Category Archives: war

Piracy Spreads To West Africa – For now they just wanted the cash

Posted on by
Reply

:}

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

:}

Pirates kill seaman in W.Africa tanker attack

By Fiacre Vidjingninou (AFP) – 1 day ago

COTONOU — Pirates attacked an oil tanker off the coast of west Africa, killing a Ukrainian officer before escaping with the contents of the ship’s safe, the ship’s owners and Benin’s navy commander said Tuesday.

Commander Maxime Ahoyo said the officer on the Monrovia-flagged Cancale Star was shot dead when he confronted the pirates after they boarded the vessel in darkness 18 nautical miles (33 kilometres) off the coast of Benin.

The tanker’s Latvian captain, Jaroslavs Semenovics, said around six or seven pirates had approached the tanker in a speed boat.

“They came on deck, pointed a pistol to the head of one of the sailors, marched him to the cabin,” Semenovics told AFP.

“They asked me to open the safe and they collected all the cash,” he added. He did not say how much was stolen.

The 230-metre (750-foot) Cancale Star was carrying 89,000 cubic metres of crude from Nigeria’s Niger Delta, the captain said.

Dot Dot Dot

Medics aboard the vessel said four other crew members were wounded in the attack, one seriously.

The pirates fled after a member of the tanker’s crew raised the alarm by sounding a siren, with the crew managing to overpower a pirate and hand him over to police for questioning.

The captured pirate said he was from a Nigerian border town.

The multinational crew of 24 includes Russians, Filipinos, Latvians and Ukrainians, Radings said.

Piracy in oil-rich west African waters is on the rise, according to the International Maritime Bureau, with more than 100 cases last year.

Most attacks occur while ships are at anchor or close to the shore, unlike in east Africa, where Somali pirates have netted millions of dollars in ransoms in exchange for the release of ships captured hundreds of miles from the coast.

Dot Dot Dot

It said that pirates have attacked and robbed vessels and kidnapped crews along the coast and rivers, anchorages, ports and surrounding waters.

Officials voiced fears earlier this year that west African pirates would copy the tactics of Somali gangs.

From January to September of this year, the International Maritime Organisation reported 160 acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia, including 34 hijacked vessels and more than 450 people made hostage

:}

What shall we call this? Poor people gone wild? There are after all no fish in the sea.

:}

This Planet Is About Shot – They argue over climate change cause they do not want you to see the big picture

Posted on by
Reply

What the Industrialists of the world and their Bankers do not want you to see is  that the oceans are depleted, the atmosphere is seriously screwed up (not just with green house gases), and the land has effectively been stripped. Humanity has literally sucked the resources out of this planet, goaded on by religious and political leaders.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090824001733data_trunc_sys.shtml

24 September 2009
New doomsday map shows planet’s dire state
by Kate Melville

Human activities have already pushed the Earth beyond three of the planet’s biophysical thresholds, with consequences that are detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts of the world, conclude 29 European, Australian and U.S. scientists in an article in Nature. This force has given rise to a new era – Anthropocene – in which human actions have become the main driver of global environmental change.

“On a finite planet, at some point, we will tip the vital resources we rely upon into irreversible decline if our consumption is not balanced with regenerative and sustainable activity,” says report co-author Sander van der Leeuw, of Arizona State University. The report started with a fairly simple question: How much pressure can the Earth system take before it begins to crash? “Until now, the scientific community has not attempted to determine the limits of the Earth system’s stability in so many dimensions and make a proposal such as this. We are sending these ideas out to be vetted by the scientific community at large,” explains van der Leeuw. Nine boundaries were identified in the report, including climate change, stratospheric ozone, land use change, freshwater use, biological diversity, ocean acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere and oceans, aerosol loading and chemical pollution. The study suggests that three of these boundaries -climate change, biological diversity and nitrogen input to the biosphere – may already have been transgressed.

Using an interdisciplinary approach, the researchers looked at the data for each of the nine vital processes in the Earth system and identified a critical control variable. Biodiversity loss, for example, is based on species extinction rate, which is expressed in extinctions per million species per year. They then explored how the boundaries interact. Here, loss of biodiversity impacts carbon storage (climate change), freshwater, nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, and land systems.

