Category Archives: waste

Just In Time For Halloween – Want to be buried in a reef?

Posted on by
Reply

I have heard of sleeping with the fishes but how would you like to be turned into a reef. Help the sea, help the sea life and help the environment in general. Kind of hard for relatives to visit but I guess they give you photos:

 http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2615803/Sea-burials-help-rebuild-reefs.html

Sea burials help rebuild reefs

23.October 2008, 15:21

A company is marketing a service for those who want to help the environment in the afterlife, or forever be part of the memories at a sports stadium. They are offering a burial service that is supposed to be an environmentally friendly and less expensive alternative to traditional burials.

 How is it done? Cremated remains are mixed into the concrete used to make so-called reef balls that it places at sites along the U.S. East Coast.

Tags

Those interested in helping build a reef in a body of water don’t have to wait until they die, said Eternal Reefs CEO George Frankel.

“Not at all, but when you do, it is a great way to help the bay,“ Frankel said.

The concept developed from reef-building efforts by the Reef Ball Foundation, which has placed more than a half-million of the concrete domes worldwide. Many want to mark a birth or other special occasion, while others simply want to foster underwater life. A memorial reef ball costs between $2,495 and $6,495, although the cost of cremation is not included, he said.

The Chesapeake Bay site on the U.S. East Coast where eight of the memorials were placed earlier this month, for example, already has about 600 put there by a variety of groups and organizations above the rubble from Memorial Stadium, the former home of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team in Maryland.

The burial service is one of a growing number of funeral alternatives ranging from having your ashes launched into space, compressed into a diamond or buried in a biodegradable urn. In the waters off Miami, the Neptune Memorial Reef offers an underwater burial place for cremated remains, as well as an attraction for divers who can swim among its gates, paths and statuary.

 Sylvia Rennick of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, said the idea of her son’s memorial helping the Chesapeake Bay appealed to her more than a traditional cemetery plot.

“You’re around live things, it’s not all dead,“ Rennick said before her son’s memorial was lowered by crane onto the reef under sunny skies as family members threw flowers into the bay and read poems.

Afterward, she said the crew gave another of her sons the chart location of the site and he planned to visit it when he went fishing.

:}

They borrowed the idea from these folks:

 http://www.reefball.org/index.html

The Reef Ball Foundation is a 501(c) 3 publicly supported non-profit and international environmental NGO working to rehabilitate marine reefs.

Our mission is to rehabilitate our world’s oceanreef ecosystems and to protect our natural reef systems using Reef Ball artificial reef technologies. Reef Balls are artificial reef modules placed in the ocean to form reef habitat.

We have placed Reef Balls™ in 59+ countries and our projects have a global reach of 70+ countries.  We have conducted over 3,500 projects and deployed over 1/2 million Reef Balls.

Our projects include designed artificial reefs, ground breaking coral propagation and planting systems, estuary restoration, red mangrove plantings, oyster reef restoration, erosion control (often beach erosion), and expert collaberation on a variety of oceanic issues.

We work with governments, other NGOs, businesses, schools, research institutes, private individuals and community organizations and emphasize education on preserving and protecting our natural reefs.

 (WIKI Reef Ball Foundation for history/facts)

NEW! Reef Ball “Live” Updates
Post or View Current Reef Ball Project Activities.
Our Chairman posts updates here on a regular basis.

:}

Here is what they look like, new with you in them.

 possib5.jpg

:}

Here is what they look like after you have been in the reef for awhile.

 possib3.jpg

 :}

If you are looking for other companies willing to burn you, put you in cement shoes and plant you in the ocean:

http://www.eternalreefs.com/about/foundation.html

ETERNAL REEFS

Our Story
Eternal Reefs began simply. In the late 1980’s a pair of college roommates from the University of Georgia often went diving off the Keys in Florida on breaks. Over the years of diving they saw significant deterioration and degradation of the reefs they were visiting. Don Brawley, founder of Eternal Reefs realized the reefs needed help. A decision was made to do something about the reefs’ declining health.

Once the friends were out of school they began to talk about what contributions they could make that would help protect and restore these fragile eco-systems. Creating a material and system that would replicate the natural marine environment that supports coral and microorganism development was what they decided to do. And thus the concept of the Reef Ball was formed – to directly rehabilitate and rebuild the dying reefs and to add new habitat to the marine environment.

