Category Archives: schemes

BP Thinks It Is Time To Scale Back – Tip toe tip toe tip toe

Posted on by
Reply

UPDATE FROM THE GULF FROM LEAN

Where has all the BP oil gone?

The question, ‘where has all the oil gone?’ has been answered in the media in recent days by scientists providing much speculation about how the oil may go away but little hard data about what is actually happening in the Gulf. We cannot let the future of the Gulf rest on speculation.

The danger of this conjecture is that people are already beginning to tune out and assume that everything is fine, even within the spill response.

So, where is the oil?

Oil in grass between Oyster Bayou and Taylor’s Bayou, St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana, July 30, 2010, Photo Credit: Antonia Juhasz. Oil in grass, St. Mary’s Parish, La, July 30, 2010, by Antonia Juhasz.

The BP oil can be found on the shores of St. Mary Parish. Just yesterday, July 30, 2010, stretches of shoreline along St. Mary Parish were found that were significantly oiled. This area was believed to be safe from the spill and was not given any attention by Unified Command. Even the St. Mary Parish President thought that they would not receive oil. (1)

Oil South end of Oyster Bayou, St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana, July 30, 2010, Photo Credit: Antonia Juhasz. Oyster Bayou, St. Mary’s Parish, La, July 30, 2010, Photo by Antonia Juhasz

The BP oil can be found under the shells of post-larval blue crabs all across the northern Gulf of Mexico. As reported in a previous E-ALERT, researchers in Mississippi had found post-larval blue crabs with oil under their shells. Now the researchers have given another update on their findings and it is sobering. Nearly all of the crab larvae that the researchers have collected to date, from Grand Isle, LA to Pensacola, FL, have BP’s oil under their shells, but it doesn’t stop there. Chemical analysis suggests that the crabs may also contain the Corexit dispersants used on the spilled oil. Only time will tell if this contamination will affect commercial harvests but equally troubling is the potential for toxic materials to make their way into the food chain as these tiny crabs are important food sources for a host of other sea creatures. (2)

Yellow oil droplets can been seen under the shell of a post-larval blue crab. Yellow oil droplets can been seen in a post-larval blue crab.

Scientists saying that the effects of the BP oil spill will be minimal are speculating from very little data. It may make the media happy and the news more interesting but it is not good science to speculate on the outcome of the oil spill studies before they are even well underway.

The BP oil can also be found in “plumes” of dispersed oil floating around deep under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers at the University of South Florida have confirmed that these “plumes” are, in fact, clouds of BP’s oil. (3)

Because of the massive use of dispersants, which conveniently shield the impacts from view, the real damage is much harder to quantify. The dispersal of the oil has caused an unknown, but undoubtedly very large, portion of the spilled oil to be mixed into and spread all through the Gulf waters in tiny little bits.

The damages caused by this sub-surface oil may not be apparent for some time. Like the crabs; the juvenile forms of fish, shrimp and many other species as well as the plankton they feed on will be exposed to the toxicity of the oil and the dispersants.

Imagine your city filled with smoke from a large fire. Now replace the air with water and the smoke with tiny droplets of dispersed oil and you have a better sense of how the ‘plumes’ of oil are impacting sea creatures.

That damage is difficult to quantify but to dismiss it as minimal is irresponsible. Many commercial and sport species in one of the most biologically productive areas of the world are being exposed to a mixture of materials that are known to be toxic and we really don’t know what the effects will be.

It is too early to be speculating about the impacts of the millions of barrels of BP oil on Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. It is especially problematic when its done by scientists in the media. We need to be focused on figuring out what actually is going on in the Gulf with thorough research and sound data.

The real answer to the question is this: significant amounts of the oil are still out in the Gulf environs and we really don’t know what the long term effects will be.

1. Antonia Juhasz, “BP’s “Missing Oil” Washes Up in St. Mary’s Parish, LA,” The Huffington Post 30 July 2010, .

2. Dan Froomkin, “Scientists Find Evidence That Oil And Dispersant Mix Is Making Its Way Into The Foodchain,” The Huffington Post 29 July 2010, .

