Our latest update from LEAN. This is a group you should support.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
:}
The Gulf Spill Day 400 – Oh maybe it is under 80 but it feels that way
Reply
Category Archives: global warming
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
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?
By L.J. Martin
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
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.
:}
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
Part 2
 |
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.
Visit 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 Houses – They be real cool
http://www.2people.org/pub/page/show/article/10596
Carbon neutral homes by 2016
The British government has recently opened the comment period on a major plan to revise the building code. The revisions phase in regulations ensuring that all new homes are built carbon-neutral by 2016. Other elements of the plan include:
- Code for Sustainable Homes: national standard to inform home buyers about the environmental performance of homes offered for sale.
- Energy Performance Certificates: national standard to inform home buyers about the energy efficiency and running costs of homes offered for sale.
- Urban planning policy to support lower carbon emissions and resiliency in the face of climate change.
- Water Efficiency standards
- Review of Existing Buildings: While the new regulations cover new construction, the government looking at ways to upgrade existing homes and buildings.
:}
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dcs_first_carbon_neutral_home_hits_the_market/1652
DC’s First Carbon Neutral Home Hits the Market
- January 6, 2010
- 7 Comments
Back in September, we reported that DC’s first carbon neutral home was being built in Capitol Hill. Yesterday, the much-anticipated property hit the market.
The three-bedroom, 3.5-bath home at 19 4th Street NE (map) was gutted and renovated by GreenSpur, Inc., a DC-based building and design firm that uses sustainability techniques to deliver homes that are energy efficient as well as cost effective.
After overcoming a labyrinth of regulatory hurdles and permitting nightmares given the property’s location four blocks from the Capitol, GreenSpur enlarged the home (from 1,000 to 2,100 square feet), hand dug the basement and, in keeping with their mission statement, made it completely green but priced comparably to other (non-carbon neutral) homes in the area.
:}
Then there is this. Wiki makes a political statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality
Carbon neutrality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Carbon neutral” redirects here. For other uses, see Carbon neutral (disambiguation).
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2010) |
Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference. It is used in the context of carbon dioxide releasing processes, associated with transportation, energy production and industrial processes.
The carbon neutral concept may be extended to include other greenhouse gases (GHG) measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence—the impact a GHG has on the atmosphere expressed in the equivalent amount of CO2. The term climate neutral is used to reflect the fact that it is not just carbon dioxide (CO2), that is driving climate change, even if it is the most abundant, but also encompasses other greenhouse gases regulated by the Kyoto Protocol, namely: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Both terms are used interchangeably throughout this article.
Best practice for organizations and individuals seeking carbon neutral status entails reducing and/or avoiding carbon emissions first so that only unavoidable emissions are offset. The term has two common uses:
- It can refer to the practice of balancing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, with renewable energy that creates a similar amount of useful energy, so that the carbon emissions are compensated, or alternatively using only renewable energies that don’t produce any carbon dioxide (this last is called a post-carbon economy).[1]
- It is also used to describe the practice, criticized by some,[2] of carbon offsetting, by paying others to remove or sequester 100% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the atmosphere[3] – for example by planting trees – or by funding ‘carbon projects‘ that should lead to the prevention of future greenhouse gas emissions, or by buying carbon credits to remove (or ‘retire’) them through carbon trading. These practices are often used in parallel, together with energy conservation measures to minimize energy use.
:}
Climate neutral. Who is zooming who here. Did somebody just make up a phrase to create the new denier strawman. Yah think.
:}
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
By Philip Proefrock | February 20, 2008 | topics: Alt Energy, Energy Efficiency, Green Building, International, Modern architecture, Philip, Residential, Single-family, Solar
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
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.
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.
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 Burdick | Report Corrections
More in Green…
:}
More tomorrow.
:}
Up Date On The Oil Gusher In The Gulf – Continue with carbon neutral houses tomorrow
When news comes in from LEAN I try to give it some play.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
:}
More Tomorrow
:}
BP, Exxon And Chevron Have Bogs, I Mean Blogs – Holy mother of god
I know. At one level this seems preposterous. Don’t they understand how naked they look. Or is naked their only option?
