Four gas-buying tips

EARLY MORNING
Buy in the early morning when the ground temperature is still cold. The colder the ground the denser the gasoline.

FILL SLOWLY
Do NOT squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to a fast mode. The trigger has three (3) stages: low, middle, and high. In slow mode you should be pumping on low speed, thereby minimizing the vapors that are created while you are pumping. All hoses at the pump have a vapor return. If you are pumping on the fast rate, some of the liquid that goes to your tank becomes vapor. Those vapors are being sucked up and back into the underground storage tank so you're getting less for your money.

WHEN IT'S HALF EMPTY
Fill up when your gas tank is half empty. The more gas you have in your tank the less air occupying its empty space. Gasoline evaporates faster than you can imagine.

AVOID GAS DELIVERY
If there is a gasoline truck pumping into the storage tanks when you stop to buy gas, DO NOT fill up -- most likely the gasoline is being stirred up as the gas is being delivered, and you might pick up some of the dirt that normally settles on the bottom.

The God Who Can't Be Tamed

The God Who Can't Be Tamed
Could we be losing more than the land when we destroy it?
by Philip Yancey

In what she later called "the most transporting pleasure of my life on the farm," Isak Dinesen went flying across the unspoiled plains of Africa with her friend Denys Finch-Hatton. In the film version of Out of Africa, the character playing Denys first invited her by saying, "I want to show you the world as God sees it." Indeed, the next few minutes of cinematography come close to presenting exactly that. As the frail Moth airplane soars beyond the escarpment that marks the beginning of the Rift Valley in Kenya, the ground falls abruptly away and the zoom lens captures a glimpse of Eden in the grasslands just below.

Great herds of zebras scatter at the sound of the motor, each group wheeling in unison, as if a single mind controlled the bits of modern art dashing across the plain. Huge giraffes — they seemed so gangly and awkward when standing still—gallop away with exquisite gracefulness. Bounding gazelles, outrunning the larger animals, fill in the edge of the scene.

The world as God sees it — does that phrase merely express some foamy romantic notion, or does it contain truth? The Bible gives intriguing hints. Proverbs tells of the act of Creation, when Wisdom "was the craftsman at his [God's] side … filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presences, rejoicing in his whole world." The seraphs in Isaiah's vision who declared "the whole earth is full of his glory" could hardly have been referring to human beings — not if the rest of the Book of Isaiah is to be believed. At least God had the glory of Nature then, during that very dark time when Israel faced extinction and Judah slid toward idolatry.

God makes plain how he feels about the animal kingdom in his longest single speech, a magnificent address found at the end of Job. Look closely and you will notice a common thread in the specimens he holds up for Job's edification:

A lioness hunting her prey
A mountain goat giving birth in the wilds
A rogue donkey roaming the salt flats
An ostrich flapping her useless wings with joy
A stallion leaping high to paw the air
A hawk, an eagle, and a raven building their nests on the rocky crags

That's a mere warm up — Zoology 101 in Job's education. From there God advances to the behemoth, a hippo-like creature no one can tame, and the mighty, dragonish leviathan. "Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?" God asks with a touch of scorn. "The mere sight of him is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?"

Wildness is God's underlying message to Job, the one trait his menagerie all hold in common. God is celebrating those members of his created world that will never be domesticated by human beings. Wild animals bring us down a notch, reminding us of something we'd prefer to forget: our creatureliness. And they also announce to our senses the splendor of an invisible, untamable God.

Several times a week, I run among such wild animals, unmolested, for I run through Lincoln Park Zoo near downtown Chicago. I have gotten to know them well, as charming neighbors, but I always try mentally to project the animals into their natural states.

Three rock-hopper penguins neurotically pace back and forth on a piece of concrete that has been sprayed to look like ice. I envision them free, hopping from ice floe to ice floe in Antarctica among thousands of their comic-faced cousins.

An ancient elephant stands against a wall, keeping time three ways: his body sways from side to side to one beat, his tail marks a different rhythm entirely, and his trunk moves up and down to yet a third. I struggle to imagine this sluggish giant inspiring terror in an African forest.

And the paunchy cheetah lounging on a rock shelf — could this animal belong to the species that can, on a short course, out accelerate a Porsche?

It requires a huge mental leap for me to place the penguin, the elephant, and the cheetah all back where they belong, in "the world as God sees it." Somehow, God's lesson on wildness evaporates among the moats and plastic educational placards of the zoo.

Yet, I am fortunate to live near the zoo. Otherwise, Chicago would offer up only squirrels, pigeons, cockroaches, rats, and a stray songbird. Is this what God meant when he granted Adam dominion?

It is hard to avoid a sermonic tone when writing about wild animals, for our sins against them are great indeed. The elephant population alone has decreased by 800,000 in the last two decades, mostly due to poachers and rambunctious soldiers with machine guns. And every year, we destroy an area of rain forest — and all its animal residents — equal in size to the state of California.

Most wildlife writing focuses on the vanishing animals themselves, but I find myself wondering about the ultimate impact on us. What else, besides that innate appreciation for wildness, have we lost? Could distaste for authority, even a resistance to the concept of God as Lord, derive in part from an atrophied sense? God's mere mention of the animals struck a chord of awe in Job; what about us, who grow up feeding peanuts across the moat to the behemoths and leviathans?

Naturalist John Muir, who never had a vision for "the world as God sees it," reluctantly concluded, "it is a great comfort … that vast multitude of creatures, great and small and infinite in number, lived and had a good time of God's love before man was created."

The heavens declare the glory of God, and so do breaching whales and bouncing springboks. Fortunately, in some corners of the world, vast multitudes of creatures can still live and have a time in God's love. The least we can do is make room for them — for our sakes as well as theirs.
__________

"The God Who Can't Be Tamed," by Philip Yancey, Christianity Today, October 1987

Give Our Leaders the Finger...

...index fingers only, please!

What are you voting to protect?

Why are you committed to stopping global warming?

What do you really care about in this world?

Watch this video and consider doing this yourself:



What would you write on YOUR palm, below your green finger?

I think I'll write "OUR BLUE PLANET."

November 3rd, 2007
is the
National Day of Climate Action

Think GREEN today

On October 15th, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind - the environment. Every blogger will post about the environment in their own way and relating to their own topic. The idea is to get everyone talking towards a better future. Follow this link and take a look.

Today I plan to WEAR GREEN and offer this source of great TIPS that Neco (Anne) left in a comment on the post below this one:

Ideal Bite offers daily TIPS ON BEING GREEN.