They faced two primary design challenges. Stability would be crucial. The design needed to be capable of absorbing and dissipating energy in the marine environment without moving. It would need to withstand not just the normal tidal and current flows, but also major storms and the dynamic energy impacts that accompany them.
In 1990, the Reef Ball Development Group and the Reef Ball Foundation completed the first Reef Ball project near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Since that time, there have been over 3,500 projects worldwide with more than 400,000 Reef Balls placed on the ocean floor. With years of documented history of stability and habitat development, Reef Balls have become the world standard for fisheries programs, coral restoration and habitat development projects.

In 1998, Carleton Glen Palmer, Don Brawley’s father-in-law, talked about having his cremated remains put in a reef. As Carleton put it, “I can think of nothing better than having all that action going on around me all the time after I am gone – just make sure that the location has lots of red snapper and grouper.” Shortly after Carleton made this request, he passed away.

https://www.nmreef.com/

NEPTUNE MEMORIAL REEF

The Neptune Memorial Reef project is the largest man made reef ever conceived and provides an extraordinary living resting place for the departed, an environmental and ecological masterpiece, a superb laboratory for marine biologists, students, researchers and ecologists, and an aesthetically exquisite, world-class destination for visitors from all walks of life.       

:}

The Report Says We Can Be Done With Fossil Fuels In 80 Years – My question is do we have that much time?

Posted on by
Reply

The answer is definitely NOT:

 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn15043-2090-is-the-deadline-for-the-end-of-fossil-fuel-use.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

World can halt fossil fuel use by 2090

  • 12:13 27 October 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • New Scientist staff and Reuters

The world could eliminate fossil fuel use by 2090, saving $18 trillion in future fuel costs and creating a $360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.

The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe.

A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

The total energy investments until 2030, the main period studied, would come to $14.7 trillion, according to the study. By contrast, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, foresees energy investments of just $11.3 trillion to 2030, with a bigger stress on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-US Vice President Al Gore, called Monday’s study “comprehensive and rigorous.”

Dangerous change

“Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” Pachauri wrote in a foreword to the report.

EREC and Greenpeace said a big energy shift was needed to avoid “dangerous” climate change, defined by the European Union and many environmental groups as a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.

The report urged measures such as a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “cap and trade” systems for greenhouse gas emissions, legally binging targets for renewable energies and tough efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles.

The report said renewable energy markets were booming with turnover almost doubling in 2007 from 2006 to more than $70 billion. It said renewables could more than double their share of world energy supplies to 30% by 2030 and reach 50% by 2050.

:}

But it will only cost 17 trillion dollars:

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21375/1066/

 Sven Teske, with Greenpeace and co-author of the report, stated, “Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fuelling catastrophic climate change.”Teske added, “All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders.” [EREC]Teske concluded, “Strict efficiency standards make sound economic sense and dramatically slow down rising global energy demand. The energy saved in industrialised countries will make space for increased energy use in developing economies. With renewable energy growing four-fold not only in the electricity sector, but also in the heating and transport sectors, we can still cut the average carbon emissions per person from today?s four tonnes to around one tonne by 2050.” [EREC]

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri wrote, “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” [EREC]

Dr. Pachauri, who is the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former-U.S. Vice President Al Gore,

 :}

For more links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q2I820081027

Oil Dives Below 63$$ A Barrel – We are all going to die!

Posted on by
5

Now we shall see how this game played by a few very wealthy Americans plays out. There was a reason Glass-Steagel was put in place in the 1930’s The belief was that some commodities were too important to ALL Americans.  Food, housing and fuel were deemed the “Basics of Life”.  So the market was regulated to make sure people could not gamble on those commodities futures. Well as we have seen with Housing. The genius of Wall Street came up with an unregulated way to get around the prohibitions in the housing market. When they got bored with that, and the US dollar plunged they decided to buy Long in the Futures Market (something prohibited until 1999) and prices skyrocketed. Well to every up THERE IS A DOWN. As the Saudi’s warned that DOWN could be way down. We could have oil fluctuating between 150$$ and 40$$ a barrel for the next few years. I think at some point in those wild swings Industry comes to a stop.

These people are just spoiled rotten filthy rich dummies. They all should be in jail.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081022/business/oil_prices 

Price of oil falls more than

$5 below US$67 on

US recession fears

Wed Oct 22, 3:26 PM

     

 

By Madlen Read, The Associated Press

NEW YORK – Oil prices tumbled below US$67 a barrel to 16-month lows Wednesday after the government reported big increases in U.S. fuel supplies – more evidence that the economic downturn is drying up energy demand.