The researchers stress that their approach does not offer a complete roadmap for sustainable development, but does provide an important element by identifying critical planetary boundaries. They also propose a bold move: a limit for each boundary that would maintain the conditions for a livable world. For biodiversity, that would be less than 10 extinctions per million species per year. The current status is greater than 100 species per million lost per year, whereas the pre-industrial value was 0.1-1.

“Three of the boundaries we identify – 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, biodiversity extinction rates more than 10 times the background rate, and no more than 35 million tons of nitrogen pollution per year – have already been exceeded with fossil fuel use, land use change, and agricultural pollution, driving us to unsustainable levels that are producing real risks to our survival,” notes report co-author Diana Liverman, of the University of Arizona.

:}

We are in the midst of a very large extinction event that we are essentially causing…

Mass extinctions require 2 events. In other words the Dinosaurs didn’t evolve into birds because of a single event…the comet strike. What happened was they filled every niche, ate themselves out of house and home. Probably started eating themselves, thus the gigantisism movement AND then the comet struck. Humans are heading for the same fate.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/17/mass-extinction-theory.html

Mass Extinctions May Follow One-Two Punch

Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Illustration of Volcanic Eruption

The “Press” | Discovery News Video

 

Feb. 17, 2009 — As agents of extinction, comet and asteroid impacts may be losing their punch.

According to a new theory about how mass dyings work, cosmic collisions generally aren’t enough to cause a major extinction event. To be truly devastating, they must be accompanied by another event that inflicts long-term suffering, like runaway climate change due to massive volcanic eruptions.

In other words, a comet couldn’t have killed the dinosaurs by itself — unless they were already endangered species.

This kind of one-two punch could explain more than the extinction of dinosaurs, Nan Arens of Hobart and William Smith Colleges said. In a recent paper in the journal Paleobiology, she and colleague Ian West argue that there are two types of events that can cause extinctions — “pulses” (quick, deadly shocks, like comets) and “presses” (drawn-out stresses that push ecosystems to the brink but may not kill outright, like million-year-long volcanic eruptions).

The chances of mass dyings go way up when both happen together, argues Arens.

 

eruption

WATCH VIDEO: What constitutes a mass extinction?

Related Content:

But are all mass extinctions created equal? Can researchers come up with a “Grand Unified Theory” of ancient apocalypse?West and Arens think so. They combed the last 300 million years of geologic record, noting impact craters, massive eruptions, periods of ancient climate change, and then comparing them to extinctions. The rate at which species die off spiked dramatically, they found, when a “pulse”-type event occurred within a million years or so of a “press.”The theory fits well for the dinosaurs. Around the time of their demise 65 million years ago, a comet slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula and a huge volcano, the Deccan Traps, was erupting in what is today India.

But other extinctions are problematic. The greatest dying in geologic history, the Permian-Triassic extinction, killed 90 percent of all life on Earth, but there is no record of an impact. Instead, all signs point to a 200,000-year-long volcanic eruption in Siberia as the murder weapon.

:}

The Day After Memorial Day – In all fairness to the Energy Conglomerates

Posted on by
Reply

The US Military is the largest single user of carbon based energy in the World. When you toss in the other worlds militaries, if we just cut the militaries of the world to patrolling borders global warming would backup by decades. Not only that but the Energy Companies are pushed around by the military big time. No military and the pirates take tankers…No Iraq war no Iraqui oil…No defense against China they suck all the world’s resources up like a vacuum cleaner…Do I feel sorry for the Energy Companies or the Military? No they deserve each other I just don’t think we deserve them. GO AWAY.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

I am not going to reprint the total article here…this guy did a lot of work on graphs and charts and things but it is interesting and he is not the only person to report on this. It is important to note that the Energy Bulletin has been adopted by the Post Carbon Institute (http://www.postcarbon.org/). Wonder when that happened?

Published May 20 2007 by Energy Bulletin
Archived May 21 2007

US military energy consumption- facts and figures

by Sohbet Karbuz

As the saying goes, facts are many but the truth is one. The truth is that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world. But as a wise man once said, don’t confuse facts with reality. The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.

Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.

FACT 1: The DoD’s total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.

Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than half of it was to Air Force.

FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.

FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5]FACT 5: DoD consumed 97 million gasoline gallon equivalent in its non-tactical vehicles and for that it spent 238 million dollars.

FACT 6: In 2006, its oil consumption was down to 117 million barrels (or 320 thousand barrels per day),[10] despite increasing activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FACT 7: In 2006, for example, DESC reports in its Factbook that it sold 131 million barrels of oil (or 358 kbd) to DoD but DoD Federal Energy Management Report states that DoD consumed 117 million barrels (or 320 kbd).[12]

FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD.

FACT 9: There exist no official estimates. Let me know if you see or hear one. According to my most pessimist estimates it is about 150 thousand barrels per day FACT 10: Whatever the true figure oil consumed by the U.S. military does not show up in world oil demand. See for more explanation under item #425 in October 2004 issue of ASPO Newsletter.

:}

For more of this incredibly insightful and well written article please go to the above website and see it..Even the Military is aware that it is seen as a BIG FAT energy PIG, but it is also aware that NO OIL = NO WAR

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/addressing-the-militarys-energy-efficiency/

Addressing the Military’s Energy Inefficiency

By John Lorinc

 

Report

The folks who gave the world the Hummer, the poster child of fuel inefficiency, want to spawn a new generation of eco-friendly military equipment with cross-over potential in the “civilian sector,” say a group of retired American military officers who released a sharply worded report on Monday calling on the Department of Defense to reduce its “carbon bootprint.”

“The American military gave you the Humvee, and now we’re taking it back,” said retired Adm. John Nathman, the former vice chief of naval operations and an adviser to President Obama, in a conference call on Monday. “You’re going to see some fairly dramatic movement by the Department of Defense in terms of public visibility.”

The report, “Powering America’s Defense,” was published by CNA Analysis and Solutions, a research group based in Alexandria, Va., that issued a previous study on defense and energy security in 2007.

In the new study’s preface, 12 retired military officers lay out the case for weaning the military — and the country — off oil:

Many of our overseas deployments were de?ned, in part, by the strategic decision to ensure the free ?ow of oil, to the U.S. and to our allies. Many of the troops we commanded were aided by air cover from high-thrust delivery systems that only an energy-intense society can provide. Many of these same troops were often burdened and imperiled by battle?eld systems that were energy-inef?cient. Some of the attacks on our troops and on American civilians have been supported by funds from the sale of oil. Our nation’s energy choices have saved lives; they have also cost lives.

As we consider America’s current energy posture, we do so from a singular perspective: We gauge our energy choices solely by their impact on America’s national security. Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inef?cient use of oil also puts our troops at risk.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told The Associated Press that he strongly agreed “with the stark conclusions” of the report, whose authors point out that fluctuating oil prices, dependence on foreign resources and an ailing electricity grid imperil national security both at home and abroad.

“Climate change is a threat multiplier,” said Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, a retired officer and former commander of the Third Fleet.

Defense officials have previously described the American military as likely the world’s largest consumer of petroleum products, with an annual outlay in excess of $13 billion.

Each $1 per barrel increase in oil prices translates into $130 million of extra cost.

Calls for the military to address its environmental performance are not new. But in the past year or so, energy efficiency seems have become more of a priority, from a new solar wall installation at Fort Drum to the purchase of a large electric vehicle fleet for military bases.

:}

After all is said and done, are we safer with all this energy consumption? I think not:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/19-9

Published on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 by Agence France Presse

US Energy Use a National Security Threat: Study

WASHINGTON – US dependence on fossil fuels and a vulnerable electric grid pose a perilous threat to the country’s national security, retired military officers warned Monday in a report.

The threat requires urgent action and the Defense Department should lead the way in transforming America’s energy use by aggressively pursuing efficiency measures and renewable sources, said the report by CNA, a nonprofit research group.

“Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy,” it said.

“The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk,” said the report titled “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.”

The authors, top ranked retired officers from the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, also point to the strained domestic electricity network as a possible hazard for US military bases.