Are You One in a Million?

Diane of Big Green Purse has a challenge:
"One in a Million" Campaign is urging a million women to shift $1,000 of money they'd spend in a year anyway to green products and services that can help protect the environment. It's important because:

Manufacturing to meet consumer demand drives pollution and climate change.
Pollution and climate change affect our health and safety.
If we use our consumer clout to improve manufacturing, we protect ourselves and the planet, too.

Because women spend $.85 of every dollar in the marketplace, we have the clout to make a difference. Hybrid cars? Organic food? Safe cosmetics? Green shopping has already had an impact.

Women are finding all kinds of ways to swap out "brown" products for "green."

Erin, a Green Purse Alerts! subscriber, joined the One in a Million Campaign at the beginning of this year. She recently sent the balance sheet she downloaded from the Big Green Purse website to help her track her eco purchases and report back on her pledge. It only took her six months to become "One in a Million." Her secret? She bought two water saving toilets for a total of almost $600, then made up the difference in organic groceries, safe cleansers, and organic potting soil.

For ideas on how you can swap your current purchases for green ones that would make a difference, visit the One in a Million campaign web page.

Some of the most important options (and ones that should be readily available in your neighborhood as well as on-line) include:

____ Organic, locally grown food (reduce pesticides)

____ Energy-efficient appliances (stop global warming)

____ Phthalate-free cosmetics (protect your health)

____ Fuel-efficient car (save energy, clear the air)

____ Fair trade, shade grown coffee (protect rainforests)

____ Non-toxic cleansers (protect your health, reduce toxins)

Northwest passage

An iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland in this July 19, 2007 file photo. Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record, new satellite images show, raising the possibility that the Northwest Passage that eluded famous explorers will become an open shipping lane. The European Space Agency said nearly 200 satellite photos taken together in Sept. 2007 showed an ice-free passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, and ice retreating to its lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978. (AP Photo/John McConnico)


Arctic ice melt opens Northwest Passage
By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, September 16, 2007

Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record, new satellite images show, raising the possibility that the Northwest Passage that eluded famous explorers will become an open shipping lane.

The European Space Agency said nearly 200 satellite photos this month taken together showed an ice-free passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, and ice retreating to its lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978.

The waters are exposing unexplored resources, and vessels could trim thousands of miles from Europe to Asia by bypassing the Panama Canal. The seasonal ebb and flow of ice levels has already opened up a slim summer window for ships.

Leif Toudal Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Center, said that Arctic ice has shrunk to some 1 million square miles. The previous low was 1.5 million square miles, in 2005.

"The strong reduction in just one year certainly raises flags that the ice (in summer) may disappear much sooner than expected," Pedersen said in an ESA statement posted on its Web site Friday.

Pedersen said the extreme retreat this year suggested the passage could fully open sooner than expected — but ESA did not say when that might be. Efforts to contact ESA officials in Paris and Noordwik, the Netherlands, were unsuccessful Saturday.

A U.N. panel on climate change has predicted that polar regions could be virtually free of ice by the summer of 2070 because of rising temperatures and sea ice decline, ESA noted.

Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the United States are among countries in a race to secure rights to the Arctic that heated up last month when Russia sent two small submarines to plant its national flag under the North Pole. A U.S. study has suggested as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden in the area.

Environmentalists fear increased maritime traffic and efforts to tap natural resources in the area could one day lead to oil spills and harm regional wildlife.

Until now, the passage has been expected to remain closed even during reduced ice cover by multiyear ice pack — sea ice that remains through one or more summers, ESA said.

Researcher Claes Ragner of Norway's Fridtjof Nansen Institute, which works on Arctic environmental and political issues, said for now, the new opening has only symbolic meaning for the future of sea transport.

"Routes between Scandinavia and Japan could be almost halved, and a stable and reliable route would mean a lot to certain regions," he said by phone. But even if the passage is opening up and polar ice continues to melt, it will take years for such routes to be regular, he said.

"It won't be ice-free all year around and it won't be a stable route all year," Ragner said. "The greatest wish for sea transportation is streamlined and stable routes."

"Shorter transport routes means less pollution if you can ship products from A to B on the shortest route," he said, "but the fact that the polar ice is melting away is not good for the world in that we're losing the Arctic and the animal life there."

The opening observed this week was not the most direct waterway, ESA said. That would be through northern Canada along the coast of Siberia, which remains partially blocked.
___

Associated Press Writer Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm, Sweden, contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6F_index_1.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070916/ap_on_sc/northwest_passage_13;_ylt=ArsEsCDeMJk8sBgSb.mZQngE1vAI

Moving Beyond Kyoto

July 1, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville
WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.

Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”

Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)

But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were the result of American leadership.

Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.

Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.

If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.

There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?

Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger bears down on us.

We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.

But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
_____
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of “The Assault on Reason.”

Yuppie chow?

Big Organics in Little, Eco-Unfriendly Packages
Not all organics are equal: Look beyond the label and at the packaging
—By Natalie Hudson, Utne.com
June 7, 2007 Issue

The organic bandwagon has become derailed as behemoths like Cargill, Kraft, ConAgra, and Coca-Cola all climb aboard. Critics of corporate organics have bristled that the meaning of organic agriculture -- with its focus on smaller farms and land stewardship -- is lost in a market currently saturated with mass-produced organic foods. And activists are warning that Big Organic's individually wrapped fare shipped around the world is compromising the organic movement's environmental credentials as well. But as long as food contains an organic label, consumers are eating it up.

At the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences held last week at the University of Saskatchewan, food activist Irena Knezevic presented her paper, "In Labels We Trust: A Critical Look at Consumer Need for Food Labeling." As reported by the Globe and Mail, Knezevic's research describes a consumer-driven trend of "status food" -- or "yuppie chow" -- for those concerned with "health and body image." Corporate organics target those with disposable income while ignoring the social and environmental issues at "the heart of organic agriculture." As an example of the corporate organic's bad environmental record, Knezevic cites the fact that much of Canada's organic food has to make the long, fossil-fueled trek from California. When factoring in the many miles that the often individually wrapped packages travel, the "environmental consequences" are "comparable to those of conventional food production."

Covering the same conference, Saskatoon's StarPhoenix, underlines Knezevic's warning to consumers to not be fooled by organic labels that give "the impression that all organic foods are equally good choices." Consumers, says Knezevic, should have access to information about whether their food was locally produced and whether farmers got a fair price for it, the Globe and Mail reports.