3. Sara Kennedy, “Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well,” McClatchy Newspapers 23 July 2010,

:}
More tomorrow.
:}

Lutec – Now here is a fraud for you

Posted on by
Reply

It’s jam band friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjFaenf1T-Y

I wrote a letter to the editor to the State Journal Register about a scam here in the states Mira-Cool which I have panned here and last years version of it called CoolSurge..They are just outright frauds. These guys are a fraud of a higher order. I first ran into them here:

http://www.rense.com/general9/unveil.htm

New Magnetic-Electric Device
Can Power Home From Near
Free Energy Source
By Penny Robins
The Cairns Post – Northern Queensland, OZ
3-8-1


(Note – ‘Ergon’ refers to the local electricity supplier utility which used to be known as the FNQEB Far North Queensland Electricity Board).
Two Cairns inventors yesterday unveiled a world first commercial machine which can power a house from a permanent, clean, green and virtually free energy source.
The machine, developed by Brinsmead mechanical engineer John Christie and Edge Hil electrician Lou Brits, has an international patent pending and is expected to go on the market for $4000-$5000.
Relying on the attraction and repulsion of internal magnets, the Lutec 1000 operates continually on a pulse-like current 24 hours a day – producing 24 kilowatts of power – once it is kickstarted from a battery source.
The device is more than 500 per cent efficient, compared to a car which is less than 40 per cent efficient and loses power through heat and friction.
No powerlines would be needed to distribute energy from the individual power sources.
There is no heat, harmful emissions or airborne matter in the transmission.
If it were not for the magnets, which have a life of 1300 years, and the battery pack, which has a life of about five years, the machine would be in perpetual motion.
A demonstration of the motor from the carpeted study of Mr Christie’s Brinsmead home revealed the device in all its glory – bigger than the average cyclone back-up generator but much less noisy.
M Christie and Mr Brits have been tinkering together on the motor in their spare time since they met in a Sheridan St cafe five years ago and began sharing ideas.
One and a half years ago, the design was perfected and the pair lodged a patent with Brisbane patent attorneys Griffith Hack.

:}

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

:}

Here is their website but you can see it is “under construction”. I’ll bet.

http://www.lutec.com.au/
Please note – as of 25 June 2010, this Website is undergoing reconstruction. We thank you for your patience. 
Worlds leading Independent experts report confirms witnessing many times more electricity being generated
than consumed by Lutec prototypes. Report available for download here.

http://www.lutec.com.au/other/SGS_Report.pdf

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gwXpLpfb3Y&feature=related

:}

I show the alleged report but it is a PDF file and I don’t have the version that lets me copy stuff. You should read it. It’s a stitch.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWzy-Mwy0ws&feature=related

:}

As one critic put it:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec.htm

Comment and Opinion

Lutec Australia Pty Ltd

Lutec – all the energy that you can eat (13/4/2002)
One of the great nonsenses of pseudoscience that never seems to go away is the perpetual motion machine. They aren’t called that these days, of course, because everyone knows that such things are impossible. The new name is “free energy device”, but the principle is the same. A recent example of this genre is the Lutec 100, a generator which, according to the inventors, is 3000% efficient. The Lutec people once said that they were going to accept the $100,000 challenge from the Australian Skeptics, but for some reason they eventually lost interest. They were awarded the 2001 Bent Spoon Award for their efforts at overthrowing physics. I thought I would see where they were up to in their attempt to solve all the world’s energy problems, so I sent them the following email. I have not yet received a reply, but if I could predict the future I would say that the reply will either be a set of answers to some other questions or some abuse and patronising suggestions that I don’t understand what they are doing.