“Our domestic electrical system is also a current and significant risk to our national security: many of our large military installations rely on power from a fragile electrical grid that is vulnerable to malicious attacks or interruptions caused by natural disasters,” it said.

:}

Memorial Day – How do the gasoline refiners celibrate our Veterans?

Posted on by
Reply

They raise prices. Yup that is right. If you want to go see the Wall or other war memorials on the DC Mall or even go to Arlington Cemetary…you are going to pay more at the pump. They do it every year and no one makes the connection. Soldiers die in energy wars like Iraq and WWII and then they charge loved ones for the honor of visiting their graves…Of course they do the same thing to Labor in the fall. They are equal opportunity thieves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090522/pl_usnw/consumers_will_suffer_memorial_day_energy_price_hangover__says_consumer_watchdog

Consumers Will Suffer Memorial Day Energy-Price Hangover, Says Consumer Watchdog

To: NATIONAL EDITORS

Contact: Judy Dugan, +1-213-280-0175 (cell), Jamie Court, +1-310-392-0522 ext. 327, or Carmen Balber, +1-202-629-3043, all of Consumer Watchdog

‘Optimism’ Is Driving Energy Prices and Oil, Gas Prices Rise Steeply for Holiday, Despite Oversupply and Low Demand

WASHINGTON, May 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The price of regular gasoline at the pump has shot up 30 cents a gallon nationally in the last month and crude oil has nearly doubled, to $60 a barrel, since its low point in December, according to data from AAA and the federal Energy Information Administration. Steeply rising prices are tough on everyone except energy traders, said Consumer Watchdog.

“The price spike at the pump amounts to a holiday frat party for energy traders and oil companies, with drivers paying for the kegger,” said Judy Dugan, research director at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog. “A one-month pump price increase of 15% can only undercut the rest of an economy struggling to show any sign of long-term recovery.”

Analysts cite optimism that U.S. motorists will drive a little more this Memorial Day weekend, expectations that the economic slump has hit bottom and, harking back to mid-2008, the possibility that Nigerian violence will cut oil output. There is very little hard evidence of increased demand, said Consumer Watchdog.

The record spike in oil and gasoline prices in late 2007 and the first half of 2008 helped send the U.S. and world economies over a cliff, said Consumer Watchdog. Even a smaller spike at this low point of job loss and financial fragility will hurt consumers, curbing more economically productive spending. Food prices are also rising in tandem with oil, though at a slower pace.

Find out more at

www.oilwatchdog.org

www.consumerwatchdog.org

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog

:}

There is not much you can do about it but some people are trying to fight back:

http://ase.org/content/news/detail/5597

Memorial Day Weekend, Summer Travelers Can Cut Gasoline Costs in Tough Economy with Drive $marter Challenge Interactive Website, Money-Saving Tips, Resources

For Further Information                                                             
Jessica Lin (202) 530-4346; jlin@ase.org
Rozanne Weissman (202) 530-2217; rweissman@ase.org

http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/default.aspx

Washington, D.C., May 2009 – With the Memorial Day holiday weekend and heavier summer driving season approaching, and with gasoline prices nowhere near last summer’s record highs, thoughts turn to weekend and vacation road trips as a great escape from economic reality.

The Alliance to Save Energy’s interactive Drive $marter Challenge fuel efficiency website provides vacationers and everyday drivers with hundreds of dollars of money-saving gas tips, resources, and myth busters that respond to the call of frugal drivers: Why pay more for gasoline than you have to, particularly in this economy?

Whether you are headed to the big city or the great outdoors or staying closer to home, you can start saving money on gas even before you are on the road with a little advance planning, basic maintenance, and your driving and other choices:

Planning your vacation:

  • Get a customized vacation map with low gas prices along the route. Getting lost while driving in unfamiliar areas could lead to an expensive waste of gas. Resources on the Drive $marter Challenge website (http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/money-saving-tips/fuel-efficient-resources.aspx) can help your family print a customized vacation map that highlights low-cost gas stations along your route. Choose the right vehicle.  If your family has more than one vehicle, drive the car that gets better gas mileage if possible.
  • Rise and shine!  When possible, drive during off-peak hours to reduce gas costs and stress by avoiding stop-and-go or bumper-to-bumper traffic conditions.
  • Investigate other travel options. Consider trains, buses, or public transportation to your vacation destination when possible.
  • Explore new ways to get around at your destination.  Find information on biking, public transportation routes, car sharing, walking, and renting hybrid or fuel-efficient vehicles on the Drive $marter Challenge websiteresources page at http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/money-saving-tips/fuel-efficient-resources.aspx .