To help navigate the dubious web of organic labels, check out several diagrams created by Dr. Philip H. Howard, an assistant professor at Michigan State University. His diagrams outline the structure of the organic industry and give new meaning to the phrase "buyers beware," which should perhaps be amended to: conscious consumers beware.

Go there >> Has Big Business Turned Organics into "Yuppy Chow"?

Go there, too >> Corporations Jump on Organic Wagon

Liquid coal

The idea of turning coal into liquid to fill our gas tanks should just be a bad joke. But because the coal industry pours millions into lobbying Congress every year, this joke could turn into a real nightmare.

The senate is about to vote on a big bill dealing with energy and the climate crisis. Massive subsidies for coal were defeated in committee. But we're not out of the woods yet, since one of the coal-friendly senators could sneak them back in again as an amendment just before the final vote.

Liquid coal is a giant step backward in our fight against global warming—it produces twice as many greenhouse gases as conventional gasoline. Proposals to capture that pollution before it adds to global warming are still a pipe dream.

We have to reduce the greenhouse gases already in our air to stave off the worst effects of climate change—disease, drought, rising seas—so you'd think a giant program to make liquid coal a cornerstone of our economy would be too outrageous to consider. But continued pressure from the coal industry means key legislators introduce it over and over again.

Even the Roanoke Times, in the heart of coal country, condemned government promotion of liquid coal:

Coal-to-liquid technology is expensive, harmful to the environment and inefficient. The federal government should take no part in subsidizing it ... Liquefying coal is not the answer to either energy independence or a cleaner environment.
Some senators are standing strong against this false promise—Jon Tester from coal-rich Montana has said there should be no liquid coal without proven ways to capture the greenhouse gases.

But others are risking our future with dirty energy bills instead of supporting clean and affordable alternatives—like solar and wind.

Read more about it:
"Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process," New York Times, May 29, 2007

"Wrong path toward energy independence," Denver Post, June 9, 2007

"Billion Dollar Boondoggle," Roanoke Times, June 5 2007

"Tester: Offer incentives for carbon capture," Missoulian, June 2, 2007

Where’s EuroArnold?

As long as President Bush does not give German Chancellor Angela Merkel another one of those surprise neck rubs, the Group of 8 meetings should settle into cautious choreography on how to bring down the planet’s fever and reduce global inequities. But one other leader from the world’s major industrial powers should have been invited to this week’s summit at Heiligendamm — the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

While Mr. Bush angered his fellow world leaders this week with yet another foot-dragging proposal on climate change, the governor has been working his own brand of international diplomacy on the issue and leading by example. ... Only a handful of states use less energy, per capita, than California. No state has committed to such a broad change in lifestyle and environment. And no state has tried so consistently — even having to defy the federal government — to get to where the world wants to be on slowing climate change. California is what the rest of the nation could have been had not Vice President Cheney disparaged conservation as a wimp issue for the virtuous, choosing to perforate more public land in a last-gasp stumble for fossil fuels.

Not all of this is Arnold’s doing. An audacious plan to reduce auto emissions was enacted a year before he won the governor’s race in 2003. But despite enormous pressure from automakers, the governor has fully backed the measure and threatened to sue the federal government for the exemption California needs to move ahead. He went a step further when he signed a law committing California to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. And last week he was in Canada, making climate goal agreements with two provinces while blasting his own government for failing to show any leadership.

Home to one in eight Americans, with an economy bigger than Canada, California has global swagger — and the governor is starting to use it. The state is further along than any other country on this issue. “The power influence we have is the equivalent of a nation, or even a continent,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said last week in British Columbia. ... Check into any college lab in California, from the gilded interiors of Stanford to the mobile-home campuses in Riverside County, and you find a frenzy of experiments on how to light, heat, cool and transport ourselves without wrecking the globe. ... But to some fellow Republicans, he is a traitor ... Rush Limbaugh called him “a sellout.” But it took a former Mr. Universe to do what no significant Republican had yet to do: he said Mr. Limbaugh was “irrelevant.”

Mr. Schwarzenegger, the policeman’s son from a small town in Austria, has morphed into his logical political fit: EuroArnold, at home in the pragmatic politics of Tony Blair or Mrs. Merkel. It would have been intriguing to have him in Germany this week, showing the rest of the world that not all Americans are in the last century on the big issues of the day. And, of course, he’s one of the few Americans who’s used to wearing a Speedo without blushing.

"Where's EuroArnold" is excerpted from a New York Times article by Timothy Egan, a former Seattle correspondent for the NYT and author of “The Worst Hard Time.”

*P*E*A*C*E*

Two green stories

Two green stories: The title on the first story is enough to make me laugh. And I'm not the only one who thinks it's ridiculous.



Bush Calls for Global Emissions Goals
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
May 31, 2007

WASHINGTON - President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.

Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.

The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Bush will be on the spot.

The United States has refused to ratify the landmark 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from that first round of cuts. Bush rejected the Kyoto approach, as well as the latest German proposal for what happens after 2012.

"The United States takes this issue seriously," Bush said. "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

Along with his call for a global emissions goal, Bush urged other nations to eliminate tariffs on clean energy technologies.

Germany, which holds the European Union and Group of Eight presidencies, is proposing a so-called "2-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius _ the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit _ before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Instead, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global emissions goal. Each nation then would have to decide on how to achieve the goal, White House officials said.

"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," the president said.

"So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gasses, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

"Each country would establish midterm management targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs," he said. "In the course of the next 18 months, our nations will bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation, and alternative fuels and transportation."

Bush's critics were quick to respond, even before the president's speech had concluded.

Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Bush administration has a "do-nothing" policy on global warming despite U.S. allies' best efforts to spur U.S. reductions.

"Our allies' pleas for action add to the voices of many big corporations such as Dow, Shell, General Electric, and General Motors," Weiss said. "These and other Fortune 500 companies endorsed a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050, the level scientists indicate that we must reach to stave off the worst impacts. Unfortunately, these appeals from his foreign and corporate allies continue to fall on President Bush's deaf ears."

The U.S. last year actually experienced a drop in emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas most blamed for global warming. The 1.3 percent decline from 2005, the first drop in 11 years, was due to a mild winter followed by a cool summer.

Carbon dioxide is produced from burning fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which are used widely to produce electricity to heat homes in winter and run air conditioners in summer.