;]

More next week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkCgYwexkG0&feature=related

:}

Coal Slurry Deep Well Injection In Illinois Is Stupid – And dangerous

Posted on by
1

If this country paid the real price for coal instead of socializing the costs (ie. transferring the cost to the general public) it would be too expensive to burn. If the Coal Industry had to pay the real cost of drilling the holes (tax free zones), making the holes safe (complying with regulations instead of being lightly fined), freeing the coal of its nasty properties (passed onto the consumers of coal), safely disposing of those associated wastes (see articles below) and pay part of the costs of the effects of their uses on the environment (passed on to the end users and consumers) then we would never even think about using that stuff. But they get passes on all of that and they put the public at risk. Oh and they want to put in the levies too.

What the activists say:

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

Introduction

Chicago Clean Power Coalition Takes on Coal-Fired Plants

Coal production is a major part of the Illinois economy. In 2004, the state produced over 31 million short tons of coal worth an estimated $819 million dollars, which ranked it 9th in the nation in coal production.[1] Coal deposits underly 37,000 square miles of Illinois, about two thirds the entire state. Recoverable coal reserves are estimated to total 30 billion tons, accounting for almost one-eighth of the nation’s total coal reserves and one-fourth of bituminous coal reserves.[2] In comparison to western coal, Illinois coal is high in sulfur, and even when cleaned the sulfur content averages 2 to 3 percent by weight.[3]

The state consumed over 54 million short tons of coal for electrical power in 2004,[1] producing approximately 48 percent of the electricity generated in Illinois. The state’s average retail price of electricity is 7.07 cents per kilowatt hour, the 20th lowest rate in the nation[4] In 2003, Illinois emitted 230 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking it 7th in the nation overall.[5]

Citizen activism

In a major survey article for the Illinois Times on the coal fight in the state, Peter Downs wrote:[6]

All across Illinois — at town-hall meetings, in federal courts, in the Capitol — battles are raging over coal power, the outcome of which could very well determine the role of the black rock in the nation’s energy future.
Illinois is at the heart of the national debate because in no other state have coal interests pushed for more new investment — with critical support from the state’s governmental leaders.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Electric Technology Laboratory, a year ago Illinois had proposals for more new coal-based electric-power plants — 16 — than any other state, and the plants proposed for Illinois would have the capacity to generate twice as much electricity as even the most ambitious proposals for any other state.
According to the report, “Coal’s Resurgence in Electric Power Generation,” which was issued on May 1, 2007, more than 10 percent of all new generating capacity from coal-based power plants would be built in Illinois. With 22 coal-burning power plants already providing 49 percent of Illinois’ electricity, the state was unusually reliant on coal for its energy needs. Keep in mind that in the previous seven years, only 10 coal-based power plants had been constructed in all of the United States.
A year after the Department of Energy’s announcement, the Sierra Club has claimed “victory” against all but five of the previously proposed plants, but those remaining five are among the biggest of the proposed projects and they would add substantially to the state’s capacity to generate electricity and air pollution.
“We started our coal campaign in Illinois because more [coal-based power] plants were proposed in Illinois than anywhere else,” says Becki Clayborn, regional representative of the Sierra Club.

:}

What the Newspaper reports:

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x242417430/Activists-raise-concerns-about-coal-mine-slurry-injection-in-Illinois

Activists raise concerns about coal mine slurry injection in Illinois

Posted Jul 17, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Jul 19, 2010 @ 06:58 PM

Coal mining companies are supposed to clean up after themselves, and the government is supposed to ensure groundwater is pure.

But environmental activists fear that mining companies in central and southern Illinois may poison aquifers by injecting potentially dangerous pollutants into the ground with inadequate review by regulators and no notice to the public.

The state has already allowed the practice at the Crown Mine No. 3 near Girard, and the owner of the Shay No. 1 Mine near Carlinville, which closed in 2007 but reopened last year, has applied for permission. Activists fear this is just the beginning as coal companies develop new mines and restart old ones.

The waste is a byproduct of washing coal. The slurry that results can contain arsenic, heavy metals and other pollutants. The website of the state Office of Mines and Minerals says the material “can be potentially acid-forming and/or toxic.”

The danger is serious enough that the practice of injecting coal slurry into the ground has been curtailed in West Virginia, where more than 100 lawsuits are pending by residents who blame coal companies for poisoning wells.