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/new-exxon-blog-targets-bp-fallout
New Exxon Blog Targets BP Fallout
— By Josh Harkinson
| Mon Jun. 14, 2010 5:16 PM PDT
Breaking news: You need not worry about the safety of offshore oil drilling. How do I know this? Well, let’s just say a hat tip is in order for Exxon’s new blog, Perspectives, which launched today with a post about the Deepwater Horizon disaster. “This devastating chain of events is far from the industry norm,” proclaims Exxon blogger Ken Cohen, who’s also the oil giant’s vice president of public and government affairs. “We all need to understand what occurred on this occasion that did not occur on the 14,000 other deepwater wells that have been successfully drilled around the world.”
Translated into the kind of language that actual bloggers use, Cohen’s missive appears to be saying that Exxon and the world’s other upstanding oil outfits shouldn’t be punished for BP’s bad behavior. “Energy consumers around the world need the energy and natural gas resources found in offshore and deepwater regions,” he concludes, “but they expect it to be done safely and in an environmentally sensitive way.
:}
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/06/14/addressing-gom-spill/
What happened at the Deepwater Horizon rig is a tragedy on many levels – from the terrible loss of life involved, to the ongoing impact of the spill on the environment, communities and businesses of the Gulf Coast. Everyone at ExxonMobil shares in the concern over the accident and spill, and we have contributed personnel and equipment to help with the response.
The Presidential Commission’s investigation and others underway will help us determine what happened and what needs to be done going forward. This devastating chain of events is far from the industry norm. We all need to understand what occurred on this occasion that did not occur at the 14,000 other deepwater wells that have been successfully drilled around the world.
:}
Latest news:
Subsea operational update – 14 June. Preparations for additional planned enhancements to the LMRP cap containment system continue to progress. The first planned addition, to operate in addition to the LMRP cap system, will take oil and gas from the choke line of the failed Deepwater Horizon blow-out preventer (BOP) through a separate riser to the Q4000 vessel on the surface. Both the oil and gas captured by this additional system are expected to be flared through a specialised clean-burning system. This system is intended to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be captured from the well and is currently anticipated to begin operations in the next few days.
:}
http://www.chevron.com/wpc/blog/20080627/
Why We’re Doing This Blog
by Don Campbell
Don Campbell
Manager, External Communications
Don Campbell is manager of external communications for Chevron Corporation. A native of Canada, he earned bachelor’s degrees in art and journalism from the University of King’s College in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Campbell has more than 25 years experience in journalism and public affairs. He worked as a political reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press. At the Calgary Herald, he covered energy and served as city editor. He also served as manager of investor relations and external communications for Husky Energy Inc. and as vice president of communications for the Calgary Health Region (Chevron Photo)
The World Petroleum Congress takes place June 29 through July 3 at the IFEMA-Feria de Madrid convention center. The sprawling complex is in one of Madrid’s new business areas, just minutes by car or underground from the city’s Barajas International Airport. (Chevron Photo)
The World Petroleum Congress takes place June 29 through July 3 at the IFEMA-Feria de Madrid convention center. The sprawling complex is in one of Madrid’s new business areas, just minutes by car or underground from the city’s Barajas International Airport. (Chevron Photo)
Energy prices have become a profoundly important issue to consumers, governments and the oil and gas industry today.
The problem is formidable: under pressure from worldwide demand growth and reduced spare supply, how does the industry continue to meet the needs of consumers in an affordable and environmentally responsible way?
As thousands of delegates from 61 member countries gather in Madrid from June 29 through July 3 for the World Petroleum Congress, this event blog will report on ways technology and new ideas are addressing these challenges and shaping the oil and gas industry.
Chevron participants to the Congress, which is held every three years, will share how they see the industry responding to this dynamic marketplace. The era of easy access to cheap oil is clearly over. The industry has already begun developing new technologies to deliver the energy that current and future generations will need to support their economies and prosper. The Congress will highlight some of this activity.
:}
I feel so unclean.
:}
Global Warming – Why it must be happening and why Humans must be causing it
The Sun is cooling and shrinking. Scientists have predicted that this was going to happen and in addition they predicted that a little ice age might occur. There was much positing that there were longer solar cycles then just the moderately well understood 11 year cycle. The thought was that the Sun waxed and waned every 300 or 400 years. No one was sure. Then an amazing thing happened. As the solar flares died down the Earth heated up. That was when scientists turned to man and the atmosphere to try to get some answers. The answer appeared to be that all of the GASES (not just co2 but every gas we throw off – there are 20 or more) we dump into the air are heating the planet up. This could lead to climate destabilization. Well the Sun is still quiet. For 2 1/2 years the Sun has been quiet. That is unprecedented in the 150 years at least that we have been observing the solar cycles. For much more on this subject please see one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800-whats-wrong-with-the-sun.html
What’s wrong with the sun?