The Energy Information Administration said crude inventories jumped by 3.2 million barrels last week, above the 2.9 million barrel increase expected by analysts surveyed by energy research firm Platts. Gasoline inventories rose by 2.7 million barrels last week, and inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel, rose by 2.2 million barrels.

Over the last four weeks, the EIA said, motor gasoline demand was down 4.3 per cent from the same period last year. Distillate fuel demand was down 5.8 per cent, and jet fuel demand was down 9.2 per cent.

“The main theme here that’s driving this market into new low ground is demand deterioration,” said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates. “As we begin to see evidence that demand is levelling – it doesn’t have to increase, just level – then we can start discussing a possible price bottom. But it appears premature at this point.”

In mid-afternoon trading, light, sweet crude for December delivery fell $5.52 to $66.66 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The last time a front-month contract traded below $67 a barrel was June 2007.

The energy markets have also been weighed down by the weak stock market, as investors grow more pessimistic about how long it will take the economy to recover from the current global financial turmoil.

On Tuesday, DuPont, Sun Microsystems and Texas Instruments reported disappointing earnings and bleak forecasts, sending the Dow Jones industrials average down 2.5 per cent. The Dow was down another four per cent by Wednesday afternoon following more gloomy reports from the soon-to-be acquired bank Wachovia Corp., drugmaker Merck & Co., and insurer Travelers Cos.

“Oil is now highly correlated with the stock market,” said Clarence Chu, a trader with market maker Hudson Capital Energy in Singapore. 

:}

Americans are not the only one worried:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/17/content_10206571.htm 

Crude futures dip below $70 on demand concerns
www.chinaview.cn 2008-10-17 06:45:59   Print
    NEW YORK, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) — Crude futures dipped below 70 U.S. dollars a barrel on demand concerns Thursday after the U.S. government reported a unexpected rise in crude stockpile.    Light, sweet crude for November delivery plunged 4.69 dollars to settle at 69.85 dollars a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after hitting 68.57 dollars, a level not seen since June 27, 2007.    Crude prices have declined more than half its July record high of 147.27 dollars a barrel due to investors’ increasing concerns that a global economic recession could curd energy consumption.

    Demand concerns

    “The price of a barrel of oil continued to decline today as fears of declining demand among market participants persist,” Wall Street Strategies’ senior research analyst Conley Turner told Xinhua.

    The weakening global economy and turmoil in the credit markets have clouded the outlook for world oil consumption.

    The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said regional manufacturing conditions weakened in October. The bank’s regional index came in at a negative 37.5 compared with a positive 3.8 for September.

    On Monday, Goldman Sachs cut its year-end forecast of oil to 70dollars a barrel from 115 dollars and lowered its price outlook for the end of 2009 to 107 dollars from 125 dollars per barrel amid global financial crisis.

    “The fact of the matter is that demand destruction is taking place in the United States as for the rest of the G7, for that matter as these economies teeter on the brink of recession,” said Turner.

    “While there may be some ebbing in the demand pressures out of India and China, it not going to be as much as what is occurring in the Unite States,” he added.

 :}

 Even the Saudis and the Russians are concerned:

:}

http://bh.heraldinteractive.com/business/general/view/2008_10_22_Oil_falls_below__70_on_US_recession_fears/

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which accounts for about 40 percent of global oil supply, has signaled it plans to announce an output quota reduction at an emergency meeting Friday in Vienna.

But investors are skeptical about how much of the cut will be implemented, given the history of OPEC members exceeding their production quotas.

“There should be a short-term boost to prices when they announce a cut on Friday,” Chu said. “But OPEC production has always been above their quotas, so there’s a credibility problem.”

Crude oil is down 53 percent from its peak of $147.27 reached in mid-July.

A stronger dollar this week has also pushed oil prices lower. Investors often buy commodities like crude oil as an inflation hedge when the dollar weakens and sell those investments when the dollar rises.

The euro fell below $1.28 for the first time in nearly two years on Wednesday. The 15-nation euro dipped as low as $1.2736 in morning trading before rising slightly to $1.2873, down from $1.3003 late Tuesday in New York.