Before you leave: maintenance tips

  • Inflate your tires.  Keeping your tires properly inflated improves gas mileage by around 3%.
  • Select the right oil.  Using the manufacturer’s recommended grade of motor oil improves gas mileage by 1 to 2%. Motor oil that says “Energy Conserving” on the API performance symbol contains friction-reducing additives. Change your oil as recommended to extend the life of your vehicle.
  • Tune up.  Fixing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test can improve its gas mileage by an average of 4%.

On the road: driving tips

  • Decrease your speed.  Gas mileage usually decreases rapidly above 60 mph. Each five miles per hour over 60 mph is like paying an additional 20 cents or more per gallon for gas.
  • Drive sensibly.  Speeding, rapid acceleration (jackrabbit starts), and rapid braking can lower gas mileage by 33% at highway speeds.
  • Use cruise control and overdrive gear.  Cruise control cuts fuel consumption by maintaining a steady speed during highway driving.  Overdrive gear, when appropriate, reduces engine speed, saves gas, and reduces engine wear.
  • It’s a “drag.” Avoid carrying items on your vehicle’s roof. A loaded roof rack or carrier increases weight and aerodynamic drag, which can cut mileage by 5%. Place items inside the trunk when possible to improve fuel economy.
  • Turn down the air.  Operating the air conditioner on “Max” can reduce mpg by 5-25% compared to not using it.
  • Avoid idling, which gets 0 mpg. Cars with larger engines typically waste even more gas while idling than cars with smaller engines.
  • Navigate with a GPS system.  GPS systems can help you find your way and, increasingly, GPS programs can search for low-priced gas at nearby stations.
  • Fill up before returning rental. Rental car companies charge higher gas prices if you don’t fill up the tank before returning the vehicle. Keep your gas receipts in case the company requires receipts to remove a gas surcharge. 

The Drive $marter Challenge website, www.drivesmarterchallenge.org, has been updated with 2009 vehicle models and current campaign partners. The website calculator and all tips will be further updated May 19 with new projected gas prices for the yearThe Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environment, the economy, and national security.

:}

:}

LEAN Says Go Vote – So you better or the gators get your granny chomp chomp

Posted on by
Reply

 :}

Every State has different voting rules and it is up to you to know them.

:}

Louisiana Environmental Action Network
Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

November 4, 2008

Go Vote!!

People died so you’d have the right to vote. Self government, voting to choose our own leaders, is the original American dream. We are heir to a centuries-long struggle for freedom: the American revolution, and the battles to extend the franchise to those without property, to women, to people of color, and to young people. For those of us who have that right, it’s precious. If we waste it, we dishonor those who fought for it and those who fight still.

Go vote today, and make sure you take your friends and family with you.

This is the day when we have to commit to doing everything we can. We can’t afford not to — for our families, our communities, and our future.

Polls are open from 6 a.m. – 8 p.m.

Bring one of the following:

  • Drivers Liscense
  • Louisiana Special ID Card
  • Generally recognized photo ID (passport, millitary ID, etc.)

(if you don’t have an ID you can still vote, but you will have to sign an affidavit and present a utility bill, payroll check or government document including your name and address.)Warning: apparel supporting a candidate may be prohibited in the polling place.

If you have any problems voting call Election Protection at 1-866-687-8683

If you are not sure where you polling place is you can go to GoVote.org and find out!

OK, now you have no excuses. Go vote. Right now. Come on go, do it now! Vote.
For More About LEAN:

John McCain’s Global Warming Policy – Well, he calls it Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

But you know what he means, right? nudge nudge wink wink Know What He means?

 http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

Climate Change

John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children.John McCain’s Principles for Climate Policy

  • Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
  • Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
  • Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
  • Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
  • Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.