While Bush announced his new proposal, the administration registered its opposition to a number of approaches to combat global warming. Specifically, the White House said it does not support a global carbon-trading program allowing countries to buy and sell carbon credits to meet limits on carbon dioxide levels. The White House also expressed opposition to energy efficiency targets advocated by the EU, arguing that a standard applicable in one country does not fit another.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

“The president is warming up to throw his opening pitch while business, states and the rest of the world are already at the top of the ninth inning,” said NRDC Climate Center Policy Director and former climate treaty negotiator David Doniger. “It is nothing less than embarrassing that three of the worlds biggest oil companies are calling for tougher measure than the White House.” The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an environmental advocacy group.

Greenhouse-gas limits gain steam in states
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The White House and Congress are miles apart over proposals to stop global warming, but the debate is over in many states that are moving aggressively to curb greenhouse gases blamed for climate change.

Nearly half of the states are pursuing at least one of three main strategies to curb the burning of fossil fuels, a chief source of gases linked to global warming: cleaning up smokestacks, reducing auto exhaust or reaping more power from the sun and wind.

Last month, the Washington Legislature passed a measure similar to a landmark 2006 California law to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants and other industries to 1990 levels by 2020. Minnesota and New Hampshire this year set the highest goals for producing environment-friendly electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy — 25 percent by 2025. And Maryland just became the 12th state to mandate California’s stringent auto emissions standards.

Governors and state legislators are driven not just by green goals but also by a large dose of pragmatism. What’s good for the environment also can be good for a state’s economy, such as championing alternative energy to create jobs, protecting natural resources that would be harmed by global warming and keeping a lid on rising fuel prices that hit consumers and businesses alike.

"I don't just want wind farms. I want companies that build turbines. I want hybrid-vehicle companies to consult us on conservation strategies. I want companies that design solar panels,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) told the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor and renewable-energy advocates promoting clean power as an economic engine.

Julia Bovey, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental advocacy group, said states clearly are leading the federal government on the issue of global warming. But the scope of the problem requires a national federal policy not a patchwork of varying state laws, she said.

The chief challenge is how to curb carbon dioxide, the same gas exhaled by humans but released into the atmosphere in huge amounts with the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gasoline. Scientists have concluded that steep increases in fossil-fuel burning have warmed the Earth’s atmosphere, in what is called a greenhouse effect, with the potential to change the planet’s climate.

California is at the cutting edge with its requirement to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and other industrial sources 25 percent over the next 13 years. The California law also has implications beyond its borders because utilities will be required to purchase power from out-of-state plants that meet the emissions goals. Washington state is poised to follow suit with a bill passed in April.

On both coasts, states also are joining in regional “cap-and-trade” agreements that cap the amount of greenhouse gases that power plants can produce and allow polluters to buy and sell credits earned through extra reductions, creating economic incentives to cut emissions.

On the East Coast, Massachusetts and Rhode Island this year joined eight other states in a plan to cut carbon-dioxide emissions 10 percent by 2019.

In February, Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon agreed to join California and Washington state in a "cap-and-trade" system that will develop its emissions goals by August 2007.

Fears of global warming also have rejuvenated interest in renewable energy requirements that states began imposing more a decade ago to cut dependence on imported oil and gas and to reduce polluting coal-plant emissions. Citing global warming, Minnesota and New Hampshire this year joined 20 states in requiring utilities to get a percentage of their electricity from environment-friendly sources such as wind and solar power. Colorado and New Mexico this year have doubled previous requirements of clean electricity to 20 percent by 2020.

Nationwide, the renewable requirements will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions an estimated 108 million metric tons by 2020 — equivalent to removing nearly 18 million cars from the nation's roads, according to the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental think-tank.

California in 2002 was the first to go after auto emissions to curtail greenhouses gases. Now 11 other states have agreed to copy the Golden State’s requirement that cars curb carbon-dioxide emissions 30 percent by the 2016 model year.

While a group of automakers is challenging California's standards in three federal district courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on April 3 that the Environmental Protection Agency was wrong to refuse to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. That decision improves chances that the EPA will approve the law in California, the only state allowed to write stricter car-emission standards than the federal government.

Governors are aiming to improve the business climate in their states as well as the earth's atmosphere, said Michael Fedor, a spokesman for an alliance of wind and solar advocates as well as ranching, farming and forestry associations. Fedor's organization, the "25 X 25" group, is promoting the goal that 25 percent of the nation’s energy needs will be met by renewable energy by 2025.

In fact, there are big bucks to be made in the new energy economy. Wind energy companies spent $4 billion in 2006 as the nation's installed wind-generation capacity grew 27 percent, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Next year, wind energy is expected to grow 26 percent, according to the association.

State actions now are building pressure on the new Democratic majority in Congress to take action against global warming. At least six bills for reducing carbon-dioxide emissions have been introduced in the U.S. Senate this year, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan, has held a dozen hearings on the prospect of climate-change legislation.

While President Bush has acknowledged the "serious problem of global-climate change,” he has questioned how much human activity has contributed to the earth's rising temperature and so far has rejected government mandates to cut carbon dioxide.

Several governors, on the other hand, including some of Bush's fellow Republicans, not only acknowledge the potential catastrophic effects of global warming but also are leading advocates for government intervention. At least 16 governors this year proposed efforts to stanch climate change in their state of the state addresses, according to the National Governors Association.

That includes California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who banked his successful 2006 re-election in part on his actions to curb carbon-dioxide emissions. Even South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), a Southern conservative, launched a task force in February to determine not whether global warming exists, but how it how will impact the state and what steps could be taken to mitigate the problem. More than a dozen other states, from Alaska to Florida, have similar advisory groups.

I give you a green thumb

Click on this FLOWER and keep clicking to grow as many flowers as you want.

Why bees are disappearing

May 18, 2005
BEE MITES SUPPRESS BEE IMMUNITY,
OPEN DOOR FOR VIRUSES AND BACTERIA

Science Daily — A non-native bee mite is causing the dramatic and sudden collapse of bee colonies across the country, but Penn State researchers believe they have found the combination of factors that triggers colony deaths which includes suppression of the bee immune system by the mites.

The Varroa destructor mite is a honey bee parasite that feeds much like a tick on the body of a bee. The mites are about the size of a pin head, dark brown in color and visible on close inspection.

This bee mite probably arose in the Eastern or Chinese Honey Bee population and hopped over to the United States in 1987. They quickly infested western or European honey bees. One sign of infection is the presence of bees with deformed wings. Also, sometimes seemingly healthy colonies become ill and the complete hive collapses in about two weeks.