Investors are also watching for signs of slowing U.S. demand in the weekly oil inventories report to be released Wednesday from the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration. The petroleum supply report was expected to show that oil stocks rose 2.9 million barrels last week, according to the average of analysts’ estimates in a survey by energy information provider Platts.

The Platts survey also showed that analysts projected gasoline inventories rose 3.0 million barrels and distillates went up 600,000 barrels last week.

:}

The Russians are threatening to go along. What if they were actually to join OPEC! Way to go Wall Street geniuses. Bravo! 

 :}

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/oilprices/3252279/Opec-to-cut-oil-supply-by-1.5m-barrels-a-day.html

Members of the Opec oil producers’

cartel have decided to cut production

by 1.5m barrels a day from November

in a bid to stem a collapse in prices.

By Russell Hotten, Industry Editor
Last Updated: 4:14PM BST 24 Oct 2008

This latest Opec meeting, brought forward from next month because of the severity of the slide in prices, comes as Russia shows increasing interest in cooperating with the organisation.

Russia, the world’s second largest oil producer after Saudi, has traditionally had representatives at Opec meetings but has never publicly tracked the organisations cuts and increases in production quotas.

But on Wednesday Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin said his country may build a margin of spare oil production capacity as a means of influencing prices. However, he said Russia would not join Opec.

Nick Day, chief executive of the risk management consultancy Diligence, warns that any move by Russia to cooperate with Opec is fraught with political dangers. “One of Russia’s objectives might be to counter America’s influence on Saudi Arabia’s control of Opec. You could see Russia driving a wedge between Opec, with support from Iran and Venezuela.” He believes that if Russia’s oil revenues are reduced, Moscow might try to recoup money by raising the price of gas it exports to Europe.

Opec comprises 12 members: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. The thirteenth, Indonesia, is due to leave the organisation at the end of 2008.

Vampire Power Drain – Why the world thinks we are Power Hogs

Posted on by
Reply

I just unplugged the microwave, our coffee pot, a battery recharger for our Dewalt power tool kit and turned off the old timey record turntable/radio/tape player that was on “standby”. I just saved enough power in one day to power a hut in Africa or a Southern Asia for a month! Americans don’t get the fact that they waste, waste, waste. Worse then that we are role models for the world. The big 5 of the future – Brazil, South Africa, India, China and Australia all want to be like us. If they succeed humanity could cease to exist.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/4/what-s-wasting-energy-in-your-home-right-now.html

 What’s wasting energy in your home right now?

By Lori Bongiorno Posted Thu Oct 9, 2008 9:34am PDT

   783 votes

Coffe maker (iStockPhoto)

Virtually all of your electronics are sucking up energy even if they’re turned off or not being used. Some of the biggest culprits include your TV, computer, and printer. Even your electric toothbrush is drawing energy when it’s plugged in and sitting idle. 

On its own, the “vampire power” used by one device might seem miniscule, but collectively it amounts to more than $4 billion a year of wasted energy here in the United States. What’s more, the Department of Energy says that about 75 percent of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.  

The easiest (and most obvious) thing you can do is get up right now and unplug whatever you’re not using. Candidates include:

  • Your hand-held vacuum in its charging station
  • Power drills
  • Automatic coffee makers
  • The VCR you haven’t used in nearly a decade
  • The TV that’s collecting dust in the guest room
  • The empty refrigerator in the garage

For the slightly more ambitious, buy a power strip at your local hardware store. Yes, it takes a little time up-front to plug everything into it, but you’ll more than make up the time when you can cut all power with just the flip of a switch.

Clamping down on vampire power is one of the easiest ways to save money on your electric bill (about 5 percent a month) and pump less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It may not seem like much, but it all adds up!

Environmental journalist Lori Bongiorno shares green-living tips and product reviews with Yahoo! Green’s users. Send Lori a question or suggestion for potential use in a future column. Her book, Green Greener Greenest: A Practical Guide to Making Eco-smart Choices a Part of Your Life, is available on Yahoo! Shopping.

:}

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

For systems that provide auxiliary power, see Emergency power system.

“Phantom load” redirects here. For microphone powering technique, see Phantom power.

Standby power, also called vampire power, phantom load, or leaking electricity, refers to the electric power consumed by electronic appliances while they are switched off or in a standby mode. A very common “electricity vampire” is a power adapter which has no power-off switch. Some such devices offer remote controls and digital clock features to the user, while other devices, such as power adapters for laptop computers and other electronic devices, consume power without offering any features.

