction with Vampire Power Awareness Month, iGo has created this site to provide information about how to stop sucking Vampire Power.

:}

Then I can rest in peace.

:}