John McCain’s Cap and Trade PolicyJohn McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.

How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work?A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions.

The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase “offsets” – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.Innovating, Developing and Deploying Technologies

To Support The Cap And Trade System, John McCain Will Promote The Innovation, Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technologies. John McCain will reform federal government research funding and infrastructure to support the cap and trade emissions reduction goals and emphasize the commercialization of low-carbon technologies. Under John McCain’s plan:

Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies. A portion of the process of these auctions will be used to support a diversified portfolio of research and commercialization challenges, ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. Funds will also be used to provide financial backing for a Green Innovation Financing and Transfer (GIFT) to facilitate commercialization.John McCain Will Streamline The Process For Deploying New Technologies And Requiring More Accountability From Government Programs To Meet Commercialization Goals And Deadlines.

John McCain Will Ensure Rapid Technology Introduction, Quickly Shifting Research From The Laboratory To The Marketplace.

John McCain Will Employ The Inherent Incentives Provided By A Cap-And-Trade System Along With Government-Led Competitions As Incentives For New Technology Deployment.

John McCain Will Foster Rapid and Clean Economic Growth

John McCain Believes An Effective And Sustainable Climate Policy Must Also Support Rapid Economic Growth. John McCain will use a portion of auction proceeds to reduce impacts on low-income American families. The McCain plan will accomplish this in part by incorporating measures to mitigate any economic cost of meeting emission targets, including:

Trading Emission Permits To Find The Lowest-Cost Source Of Emission Reductions.Permitting “Banking” And “Borrowing” Of Permits So That Emission Reductions May Be Accelerated Or Deferred To More Economically Efficient Periods.

Permitting Unlimited Initial Offsets From Both Domestic And International Sources.

Effectively Integrating U.S. Trading With Other International Markets, Thereby Providing Access To Low-Cost Permit Sources.

Establishing A Strategic Carbon Reserve As A National Source Of Permits During Periods Of Economic Duress.

Early Allocation Of Some Emission Permits On Sound Principles. This will provide significant amount of allowances for auctioning to provide funding for transition assistance for consumers and industry. It will also directly allocate sufficient permits to enable the activities of a Climate Change Credit Corporation, the public-private agency that will oversee the cap and trade program, provide credit to entities for reductions made before 2012, and ease transition for industry with competitiveness concerns and fewer efficiency technology options.

A commission will also be convened to provide recommendations on the percentage of allowances to be provided for free and the percentage of allowances to be auctioned, and develop a schedule for transition from allocated to maximum auctioned allowances. Cap-and-trade system will also work to maximize the amount of allowances that are auctioned off by 2050. John McCain Will Provide Leadership for Effective International Efforts John McCain Believes That There Must Be A Global Solution To Global Climate Change. John McCain will engage the international community in a coordinated effort by:

Actively Engaging To Lead United Nations Negotiations.Permitting America To Lead In Innovation, Capture The Market On Low-Carbon Energy Production, And Export To Developing Countries – Including Government Incentives And Partnerships For Sales Of Clean Tech To Developing Countries.

Provide Incentives For Rapid Participation By India And China, While Negotiating An Agreement With Each. John McCain Will Develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan John McCain Believes A Comprehensive Approach To Addressing Climate Change Includes Adaptation As Well As Mitigation. He believes:

An Adaptation Plan Should Be Based Upon National And Regional Scientific Assessments Of The Impacts Of Climate Change.An Adaptation Plan Should Focus On Implementation At The Local Level Which Is Where Impacts Will Manifest Themselves.

A Comprehensive Plan Will Address The Full Range Of Issues: Infrastructure, Ecosystems, Resource Planning, And Emergency Preparation.