:}

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-bc-il–levees-coalash,0,5870784.story

Environmentalists question Army Corps of Engineers plan to use coal ash as levee fix

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal plan to use ash waste from coal-fired power plants to shore up some Mississippi River levees drew objections Thursday from environmentalists who are worried that toxins in the ash might seep into the river and public water systems it serves.

The Sierra Club and other nature groups lined up against the Army Corps of Engineers’ plan, worrying during a public hearing that the use of coal or fly ash questionably could extend later to levees along other inland rivers and perpetuate coal burning, widely believed to contribute to global warming.

“If this should turn out to be toxic (after it’s been injected into a levee’s weak spots), how do we get it back out?” Tom Ball, a member of the Sierra Club and Missouri Stream Team, pressed during the 90-minute hearing that drew about 50 people, including electric utility representatives

“This fly ash is hazardous waste, regardless of what you call it,” added Catherine Edmiston, an environmentalist heading an Illinois group opposing longwall mining. “I am against putting it against a major river. I think we need to think about this.”

Corps officials called the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to southern Illinois’ tip the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.

Yet the corps pledged not to move hastily, calling any decision months away and pressing that the search for the cheapest fix for taxpayers won’t trump public safety. For now, the corps says, the ash-slurry plan appears be

:}

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ash-42552-corps-louis.html

Army Corps considering coal ash to fix levees

The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) – The Army Corps of Engineers wants to use ash cast off from coal-fired electrical generation to shore up dozens of miles of Mississippi River levees, drawing fire from environmentalists worried that heavy metals from the filler might make their way into the river.

The corps announced the plan last month, touting the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to tiny Gale on southern Illinois’ tip as the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.

A public hearing on the matter, scheduled Thursday in St. Louis, is certain to elicit questions from environmentalists who consider the use of coal ash – also known as fly ash – a bad idea despite corps assurances that it has been used trouble-free on levees near Memphis for more than a decade.

:}

More Tomorrow

:}

MIRA-COOL Is A Scam – Plain and simple

Posted on by
3

Every year I do a post on this. Briefly these devices area rip off. They all consist of fans that blow air across ice packs. A fan that size costs 10 or 20 bucks. The ice packs cost are 5 bucks a piece. So for 30 or 40 bucks max you could do the same thing for yourself. They want to sell you 2 units for 400 $$$ a piece. The Ad in the State Journal Register is a teaser Ad that offers the first one free but that is a total lie. They just want you to call the toll free number to get you on their sucker list…

But at a deeper level think of the physics involved. You use your refrigerator freezer to freeze the packs. Then you use the electricity to blow that “cool” back at you. And it dissipates into your hot room. That sounds expensive to me. You would be better off using my beloved mother’s trick of holding your wrists under cool running sink water. That will cool your whole body down in minutes and it is virtually free. Last year when they were selling these things as the Cool Surge, Consumer Reports (an excellent magazine) had this to say:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2009/06/cool-surge-portable-air-cooler-consumer-reports-review-swamp-cooler-heat-surge-universal-techtronics.html

June 10, 2009

Negligible cooling nets Cool Surge portable air cooler a Consumer Reports Don’t Buy judgment

You can buy a decent small window air conditioner for as little as $140, as we found in our July 2009 report on air conditioning (available to subscribers). Or you can spend more than twice that amount—$298—for the Cool Surge portable air cooler (shown), which promises to cool an average-sized room “up to ten degrees” using the same energy as a 60-watt lightbulb. (Watch our exclusive video, below.) The Cool Surge might sound appealing when you consider the roughly 500 watts needed to run even a small air conditioner. Ohio-based Fridge Electric LLC, which markets the Cool Surge, has even offered a two-for-one deal in full-page ads in The New York Times and other newspapers. But our tests show that when it comes to cooling a room, the Cool Surge is likely to disappoint you at any price.