"The native Chinese bees do not have the same problems," says Dr. Xiaolong Yang, post doctoral researcher in entomology and plant pathology, who raised bees in China. "I do not recall seeing deformed wing bees in the Chinese bee. Chinese honey bees have grooming behavior which can remove the mites from the bees. They get rid of the mites."

While researchers know that the Varroa mite is behind the death of bee colonies, the mechanism causing the deaths is still unknown. Yang and Dr. Diana L. Cox-Foster, Penn State professor of entomology, now believe that a combination of bee mites, deformed wing virus and bacteria is causing the problems occurring in hives across the country.

"Once one mite begins to feed on a developing bee, all the subsequent mites will use the same feeding location," says Cox-Foster "Yang has seen as many as 11 adult mites feeding off of one bee. Other researchers have shown that both harmful and harmless bacteria may infect the feeding location."

Deformed wing virus is endemic among honey bees in the U.S., although when the European bees became historically infested with this virus, is unknown. However, simply having deformed wing virus does not cause bees to emerge from the pupa state with deformed wings, nor does it cause colony deaths.

"A group of Japanese researchers found that a virus that is 99 percent the same as deformed wing, appears in in the brains of aggressive guard bees," says Cox-Foster. "Guard bees that are aggressive better protect the hive, so there may be some positive effect in this virus that allows it to persist in a colony."

The combination of bee mite infestation and deformed wing virus does cause deformed wings in about a quarter of the emerging bees. This, however, does not lead to sudden hive collapse. Something else is involved that makes bee mites so harmful to bee colonies.

The Penn State researchers report their findings in today's (May 17) online version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Yang and Cox-Foster looked at how bee mites affect the bee immune system. They injected heat-killed E. coli bacteria into virus-infected bees that were either infested with bee mites or mite free. The dead bacteria was used to trigger an immune response in the bees in the same way human vaccines cause our bodies to produce an immune response. They checked the bees for production of chemicals that disinfect the honey and for other immunity related chemicals.

They also measured the amount of virus in each bee. Surprisingly, they found that the virus in mite-infested bees rapidly increased to extremely high levels when the bee was exposed to the bacteria. The virus levels in mite-free bees did not change when the bee was injected with bacteria.

One chemical, GOX or glucose oxidase, is put into the honey by worker bees and sterilizes the honey and all their food. If bees have mites, their production of GOX decreases.

"As mites build up, we suspect that not as much GOX is found in the honey and the honey has more bacteria," says Cox-Foster. "It is likely that the combination of increased mite infestation, virus infection and bacteria is the cause of the two-week death collapse of hives."

The mites suppressed other immune responses in the bees, leaving the bees and the colonies more vulnerable to infection. The bee mites transfer from adult bees to late stage larva. The virus can be transferred through many different pathways.

"This system is important not only because of what the mites are doing to honey bee populations in the U.S., but because it can be used as a model system for exploring what happens to viruses in animal or human populations," says Cox-Foster. "If we view the colony as a city, then we have a variety of infection modes -- queen to eggs, workers to food supply, bee to bee, and parasite to bee."
__________
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture supported this work.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Penn State.

Laundry on the line

April 19th was National Hanging Out Day, a day which was created to demonstrate how it is possible to save money and energy by using a clothesline. I missed the day, but learned about it from Susan's Patchwork Reflection blog.

When I was a girl, I hung clothes out to dry because my red-haired mother's fair skin would burn in even a few minutes of sun. That excuse didn't work in the winter when it was so cold my fingers felt frozen by the wet clothes.

"Air-drying our clothes would reduce our dependence on environmentally and culturally costly energy sources," according to Project Laundry List. So why don't we do it anymore? I remember the frozen fingers, but I also live in an apartment. There's no way I could dry a load of wash on my postage-stamp-sized patio. Some places forbid clotheslines, but would it be worthwhile to make changes so more of us could hang out clothes? Or is it just too easy to throw the clothes from the washer into the dryer?

Read more about this at Project Laundry List.

Living off the grid

DON'S SOLAR SCOOTER
Don Dunklee offers a set of plans for a street legal, affordable, and dependable solar-powered scooter. The PV panels fold in for driving and out for charging. Don rides his scooter five miles to work each day and folds out the panels for charging the battery while the scooter is parked at work. And he has now been doing this for 2-3 years and has traveled thousands of miles using solar power. What will they think of next!!!??? See another photo and read about it here: http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/PV/pvscooter.htm

GERTIE THE GAS GUZZLER
Andy Baird took up full-time RVing and converted Gertie the Gas Hog, which once got 8mpg, into a solar-powered home on wheels. He spends less on gas and electricity than he did when he drove to and from work in a Honda. And now he leisurely meanders north in the spring and south in the fall. All because he solar-paneled Gertie. Check it out here: http://www.andybaird.com/travels/saving-the-earth.htm

NANO-TOWER DESIGN
Better design, better results, right? Not yet. The Georgia Tech Research Institute unveiled a new solar panel in April with a different design. The solar panels I've seen are flat, but the new design has "an array of nano-towers" that are like microscopic blades of grass. That adds surface area and thus traps more sunlight, resulting in a big jump in current generated, about 60 times more than traditional solar cells. Wow, I'm impressed. But now comes the part that confuses me: to generate electricity, a cell has to churn out voltage as well as current. And this invention falls short because of "too much resistance within the cell to produce the type of electricity that's needed." Surely, if these folks keep working on this new design, they'll find a way to make it work better. Read the full aticle: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070411/techbit-better-solar-panel.htm

Canada's Climate Plan

Canada announced an initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020. That sounds good, except the Conservative government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Canada's emissions are currently 30% above 1990 levels.

Former Vice President Al Gore said, "In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud ... designed to mislead the Canadian people." The focus is on reducing the intensity of emissions rather than on tough, overall curbs. According to Gore the phrase "intensity reduction," which allows industries to increase their greenhouse gas outputs as they raise production, was developed by think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and other large polluters. He acknowledged that, as an American, he had "no right to interfere" in Canadian decisions, but that the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership.

Canada's Environment Minister John Baird rejected Gore's criticisms. "The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," he said, inviting Gore to discuss climate change and the Conservatives' environmental policies. On the other hand, Canadian opposition Liberal leader Stephane Dion agrees with Gore. "Mr. Baird is embarrassing Canada around the world. The world expects Canada will do its share -- more than that, that Canada will be a leader -- and we are failing the world. We are failing Canadians."