:}

I love the leaking electricity phrase – what it falls on the ground and makes a puddle? 

 :}

The British Government’s 2006 Energy Review found that standby modes on electronic devices account for 8% of all British domestic power consumption.  A similar study in France in 2000 found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption.  Further studies have since come to similar conclusions in other developed countries, including the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. Some estimates put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.

:]

To counter that is this little fellow. Unfortunately he doesn’t test anything with a CLOCK or LIGHT Display which do use power when turned off. Just think about the juice we use on clocks alone! Every house hold in America no matter how poor has an alarm clock that uses electricity. Is this necessary?

:]

http://theonda.org/articles/2008/03/09/mythbusting-vampire-power-suckers 

Fast on the heels of my energy-on-the-brain week in San Diego, I decided to run some experiments with my recently acquired Kill-a-Watt to debunk some myths about consumer electronics and power consumption. What follows is by no means exhaustive, but I figured I would write it up as it has frequently been the topic of lunchtime conversation at the office— with people arguing both sides of each argument as though it were politics and not simply electricity 101.

The basic statement that I was trying to confirm or disprove was that your computer/cellphone/ipod/etc. charger sucks electricity even when it is not connected to a device. Savvy environmental marketers have called this the “vampire effect” or the problem of “phantom power,” and truth be told, after I first heard the term, I could never look at one of those cuddly black bricks the same.

KillawattSo I went around the house looking for as many bricks as possible, putting my Kill-a-Watt between them and the wall source of power and then connecting and disconnecting their associated devices. An aside: For those that don’t know what a Kill-a-Watt is (pictured here), it’s one of several cheap gizmos you can buy to plug between a given appliance and the wall to measure how much power is being consumed. I’m not quite sure how it works, but quickly testing it on both 60 and 100 Watt lightbulbs convinced me that it worked as billed.

The result: for each of the 13 bricks that I tried, ranging from a wireless phone charger to a MacBook Pro power adapter, the vampire/phantom thing is complete BS. The moment you disconnect the associated device the Watts measured on the Kill-a-Watt go right down to zero. Interestingly enough, this is equally true for low wattage chargers like the iPhone one (~1-2W while charging). It makes sense— after all I’m fairly certain that a fairly cheap circuit on the power adapter can get a good sense of load and just cut the whole power supply off if nothing is connected. As a funny aside, it seems that there is a whole category of “smart powerstrips” that are sold to protect the user against this bunk phantom power thing.

:}

:}

People Just Don’t Get Why We Have To Stop Burning The World Up – Stop please stop

Posted on by
Reply

This is so sad it Makes The World Cry:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14976-arctic-air-temperatures-hit-record-highs.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_dn14976

Arctic air temperatures

hit record highs

  • 13:11 17 October 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • New Scientist staff and Reuters

Autumn air temperatures have climbed to record levels in the Arctic due to major losses of sea ice as the region suffers more effects from a warming trend dating back decades, according to a new report.

The annual report issued by researchers at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic.

It found that autumn air temperatures are at a record 5 °C above normal in the Arctic because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years, which allows more solar heating of the ocean.

That warming of the air and ocean impacts land and marine life and cuts the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer, says the report.

The report adds that surface ice is melting in Greenland and that wild reindeer, or caribou, herds appear to be declining in numbers.

Domino effect

“Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions,” says James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and one of the authors of the report.

“It’s a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways,” he says.

Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado, recently reported that, this summer, Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level ever.

The 2008 season, those researchers said, strongly reinforces a 30-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent – 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, but 9% above the record low set in 2007.

Last year was the warmest on record in the Arctic, continuing a region-wide warming trend dating to the mid-1960s. Most experts blame climate change on human activities spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

:}

Then there is this longer piece in The Independent;

:}

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html 

Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Wednesday, 3 October 2007

The high temperatures on the island caused catastrophic mudslides as the permafrost on hillsides melted, Professor Lamoureux said. “The landscape was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes.”

Other parts of the Arctic also experienced higher-than-normal temperatures, which indicate that the wider polar region may have experienced its hottest summer on record, according to Walt Meir of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

“It’s been warm, with temperatures about 3C or 4C above normal for June, July and August, particularly to the north of Siberia where the temperatures have reached between 4C and 5C above average,” Dr Meir said.