The Cool Surge is essentially an evaporative cooler (also known as a swamp cooler) that bases its cooling claims on a concept thousands of years old. The unit’s reservoir holds about a gallon of water and two reusable ice packs like the kind that go into lunch boxes and picnic baskets. The chilled water wets a curtain inside, and a fan moves air through it much the way a breeze would blow air through moistened fabric centuries ago. No compressor, no condenser, no refrigerant gas.

Could that ancient principle cut it in today’s “average” room? Consumer Reports tested two samples of the Cool Surge in the same lab we use to test air conditioners. At just over 200 square feet, our test room is actually a tad smaller than the roughly 227-square-foot living room in a typical new home, and, therefore, should be easier to cool. We controlled conditions around the room to simulate an 85°F dry summer day with a relative humidity of just 57 percent.

:}

But hell just type Mira-Cool into a search engine and you will find all sorts of complaints. More tomorrow.

:}

Last Day On Energy And/Or Carbon Neutral – Don’t know what I will post next

Posted on by
Reply

After a very disastrous environmental year, I have the summer doldrums. So I may just randomly post short things for awhile and as Mark Twain used to say, “let my tanks fill up”.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/alternate-energy-holdings-incs-energy-neutraltm-nominated-for-idaho-smart-growth-award-2010-07-08?reflink=MW_news_stmp

press release

July 8, 2010, 10:14 a.m. EDT · Recommend · Post:

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc.’s Energy Neutral(TM) Nominated for Idaho Smart Growth Award

Nomination Distinguishes Energy Neutral(TM) as Leader in Sustainable Communities

BOISE, Idaho, Jul 8, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTCQB:AEHI) today announced its subsidiary Energy Neutral(TM) has been nominated for the Idaho Smart Growth award. The award sets the company apart from others in its construction techniques and use of renewable energy to create livable environments that maintain and enhance the idea of sustainable communities.

“This is a great honor to be publicly recognized for the work we’ve been doing with AEHI and Energy Neutral(TM). The very reason we started Energy Neutral(TM) was to show that proper planning and reliable use of renewable energy sources would result in a better, more productive building process–one that would create sustainability at an affordable price. In doing so, we’ve proven that anyone can take part in the process of making our communities cleaner and healthier,” said Don Gillispie, AEHI CEO.

“Energy Neutral(TM) unveiled its first model home in March 2010, which has consistently demonstrated it can create more power than it actually uses. In addition to bringing together state of the art technologies at low cost for our Energy Neutral(TM) homes, we have expertise in siting locations that provide added energy saving benefits. This home’s convenient location, close to shopping areas, public transportation, and the freeway, will aid in reducing vehicle emissions. The eventual owners will have more opportunities to leave their car at home when they go to work, stores, or recreation.”

“The Energy Neutral(TM) home is about being smarter stewards of the communities and environment we live in. It is the very reason we’ve been approached by builders from across the nation who are now looking to franchise with Energy Neutral(TM). We are able to provide them with an entirely new way to look at new home and commercial construction and I am hopeful this will be a strong contributor to the real estate market as more business and home owners come to recognize the Energy Neutral(TM) vision,” said Gillispie.

:}

I know…I know…It’s Idaho. But if the white supremacist fundamentalists get it…Well maybe everyone will.

GE’s Net Zero Home Project Aims For Energy Neutral Living By 2015

Using smart grid tech, solar panels and energy-efficient appliances to create homes that produce as much energy as they use
By Adrian Covert Posted 07.15.2009 at 12:30 pm 10 Comments
GE Net Zero Energy Home General Electric

By 2015, if General Electric has their way, all our homes will be running on smart grids with mini-turbines and solar panels to produce electricity, consuming zero net energy in the process.

GE says that their smart energy system, dubbed the Net Zero Home project, will center around a $250 central management hub that will allow all of a home’s networked appliances and on-site power-producing equipment talk to each other, as well as to the smart grid outside the home..

GE’s push comes at a time when power conservation is valued more than ever, and smart energy innovations are pouring in by the day.

The goal here is to make people more conscious of how much power they’re using and how often they’re doing it. By enabling a home’s appliances to scale down their performance or power state during peak hours, cities will not only conserve energy, but consumers will save money.