We need trees

When I was in elementary school, I learned about deforestation. I got the idea that we were losing all the trees in the world, and I love trees! So I decided then and there that I would have a tree of my very own. I'd put a fence around it so nobody could ever cut down "the last tree in the world."

Obviously, I had not yet learned that, without lots of trees, I wouldn't be there to save the last tree. Without trees, the world would be filled with carbon dioxide, lacking the oxygen I would need to breathe, to live. So now that I'm an adult, I want to save not one, but a world-full of trees. (Is "world-full" a word?) We need trees! While we breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, trees take in carbon dioxide and "exhale" oxygen. Pretty good system, huh?

So once again, class, why do we need trees? To absorb carbon dioxide and to provide oxygen, for one thing. Let's all do what we can to reduce deforestation. Plant more trees!

Cool Climate

On Saturday Margreet posted something in Dutch on her Margreet's Musings blog, with an explanation "FOR MY ENGLISH SPEAKING READERS: This is a Dutch initiative, supported by politicians and other wellknown persons."

I posted a comment on her blog, saying, "Okay, Margreet, I see some words I recognize and can figure out what you are talking about:

CoolClimate, of course, is obvious
de klimaatcrisis ~ and we're in a crisis.
auto ~ part of the problem?
windmolenparken ~ wind power?
groene ~ is this "green"?

I'd say this has to do with global warming and what the Netherlands hopes to do about it. If you'll give me a summary or a translation, I'll post something about it on my Greening the Blue Planet blog." And on Sunday she did share an English version of her post.

Bonnie, and everyone, here's the translation of the article I posted yesterday:

What does Cool Climate want?

Cool Climate asks for action from the politicians, now! Together we ask The Hague to counter global warming. The Netherlands should become a champion in the battle against the climate crisis. We know what to do: plans and techniques are available. Now is the time to use them. We want to make clean cars cheaper and polluting cars more expensive. We want big windmill parks for green electricity. We want to reward 'green' companies and we want better and faster public transport.

One does not stop climate change alone. Climate change touches everybody. That is why we ask as many people as possible to join Cool Climate. Together we will ask the cabinet (government) to take clear steps against global warming. Support our demands to the government and join Cool Climate.

The Netherlands is a small country, compared to the United States. Why aren't we clamoring for our politicians to do something?

What a beautiful Earth Day!

Today is Earth Day, which I spent with friends and family. In the early afternoon I went to the Zoo with my friend Emily, where our town was having a party for the earth. Children made bird houses, planted flowers along the walking paths, looked shy as they approached animals in the petting zoo, and generally had a great time. When we got to the pen with camels, one scruffy-looking male came over and gave me the eye, as he chewed and swiveled his lower jaw. I gave HIM a look and said, "Don't bother to spit in my eye; I'm wearing glasses." He didn't.

Where my friends were "manning" the tables, I signed a petition to restore weekly curbside recycling in the City of Chattanooga, picked up literature on climate change and global warming, and found a great pendant that said, "I saw the truth -- An Inconvenient Truth." I asked how much, wanting to buy it, so someone went to ask. "Oh, no, it isn't for sale!" the owner said. "Al Gore gave it to me." To forestall anyone else trying to buy it, she slipped it around her neck. I'm gonna see if I can't find one for myself.

After the zoo, Emily and I went to Home Depot, expecting to hunt down the free compact fluorescent blubs they would be giving away. But there was a table outside the door. We parked, we signed our names and zip codes, and the young woman handed each of us a bulb. Ha, it looks exactly like the one I googled Friday and posted (below). And I finished off the day's adventures by going to another party, for my youngest grandchild, who turned SEVEN today. Everything was GREEN at the Zoo, but everything was PINK at her party. When I got home, my neighbors were celebrating Earth Day by planting flowers. The sun was shining, and the temperature here got up to about 82F (that would be about 28C). It's been a very good day, and now I'm tired and ready to sleep.

Free Light Bulbs This Sunday

... a big "green" help for EARTH DAY, April 22.
Diane MacEachern of Big Green Purse has alerted her readers about a "green" bargain: Home Depot will celebrate Earth Day this Sunday by giving away a million free compact fluorescents. These bulbs normally cost $7.99. On the other hand, they could save you $20-$30 on your electricity bill over the life of the bulb. Where do the benefits come from?

Compact fluorescents last ten times as long and use 75% LESS energy than a regular incandescent.

They help improve air quality and reduce asthma rates, since utilities need to burn less energy (think coal-fired power plants) to power the light.

They save time. You can install a CFL and not have to worry about changing that light bulb again for years.

Because they use so little energy, they're a great way to reduce global warming.

WHERE NOT TO USE CFLs:

outside when temperatures are cold
in dimmer switches
on timers

HOW TO DISPOSE OF CFLs:

Compact fluorescents contain minuscule amounts of mercury (5 mlg, compared to the 500 mlg in a home thermometer). Check with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Some recommend the bulb be disposed with hazardous waste. Others want it sealed in a plastic baggie and thrown in the regular trash. Best option: Recycle the bulb with www.lamprecycle.org. Some IKEA stores take back used CFLs, too.

WHAT TO DO IF A CFL BREAKS:

The Environmental Protection Agency recommends sweeping up (not vacuuming) the broken glass and loose material; mopping up the remnants with a damp paper cloth that you can dispose of in a sealed plastic bag; and ventilating the room.

P.S. This has not been a paid promotion.

Ethanol: A Tragic Diversion

"Ethanol will not be our clean, green savior!" So said an article by Murray Dobbin this week. He pointed out that we citizens in industrialized societies will continue to cling to our extravagant lifestyles and massive over-consumption. Why? Because "global climate change is still seen by most people -- even those who have no doubt of its human origins -- as something that can be fixed by legislation, tougher rules and punitive penalties on big polluters -- and that allegedly clean and green quick fix, ethanol. Yes, we can all keep our individual chunks of steel, rubber and glass, those symbols of 20th century excess and irrationality, so long as we shift to burning alcohol."

Dobbin called this a "mass delusion" which was "madness enough to inspire the still-ailing Fidel Castro out of his bed to write the first editorial he has written for the country's principal newspaper, Granma, since last falling ill last July. It's not as if there is a lack of issues for the grand old commander-in-chief to comment on. But this one he deemed the most important. Why? To quote Castro himself:

"More than three billion people in the world are being condemned to a premature death from hunger and thirst.... The sinister idea of turning foodstuffs into fuel was definitely established as the economic strategy of the U.S. foreign policy on Monday, March 26th last."