Unusually clear skies over the Arctic this summer have caused temperatures to rise. More sunlight has exacerbated the loss of sea ice, which fell to a record low of 4.28 million square kilometres (1.65 million square miles), some 39 per cent below the long-term average for the period 1979 to 2000. Dr Meir said: “While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent.”

An international team of scientists on board the Polar Stern, a research ship operated by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, also felt the effects of an exceptionally warm Arctic summer. The scientists had anticipated that large areas of the Arctic would be covered by ice with a thickness of about two metres, but found that it had thinned to just one metre.

Instead of breaking through thicker ice at an expected speed of between 1 and 2 knots, the Polar Stern managed to cruise at 6 knots through thin ice and sometimes open water.

“We are in the midst of a phase of dramatic change in the Arctic,” said Ursula Schauer, the chief scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, who was on board the Polar Stern expedition. “The ice cover of the North Polar Sea is dwindling, the ocean and the atmosphere are becoming steadily warmer, the ocean currents are changing,” she said.

One scientist came back from the North Pole and reported that it was raining there, said David Carlson, the director of International Polar Year, the effort to highlight the climate issues of the Arctic and Antarctic. “It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before.”

Another team of scientists monitoring the movements of Ayles Ice Island off northern Canada reported that it had broken in two far earlier than expected, a further indication of warmer temperatures. And this summer, for the first time, an American sailing boat managed to traverse the North-west Passage from Nova Scotia to Alaska, a voyage usually made by icebreakers. Never before has a sail-powered vessel managed to get straight through the usually ice-blocked sea passage.

Inhabitants of the region are also noticing a significant change as a result of warmer summers, according to Shari Gearheard, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. “People who live in the region are noticing changes in sea ice. The earlier break-up and later freeze-up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel,” she said.

Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: “We may see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes. The implications… are disturbing.”

The North-west Passage: an ominous sign

The idea of a North-west Passage was born in 1493, when Pope Alexander VI divided the discovered world between Spain and Portugal, blocking England, France and Holland from a sea route to Asia. As it became clear a passage across Europe was impossible, the ambitious plan was hatched to seek out a route through north-western waters, and nations sent out explorers. When, in the 18th century, James Cook reported that Antarctic icebergs produced fresh water, the view that northern waters were not impossibly frozen was encouraged. In 1776 Cook himself was dispatched by the Admiralty with an Act promising a £20,000 prize, but he failed to push through a route north of Canada. His attempt preceded several British expeditions including a famous Victorian one by Sir John Franklin in 1845. Finally, in 1906 Roald Amundsen led the first trip across the passage to Alaska, and since then a number of fortified ships have followed. On 21 August this year, the North-west Passage was opened to ships not armed with icebreakers for the first time since records began.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Newt Gingritch, John Boehner and the President of the United States Are All Proven Liars

Posted on by
Reply

 Add to that list T. Boone Pickens and American Solutions (thus Grover Norquist). The high oil prices and the high gasoline prices were the direct result of Market Manipulation by commodity speculaters. It did not amount to the “single largest transfer of wealth overseas”, as Pickens claims. Almost all of those speculaters were right here in the good old US of A. They took billions of $$$ from poor and middle class people pockets. Those that could least afford it as their capitalist schemes brought the financial markets down.

Oil is now below 80$$ per barrel and gas is below 3$$ per gallon. Not a single new well has been drilled. No appreciable amount of oil has been added to the system. In other words, no new “supply” was added to the “market” and yet prices are falling. Hmmm so when are people going to go to jail?

 But bigger questions remains. Now that the market has been destabilized by speculators how low can the price of oil go? The Saudi’s estimate that it costs them 40$$ to put a barrel of oil on the deck of a ship, and ironically another 10$$ to ship it. Can the price of oil drop below 50$$ a barrel? And what happens then?

The Big Oil Companies worst fears have arrived. As millions of Americans (yours truely included) shed billions of miles of driving reducing demand for gasoline in unprecidented fashion, what will the outcome be for the automobile industry and what is left of America’s manufaturing base.

Oh did I mention – When are people going go to jail for this “harmless little prank”?

 www.yuwantitwhen.com

wreck.jpg

Presidential Energy Policy – What if Community Energy Systems was running for President?

Posted on by
Reply

What would our collective Presidential Energy Policy look like? :

1. Ban the sale of Gasoline and Diesel as of January 2015, except 1 gallon containers and Heavy Transport Trucks.

2. Ban Diesel and Gasoline sales to Heavey Transport Trucks by 2018.

This would allow everyone to keep mowing their grass and having their backyard barbeques while the USA shifts its transportation capacity to cleaner safer fuels.