:}

There are a ton of problems with this plan but the first of the problems is IT”S TOO LONG. In fact, I doubt that anyone will ever read these words, and not just because this is an obscure blog at an obscure site. Nobody will ever get this far! The other problem is it takes too long. I mean no significant reductions before 2050. Who is going to be left alive at that point? But the real killer is the Cap and Trade system. This is just an industry fudge to get around the Clean Air Act. We need to shut down every coal fired powerplant in this country. Contrary to T. Boone Pickens, we need to convert all of those plants to natural gas, until we can get rid of them. We need to start at least three major “Hot Rocks” projects here in the US now. More about Cap and Trade when we look at Obama’s environmental proposals.

:}

Thanks To Gas Turbine World – And Harry Jaeger for pointing out my error

Posted on by
1

In a post in-or-around May 28th I said that the Airforce was preparing to switch to a synthetic fuel made from coal. I said if done properly that it might not be a bad thing environmentally premised on the fact that the Death Comes From Above crowd was going to fly and going to kill no matter what. I mean it’s hard enough to sell a noncarbon economy without trying to argue for peace and harmony. I am for all of the above, but the Corporate Capitalists are never going to buy peace and harmony – it’s just not their thing. There is nothing good about flying from a global warming point of view. But that is for another post.

http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/

Anyway in that post I repeatedly and obnoxiously referred to the process as gasification and it’s not. It’s an entirely different process process using entirely different reagents and at entirely different temperatures. The proper term for that is Coal To Liquids Process(ing)(es) and Harry pointed it out to me. I am soooooo sorry. It has been corrected. I shall never do it again.

For more on this devastating mistake:

www.futurecoalfuels.org/

www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=423

www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

 

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
and even where to invest if you want to:
www.seekingalpha.com/article/22719-liquid–coal-four-stocks-to-watch

 
:}

But it still stinks, generates huge amount of CO2 and other Sox and Nox gases, and it is from the past not the future. Did I mention that it uses twice as much energy as it produces?

cl1.jpg

cl.jpg

cl3.jpg

images available from:

www.treehugger.com

www.celsias.com

Then there is this:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003569.html

July 09, 2006

First US Coal To Liquid Plant ComingThe New York Times reports on plans by Rentech to build a plant to convert coal to liquid fuel burnable in diesel engines.

Here in East Dubuque, Rentech Inc., a research-and-development company based in Denver, recently bought a plant that has been turning natural gas into fertilizer for forty years. Rentech sees a clear opportunity to do something different because natural gas prices have risen so high. In an important test case for those in the industry, it will take a plunge and revive a technology that exploits America’s cheap, abundant coal and converts it to expensive truck fuel.

“Otherwise, I don’t see us having a future,” John H. Diesch, the manager of the plant, said.

If a large scaling up of coal-to-liquid (CTL) production takes place then an increase in pollution seems likely. Though perhaps advances in conversion technologies and tougher regulations could prevent this. The use of coal to make liquid fuels will increase CO2 emissions since the conversion plants will emit CO2 and of course the liquid fuel will emit CO2 just as conventional diesel fuel does. Those who view rising CO2 emissions with alarm therefore see a shift to CTL as a harmful trend.

And, uniquely in this country, the plant will take coal and produce diesel fuel, which sells for more than $100 a barrel.

The cost to convert the coal is $25 a barrel, the company says, a price that oil seems unlikely to fall to in the near future. So Rentech is discussing a second plant in Natchez, Miss., and participating in a third proposed project in Carbon County in Wyoming.

That sounds very profitable. The longer the price of oil stays high the likelier that capitalists will decide it is worth the risk to build CTL plants. Many are holding back worried that oil prices could tank again as happened in the early 1980s. That price decline drove the Beulah North Dakota Great Plains Synfuels Plant into bankruptcy. Though it was restarted and now produces natural gas from coal profitably. Though the bankruptcy cut the capital cost of operating that plant and so is not a perfect measure of the profitability of processes to convert coal to gas or liquid.
:}

Thanks Harry!

Where Will Coal to Liquids Go? Maybe up in the air

Posted on by
1

This has been widely reported but I think people have overlooked the broader implications. This could actually work and be good for the environment:

 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/air-force-begin.html

Air Force Begins Testing Synfuel Blend in Fighter Engine

30 April 2008

Engineers at the US Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) have begun testing a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, the power plant for the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a blend of alternative synthetic fuel in the J-1 simulated altitude jet engine test cell. Once testing and evaluation is complete, this will be the first fighter jet engine to use the synthetic blend.