That was the very day President Bush met with the Big Three auto CEOs and "declared ethanol to be the next strategic fuel for the empire -- and a partial answer to its failed Middle East policies," says Dobbin. Let me quote the rest of the article:

Castro was talking about corn but this is not the only grain that the ethanol pushers are talking about -- wheat, sunflower seeds, canola and other foodstuffs are already being used and targeted by, amongst others, the big oil companies. The demand for ethanol will be so enormous that only the largest and best capitalized corporations in the U.S. will be able to take advantage -- driving smaller producers out by driving up the price of corn.

Bush proclaimed coming out the meeting with the Big Three that he is aiming at reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years -- a staggering number if it is to be taken seriously, requiring 35 billion gallons of ethanol. Of course Bush and his corporate allies talked about using wood chips and switchgrass, too, but corn is the key. To produce that much ethanol would take 320 million tons of corn. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organizations (FAO) says that U.S. corn production in 2005 reached 280 million tons and the U.S. produces 40 percent of the world's corn, controlling the market price. It doesn't take complicated math to see that just to meet U.S. ethanol demands within 10 years will take up 46 percent of the world's corn supply.

This is an obscenity. Because most of these billions of tons of corn are now eaten by the world's people -- most of them poor -- or fed to their livestock. Ultimately, it means that the world will have to produce more and more grain just to stand still and at the same time that the demand for ethanol increases the price of corn. The FAO says the competition between grain for fuel and grain for food is already happening and was the principal explanation for the decline in world grain stocks during the first half of 2006.

As Castro pointed out in his Granma article, not only will corn be priced out of reach for millions, "What is worse, let the poor countries receive some financing to produce ethanol from corn or any other foodstuff and very soon not a single tree will be left standing to protect humanity from climate change." He also pointed out, demonstrating that his grasp of world events is as acute as ever, that the increased demand for grain for energy will also greatly exacerbate the already critical water shortage facing two thirds of humanity.

Discouraging numbers

Despite this catastrophic scenario there are still those who will argue that the trade-off has to be considered, that global climate change due to carbon emissions must be tackled. But recently two Canadian studies raised serious doubts about what we actually get in this morally questionable trade. The U.S. may well get a strategic replacement for oil but there are serious doubts the world's climate will benefit. One study was done by the Library of Parliament's Frédéric Forge working in its science and technology division. Forge says the benefit of the massive effort required to use 10 percent ethanol in all vehicles will be minor: "In fact, if 10 percent of the fuel used were corn-based ethanol [in other words, if it were used in all vehicles], Canada's greenhouse gas emissions would drop by approximately one percent."

But an unpublished study by Environment Canada says even this estimate is questionable. A recent CBC report -- it came and went with no one else touching it and was not repeated -- revealed that scientists at Environment Canada studied four vehicles of recent makes, comparing normal emissions with a 10 percent ethanol blend and using a range of driving conditions. The study revealed that there was virtually no statistically significant difference in greenhouse gas tail pipe emissions. Some of the hydrocarbon gas emissions actually increased under some conditions.

The delusional thinking that tells us we can maintain our current lifestyles and save the planet will, sooner or later, be relegated to history's dustbin. The sooner we dispose of that part of the delusion embodied by "salvation by ethanol" the better.

Murray Dobbin writes his State of the Nation column twice monthly for The Tyee. © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/50189/

Wind hole

Wind power, yes. I have long known about windmills providing power, but this concept is something new, or at least newer. In this scheme it's the air pressure that does the work.

This week I learned from a Stateline.org article that a consortium of Iowa power companies is planning to fill a big underground hole with pressurized air which would then be released to generate electricity. The graphic below shows how it would work. (Click on the picture to enlarge it.)


Obviously, it isn't a brand-new concept, as two other air-storage caverns already exist, one in Alabama and one in Germany. But the "Iowa wind hole" (as the writer called it) would be "the only one to use wind power to pump air under the earth."

Wind-powered turbines would pump air into a porous rock formation roughly 3,000 feet below the earth, and that compressed air would later be released, spinning turbines that would generate electricity. "Air also could be pumped underground using conventionally generated power at times of non-peak demand for electricity, such as at night, and released to generate power when electric rates are high. That’s how the air storage sites in Alabama and Germany operate."

You can read the whole article by clicking here: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=188977

Iowa's governor is also pushing to develop the state's renewable energy industry, now based largely on producing ethanol from corn. Ethanol is perceived by some to be the next way we power our cars, but ... take a look at my post above this one.

"We have met the enemy..."

This famous Earth Day poster from 1971 seems appropriate today as 1420 Step-It-Up groups gather today to encourage the Senate to push through legislation lowering carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

Thinking Blogger Award

Many thanks to Stephanie for nominating me for this Thinking Blogger Award. I have already found a spot to put it for now. See it over there at the top of the sidebar? Now I am required to nominate five others and link this post back to the award's originator HERE. I have thought for two days, trying to decide whom to tap. My decision has been made the more difficult because most of those I read regularly have already received the award, making me a Thinking Reader, as well.

My choices, should they decide to accept the award, are these excellent bloggers who give me a lot to think about:

Margreet of Margreet's Musings
Ursi of Ursi's Blog
Isabella of Magnificent Octopus
Sharon of Bibliobibuli
Matthew and friends of Chattanooga Energy Hub

You, my friends, shall receive either a gold or a silver award, your choice. The award, which has been traversing the blogsphere, comes with a challenge. Those who have been awarded are asked to name five others they would pass along the “thinking blogger” torch to. I read other people’s blogs for many reasons: good writing, a sense of humor, a glimpse into a lifestyle unlike my own, or the blogger’s unique personality. I read to learn, to be inspired, and to enjoy good pictures. Now it's your turn to choose five. Go for it!

Earth Day 2007

Earth Day is April 22. I took part in the FIRST Earth Day in 1970 and brought home some literature and at least a couple of buttons I can remember. One button showed a balance on an upside-down V, and the other said "Stop at 2." My son David was interested, so I showed him that the balance had a stick person on one side and a tree on the other, meaning we should balance our human needs with the needs of the planet. The "Stop at 2" button was about population growth and the overpopulation of some parts of the earth. If two parents have only two children, they would not make population growth any worse. After giving it some thought, David said he agreed with the idea. I said, "David, think about it." Suddenly his 6-year-old eyes widened as he realized the personal implications for himself, the third child. Just for the record, I never wore that button.