3. Ban the Burning of coal in Electrical Generating Stations in 2020.

That would require switching all those plants to another fuel source, probably natural gas.

4. Fund 3 Hot Rocks Power Stations. One in California to replace Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, One to replace Clinton Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois and one to replace Savannah Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia. This would begin the proceess of Converting our economy to geothermal energy on existing sites where Nukes should not be in the first place.

This would proceed for all Nuclear Power Plants in the nation.

 5. Create and support manditory energy conservation programs in both the residential market and the commercial market to reduce their consumption by 50%.

Lets insulate and modernize our world.

6. Order all Landfill operaters and Waste Haulers to begin the mining of all landfills and dumps for metals, glass, plastics and and paper products. Compost the rest.

7. Mandate that all materials be recycled with the goal of a steady state materials economy in the USA by 2020

8. Using tax incentives to increase the Market share of solar, geothermal and wind generation by 25% per year until the USA is largely energy self sufficient.

9. Create a maglev train system in the USA

10. Create a light rail system in the top 50 major markets.

11. Ban the sale of diesel fuel to the railroads in 2025.

12. Open the Yucca Mountain repository by Executive Order if necessary and order all spent nuclear materials to be stored there.

To pay for this I would cut the military budgets of the following services: reduce the Navy to 2 active Fleets, one on the West Coast, one on the East Coast; reduce the Army to 4 batallions; reduce the Airforce to 4 Airwings; leave the Marines alone.

To pay for these policies I would slash the Pentagon staff in half, and the “spying budget” by 1/3.

To pay for these policies I would close the Federal Office of Education. Then I would start in on some of the stupid Federal Budget items that we as tax payers fund, like closing the National Helium Repository in Texas. We sure won’t need the Strategic Petroleum Resevre.

This program would create million of new good paying jobs. Put this country back to work and not flipping burgers at McDonalds.

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.

:}

John McCain’s Energy Policies – The “drill here, drill now” crowd looks pretty foolish right about now

Posted on by
Reply

Even Bill O’Reilly agrees with me:

www.billoreilly.com

The rapid rise in Oil Prices and the concurrent rise in gasoline prices was caused by speculators in the oil market, reductions in gas refinement, the drop in the dollar value because of speculators, and China stock piling diesel fuel for the Olympics. There is no way that it was remotely related to supply and demand. Demand fell as the price climbed. Even conservative estimates say that so far this year Americans have driven 50 billion miles fewer than just last year.

Even worse than that is the fact that the Congress conceded the point to an angry electorate and passed a bill expanding drilling. That inspite of the fact that there is no oil in ANWR or along most of the continental shelf, there will be no bids on the leases if they are ever put up for sale, and we don’t have any oil rigs to drill there anyway. Every last rigg in the WORLD is spoken for right now.

So given all of that why is John McCain still touting the policy below?:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit – 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

:}

Shouldn’t we be saying “anywhere but here, anytime but now”? Like New Orleanians say about hurricanes.
:}

John McCain Capriciousness Will Cost Him The Election – The myth of the multiple Nukes

Posted on by
Reply

McCain is a hot headed shoot from the hip cowboy Republican and his Nuclear Policy, such as it is, shows it. He is George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove combined without the nasty little snicker. He could have stated a policy pro-nuclear. He could have stated a policy of 3 or 4 Nuclear Power Plants, with a “we’ll see how it goes” clause. He could have done something helpful as a Republican and said, “We will open the waste depository in Nevada within the first year of our presidency.” Something no Democrat could offer because of Harry Reid.

But instead he wants to try to build 45 Nuclear Power Plants. That is 1 for almost every state in the Nation! That with the credit markets paralyzed and a new generation of “light reactors” that have not been tested in the US. Then he goes on to say with “a goal of building 100”. This is so off the charts as to be dismissable. That is, it is impossible. So why so over the top? BECAUSE THAT IS what John wants to do. That’s it. So what else does John want that is inconceivable to most of us? But if he was President of the US he could get just because he wanted it? War with Iran? War with Russia? More to the point a Florida surrounded by oil wells? A move to cripple the solar and wind turbine markets? T. Boone Pickens Plan? What?

That is pretty scary….