:}

As usual California is in the lead.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/19/business/fi-puc19

Energy neutral homes urged

The PUC adopts targets emphasizing efficiency for new construction.

October 19, 2007|From Bloomberg News

California energy regulators Thursday adopted a target that all homes built after 2020 produce at least as much energy as they consume to reduce demand for electricity and cut pollution tied to power generation.

The California Public Utilities Commission approved the guideline at a meeting in San Francisco. Homes would meet the goal through such measures as advanced insulation and solar power systems.

:}

There’s always more tomorrow

:}

Carbon Neutral Houses – They be real cool

Posted on by
Reply

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

Carbon neutral homes by 2016

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

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

:}

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

DC’s First Carbon Neutral Home Hits the Market

by Mark Wellborn

image

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

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

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

:}

Then there is this. Wiki makes a political statement.

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

Carbon neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

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

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

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

:}

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

:}

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 Washing – Why British Petrolium turned into BP

Posted on by
Reply

It’s jam band Friday –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkGE-kNRUN4

In the mid 90s British Petroleum decided to change its image. They “initialized” their name. Up dated their brand by changing their color schemes to yellow and green and they announced that their gas stations would be energy efficient and included solar panels. They infact set up a solar division and I believe make and sell solar panels. All that to cover up for the fact that they were one of the most dangerous businesses in the world. So when people say, why are you talking about greenwashing now?  It’s because it’s a problem that can lead to the oil spew in the gulf.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkLCRMT-sdE&feature=related

:}

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/

Greenwashing Report 2009

Greenwashing Report 2009 (French) Low-resolution PDF 2.9 MiB Greenwashing Report 2009 High-resolution PDF 9.5 MiB

Some Notable Findings from the 2009 Report…

worship_sm1A NEW Sin has emerged

98% of products committed at least one of the Sins of Greenwashing. Greenwashing is so rampant that a Seventh Sin has emerged.  The Sin of Worshiping False Labels is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists.

kids_productsKids (Toys and Baby Products), Cosmetics and Cleaning Products

Greenwashing is most common in three household categories: Kids (toys and baby products), Cosmetics (beauty and health), and Cleaning Products.

increaseMore products are claiming to be ‘green’

The average number of ‘green’ products per store almost doubled between 2007 and 2008.  Green advertising almost tripled between 2006 and 2008.

:}

What you say matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcKdNV2ep7I&feature=related

Oh and these people asked for links:

http://www.solarhotusa.com/

http://www.facebook.com/FoodIndependenceDay

:}

Boycott BP – At this very moment they are pumping mud into the blowout preventer

Posted on by
Reply

How could you possibly continue to call that thing a Blowout Preventer? It is just too sick to contemplate.  Drilling mud is pretty toxic so here is hoping very little of it has to be pumped in to the Gulf itself.

:}

http://www.leanweb.org/

BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Causes “Summer Of Tears” For Louisiana Bayoukeeper
We would like to share with you a reflection on the personal impacts of the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster written by our colleague and friend Mike Roberts of Louisiana Bayoukeeper. Mike has made a life for himself and his family fishing the waters of the Louisiana coast. Now BP’s disaster is threatening an entire way of life.
Mike Roberts
Summer Of Tears
by Mike Roberts

The boat ride, out, from Lafitte, Louisiana, Sunday, May 23, 2010, to our fishing grounds was not unlike any other I have taken in my life, as a commercial fisherman from this area. I have made the trip thousands of times in my 35 plus years shrimping and crabbing. A warm breeze in my face, it is a typical Louisiana summer day. 3 people were with me, my wife Tracy, Ian Wren, and our grandson, Scottie. I was soon to find out, how untypical this day would become for me, not unlike a death in the family. This was going to be a very bad day for me.