- 14 June 2010 by Stuart Clark
- Magazine issue 2764. Subscribe and save
- For similar stories, visit the Solar System and Climate Change Topic Guides
Video: Sun spots
SUNSPOTS come and go, but recently they have mostly gone. For centuries, astronomers have recorded when these dark blemishes on the solar surface emerge, only for them to fade away again after a few days, weeks or months. Thanks to their efforts, we know that sunspot numbers ebb and flow in cycles lasting about 11 years.
But for the past two years, the sunspots have mostly been missing. Their absence, the most prolonged for nearly a hundred years, has taken even seasoned sun watchers by surprise. “This is solar behaviour we haven’t seen in living memory,” says David Hathaway, a physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
The sun is under scrutiny as never before thanks to an armada of space telescopes. The results they beam back are portraying our nearest star, and its influence on Earth, in a new light. Sunspots and other clues indicate that the sun’s magnetic activity is diminishing, and that the sun may even be shrinking. Together the results hint that something profound is happening inside the sun. The big question is what?
The stakes have never been higher. Groups of sunspots forewarn of gigantic solar storms that can unleash a billion times more energy than an atomic bomb. Fears that these giant solar eruptions could create havoc on Earth
, and disputes over the sun’s role in climate change, are adding urgency to these studies. When NASA and the European Space Agency launched the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory almost 15 years ago, “understanding the solar cycle was not one of its scientific objectives”, says Bernhard Fleck, the mission’s project scientist. “Now it is one of the key questions.”
Sun behaving badly
Sunspots are windows into the sun’s magnetic soul. They form where giant loops of magnetism, generated deep inside the sun, well up and burst through the surface, leading to a localised drop in temperature which we see as a dark patch. Any changes in sunspot numbers reflect changes inside the sun. “During this transition, the sun is giving us a real glimpse into its interior,” says Hathaway.
When sunspot numbers drop at the end of each 11-year cycle, solar storms die down and all becomes much calmer. This “solar minimum” doesn’t last long. Within a year, the spots and storms begin to build towards a new crescendo, the next solar maximum.
What’s special about this latest dip is that the sun is having trouble starting the next solar cycle. The sun began to calm down in late 2007, so no one expected many sunspots in 2008. But computer models predicted that when the spots did return, they would do so in force. Hathaway was reported as thinking the next solar cycle would be a “doozy”: more sunspots, more solar storms and more energy blasted into space. Others predicted that it would be the most active solar cycle on record. The trouble was, no one told the sun.
:}
Please finish the article. It is very long and there is a scholarly debate in the comments section about where the center of the Earth’s gravity is. This is kindofa hoot if you understand it. It is true our jokes are different from other peoples.
:}
I was going to post more about green washing But I kept getting this BP stuff
It is Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALU5g6Qqi08?
What – do these people think? That if BP goes bankrupt that the world would be a better place…please stop and think about it…
doug –
When we started our Boycott BP campaign, we knew we had to get their attention in a language BP understands – profits. Now, we know it’s working:
A chain of Convenience Stores in Philipsburg, Pa decided to debrand three of its BP-branded stations:
“We are debranding BP. We will no longer be associated with BP by the end of the month. We are doing this because of the backlash and bad publicity from the handling of BP’s catastrophe,” Sean Lay, vice president of operations, said in the report. “We don’t want to be associated with them anymore. We’ve had enough.”[Convenience Store News]
Our campaign has been covered by everyone from the New York Times to industry trade newspapers. You can be sure that BP is paying attention. Now, let’s turn up the heat.
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…
 |
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
 |
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. 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:
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 |
:}
Please get out of my mail box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mskqBz2cZTA&feature=related
:}
So, Do We Have To Put Up With What Is Happening In The Gulf – NO
For updates on the Oil Spew please go to too:
or
:}
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]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/the_mark/wide_photos/1494/original.jpg?1273693702)
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.
:}