Since 2006, AEDC has taken an active role in its support of the US Air Force’s Alternative Fuels Certification Office in the evaluation and certification of the synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) alternative fuel, which is derived from natural gas or coal using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process, for use in all Air Force aircraft.

Testing at AEDC on the GE F101 engine, the power plant for the B-1 Lancer bomber, was the first series of testing of a high performance, afterburning engine with FT fuel for a combat aircraft. (Earlier post.) This engine was also tested in the center’s J-1 high altitude jet engine test cell.

The Air Force has already certified the engines for the B-52 Stratofortress bomber to operate on FT fuel and the C-17 Globemaster III transport has flown on SPK fuel.

 http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3167/Synthetic-fuel-testing-begins-on-fighter-engine.html

and

 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.military.naval/2008-05/msg02235.html

U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push Dependence on Oil Seen as too Risky

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Do you wonder why the Navy thinks nuke is a good idea?

U.S. Military Launches
Alternative-Fuel Push
Dependence on Oil
Seen as too Risky
B-1 Takes Test Flight
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
May 21, 2008; Page A1

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. — With fuel prices soaring, the U.S.
military, the country’s largest single consumer of oil, is turning
into an alternative-fuels pioneer.

In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-
named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the
first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic
jet fuel. A similar formula — a blend of half-synthetic and half-
conventional petroleum — has been used in some South African
commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
[Major Expense]

“The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas,” Capt. Fournier
said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane’s thrusters during
the test flight. “But you won’t know unless you try.”

With oil’s multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping — crude
futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New
York trading — energy security has emerged as a major concern for the
Pentagon.

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is
expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil
if it’s mass-produced.

Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its
dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq
alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring
countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security
advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers
could cripple military operations around the world. “The endgame is to
wean the dependence on foreign oil,” says Air Force Assistant
Secretary William Anderson.

Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the “peak oil”
theory, which holds that the world’s oil production is about to
plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of
the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they
brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for
a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, “energy
security becomes an oxymoron.” House Democrats have proposed creating
a new Defense Department position to manage the military’s overall
energy needs.

:}

Many Readers might be suprised that I might support this idea…But Why? Well, what if the military did it right. My main objection to Coal to Liquid Programs in Illinois  is that they either involve bogus methods of carbon sequestration (untested deep well injection into sandstone) or they don’t. Which would amount to just more global warming when alternatives are available. Using the end product of Liquid To Coal processes as jet fuel for The Defense Department makes excellent sense because there is no alternative. If the Liquid To Coal plant is on a military base there is no environmental ruckus, the US Goverment becomes liable for the Risks and the Cleanup. In addition, if they sited them near one of the depleted secure oilfields , like in OHIO or OKLAHOMA, the sequestration option is viable because they could build a pipeline and pump the effluent to the oil fields. They would in effect be waste free. But Mr. CES you say, will the military do things right? I know, but maybe this time they will.

:}

Then There Is What We Do To The Soldiers

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=TUC20061029&articleId=3620

Depleted Uranium Death Toll among US War Veterans Tops 11,000

Nationwide Media Blackout Keeps U.S. Public Ignorant About This Important Story

by James P. Tucker Jr.

Global Research, October 29, 2006

American Free Press

The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component known as depleted uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi’s departure as secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department.

This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter.

“The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given,” Bernklau said. “However, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the U.S. military.”

The “malady [from DU] that thousands of our military have suffered and died from has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. . . . The terrible truth is now being revealed,” Bernklau said.

Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.

“The VA secretary was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” Bernklau said. “He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up.”

Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 518,739, Bernklau said.

“The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence,” Bernklau said. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from the second war] as ‘spectacular’—and a matter of concern.’ ”

While this important story appeared in a Washington newspaper and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure—a compelling sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about the terrible effects of this toxic weapon. (Veterans for Constitutional Law can be reached at (516) 474-4261.)
 Global Research Articles by James P. Tucker Jr.