As we neared Barataria Bay, the smell of crude oil in the air was getting thicker and thicker. An event that always brought joy to me all of my life, the approach of the fishing grounds, was slowly turning into a nightmare. As we entered Grand Lake, the name we fishermen call Barataria Bay, I started to see a weird, glassy look to the water and soon it became evident to me, there was oil sheen as far as I could see. Soon, we were running past patches of red oil floating on top of the water. As we headed farther south, we saw at least a dozen boats, in the distance, which appeared to be shrimping. We soon realized that shrimping was not what they were doing at all, but instead they were towing oil booms in a desperate attempt to corral oil that was pouring into our fishing grounds. We stopped to talk to one of the fishermen, towing a boom, a young fisherman from Lafitte. What he told me floored me. He said, “What we are seeing in the lake, the oil, was but a drop in the bucket of what was to come.” He had just come out of the Gulf of Mexico and he said, “It was unbelievable, the oil runs for miles and miles and was headed for shore and into our fishing grounds”. I thought, what I had already seen in the lake was enough for a lifetime. We talked a little while longer, gave the fisherman some protective respirators and were soon on our way. As we left the small fleet of boats, working feverishly, trying to corral the oil, I became overwhelmed with what I just saw.

I am not real emotional and consider myself a pretty tough guy.You have to be to survive as a fisherman. As I left that scene, tears flowed down my face and I cried. Something I have not done in a long time, but would do several more times that day. I tried not to let my grandson, Scottie, see me crying. I didn’t think he would understand, I was crying for his stolen future. None of this will be the same, for decades to come. The damage is going to be immense and I do not think our lives here in South Louisiana will ever be the same. He is too young to understand. He has an intense love for our way of life here. He wants to be a fisherman and a fishing guide when he gets older. It is what he is, it is in his soul, and it is his culture. How can I tell him that this may never come to pass now, now that everything he loves in the outdoors may soon be destroyed by this massive oil spill? How do we tell this to a generation of young people, in south Louisiana who live and breathe this bayou life that they love so much, could soon be gone? How do we tell them? All this raced through my mind and I wept.

We continued farther south towards Grand Terre Island. We approached Bird Island. The real name is Queen Bess Island, but we call it Bird Island, because it is always full of birds. It is a rookery, a nesting island for thousands of birds, pelicans, terns, gulls etc. As we got closer, we saw that protective boom had been placed around about two thirds of the island. It was obvious to me, that oil had gone under the boom and was fouling the shore and had undoubtedly oil some birds. My God. We would see this scene again at Cat Island and other unnamed islands that day. We continued on to the east past Coup Abel Pass and more shrimp boats trying to contain some of the oil on the surface. We arrived at 4 Bayou Pass to see more boats working on the same thing. We beached the boat and decided to look at the beach between the passes.

The scene was one of horror to me. There was thick red oil on the entire stretch of beach, with oil continuing to wash ashore. The water looked to be infused with red oil, with billions of, what appeared to be, red pebbles of oil washing up on the beach with every wave. The red oil pebbles, at the high tide mark on the beach were melting into pools of red goo in the hot Louisiana sun. The damage was overwhelming. There was nobody there to clean it up. It would take an army to do it. Like so much of coastal Louisiana, it was accessible only by boat. Will it ever be cleaned up? I don’t know. Tears again. We soon left that beach and started to head home.

We took a little different route home, staying a little farther to the east side of Barataria Bay. As we approached the northern end of the bay, we ran into another raft of oil that appeared to be covering many square miles. It was only a mile from the interior bayous on the north side of Barataria Bay. My God. No boats were towing boom in this area. I do not think anyone even knew it was there. A little bet farther north, we saw some shrimp boats with boom, on anchor, waiting to try and protect Bayou St. Dennis from the oil. I alerted them of the approaching oil. I hope they were able to control it before it reached the bayou. We left them and started to head in.

My heart never felt so heavy, as on that ride in. I thought to myself, this is the most I’ve cried since I was a baby. In fact I am sure it was. This will be a summer of tears for a lot of us in south Louisiana.

Michael Roberts
Louisiana Bayoukeeper, Inc

You can find Notes From The Louisiana Bayoukeeper here:
http://lmrk.org/notes-from-the-louisiana-bayoukeeper/
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!

For More About LEAN:

:}

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.

:}