New Global Warming Warning from U.N.

Scientists See Hunger, Disease, Extinction

WASHINGTON – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of alarming threats to the planet in a new report on global warming. The United Nations organization detailed dangers ranging from hunger and disease to species extinction in the report based on voluminous scientific data collected in the last five years.

“Time is wasting,” said Senator Bernie Sanders. “There no longer is any debate among serious scientists that our planet is in grave danger unless we undo the man-made damage to our environment from carbon dioxide pollution and from other greenhouse gases,” added the lead sponsor of the most sweeping Senate legislation to counter the effects of global warming.

Sanders also called it “disappointing and embarrassing” that the United States, according to reports from Brussels, joined representatives of China and Saudi Arabia in raising objections to the report and trying to water down the more serious warnings.

The same U.N. panel in February issued a report that concluded with virtual certainty that humans have been the main cause of warming in the past half century. The latest report examined the impact on animals, water supplies, ice sheets and regional climate conditions.

The report is available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/. It said that up to 30 percent of the Earth's species face an increased risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the average in the 1980s and '90s. Dry areas will become even more parched while other places on the planet will become more vulnerable to flooding, severe storms, and coastal erosion.

Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, are sponsors of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which calls for a reduction of emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and by Sens. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Frank R. Lautenberg, (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.). Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading figure in the fight against global warming, has called the Sanders-Boxer bill is “an excellent piece of legislation.”

Sanders also said it is imperative that the United States devote significant resources to greatly increase the use of solar power, wind turbines, geothermal energy and other forms of sustainable and renewable energy. “The United States is lagging far behind other countries in this area and we’ve got to turn our policies around.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 6, 2007
1:36 PM

The Secret Life of Lobsters

: How Fishermen and Scientists Are Unraveling the Mysteries of Our Favorite Crustacean

by Trevor Corson, copyright 2004

Prologue: Setting Out, 2001
Lobsters are fewer than in previous years. Bruce Fernald's boat in 2001 is the Double Trouble, and Jacob Pickering is his sternman. Jack Merrill has the Bottom Dollar. Bob steneck, a scientist, is on the R/V Connecticut, with the ROV Phantom.

Part One: Trapping

1. A Haul of Heritage
In 1973, after 4 years in the Navy, Bruce goes out with his father Warren in the Mother Ann. Bruce's great-great-great-grandfather Henry Fernald settled on Great Cranberry when lobster traps were "newfangled technology." Jack's family lived in suburban Massachusetts, and he spent his summers on Little Cranberry Island because his father's ancestors had come from Maine. Jack learned lobstering from Warren Fernald.

2. Honey Holes
Bruce's boat was Pa's Pride, which he bought from his brother Mark, who had bought it from Warren. Their brother Dan bought a fiberglass boat in 1974. Lee Hamm "has a knack for planting his traps in the depressions in the seafloor, where lobsters liked to hide and hunt. He called these spots his honey holes" (p. 33).

Part Two: Mating

3. Scent of a Woman
Jelle Atema, who came to America from the Netherlands, studied lobsters at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, starting in 1970. He first hypothesized that a sex pheromone from female lobsters attracted the males.

4. The Man Show
Jelle Atema had huge new lobster tanks and was surprised to find the females going to the dominant male in the tank, who "simply waited at home" (p. 62). When the first female left, another female came calling at the home of the dominant male. Meanwhile, the human males of Little Cranberry Island were also looking for mates.

5. Sex, Size, and Videotape

Diane Cowan began watching lobsters in the tank. She discovered the non-dominant male (of two in a tank with five females) did NOT get to mate because females waited their turn with the dominant male. Later, Diane snipped antennules, so the lobsters couldn't smell, and one experiment got ugly. "Cutting the antennules off males had left them pugnacious and inept, but the females had still managed to cajole the noseless males into a standard courtship routine. Cutting the antennules off females, by contrast, had nullified the routine and caused chaos" (p. 81). The females' ability to smell was key to successful mating.

Part Three: Fighting
6. Eviction Notice
When Bob Steneck, marine ecologist at the University of Maine, tried to sneak up to observe lobsters, they were alerted by pressure waves emitted by the bubbles in his scuba regulator and turned to face him with claws raised (p. 88). So he set up lobster "neighborhoods" of PVC-pipe homes and watched them from a boat using a miniature ROV that didn't bother the lobsters (p. 91). I loved the lobster eviction process, with the larger lobster knocking on a claw (like on a door), the smaller one coming out and stepping aside, and the big guy moving in (p. 97). I wanted to see a big lobster "at home" in his cubbyhole. Enlarge the photo by clicking on it, and you'll see this one up close and personal.

7. Battle Lines
One of the lobstermen told Bob that if he wanted to do research in their territory, all he had to do was ask. Because he was keen to observe ever better neighborhoods, it wasn't long before Bob had talked Arnie and his colleagues into removing their traps from a section of their best fishing ground so he could census the local population of lobsters. It was a feat unequaled in the history of lobster science, and it signaled a new era of collaborative research. (p. 112)

8. The War of the Eggs
The government argued that the minimum size of lobsters needed to be raised to increase egg production (p. 122). Jack Merrill used the same report to argue that: "The V-notching program holds substantial promise as a means of protecting the brood stock. If we assume for the sake of comparison that one out of every four un-notched egged females that is caught gets V-notched every year, then total egg production will be more than doubled for only a slight decline in catch" (p. 123).

9. Claw Lock

Lobsters have an interesting fight method, with one giving up before his shell shatters. The real battle reported in this chapter, though, is between Maine's lobstermen and the government scientists. The government calls into question the scientific expertise of Bob Steneck, who is on the side of the lobstermen. Bob had shown the large lobsters easily fight off the small ones, but when presented with a whole crowd on contenders, the big ones would rather walk away than fight constantly. But the government ruled that "Dr. Steneck's work ... does not provide sufficient scientific evidence to advise terminating the gauge increases" (p. 135).

Part Four: Surviving

10. The Superlobsters

11. Attack of the Killer Fish

12. Kindergarten Cops

Part Five: Sensing

13. See No Evil

14. Against the Wind

Part Six: Brooding

15. Gathering the Flock

16. Victory Dance

17. Fickle Seas

Epilogue: Hauling In, 2001