|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 4th, 2008 Energy Independence Not For The US - But For Iran (based on Natural Gas) and for Israel (based on electric cars) - Gal Luft of Washington Post. At around $145 a barrel, the U.S., by my calculations, will spend more on imported oil this year than it will spend on its own defense budget, and much of that money will flow into the coffers of those who wish us ill. Iran is moving quickly toward energy independence. The Islamic republic has lots of crude but little capacity to refine it, leaving Tehran heavily dependent on gasoline imports. Ahmadinejad is fully aware that this is Iran’s Achilles’ heel and worries that a comprehensive gasoline embargo could cause enough social unrest to undermine his regime. So Ahmadinejad has launched an energy-independence program designed to shift Iran’s transportation system from gasoline to natural gas, which Iran has plenty of. “If we can change our automobiles’ fuel from gasoline to [natural] gas during the next three-four years,” he said last July, “we won’t need gasoline anymore.” His plan includes a mandate for domestic automakers to make “dual-fuel” cars that can run on both gasoline and natural gas, a crash program to convert used vehicles to run on natural gas and a program to convert Iranian gas stations to serve both kinds of fuel. Ahmadinejad’s plan means that within five years, Iran could be virtually immune to international sanctions. Last year, Israel launched an electric-car venture designed to turn it into an oil-free economy. Israelis will be able to replace their gasoline-fueled cars with battery-operated ones, which they’ll plug into thousands of recharging points to be erected throughout the country. Motorists will be able to swap their batteries in a matter of minutes at dedicated stations or recharge them at home or at work. The writer is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. (Washington Post) Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 4th, 2008 We received an e-mail showing how little costs to buy gasoline (in German called Benzin) and diesel fuel if you live in a so called developing oil-exporting country or in the USA Date: July 4, 2008 1 Liter = 0.264174 gal (US Liq) The Austrian e-mail evokes the following list. We went then and looked up other countries and found that Austria is actually a bargain when compared to other developed economies. The Austrian 1.32 Euro/liter is 2.16 times what the complaining American sissies are paying, but only 78.7% of what Norwegians are paying or 80.7% of what the Dutch are paying. On the other hand Japan at 0.99 Euro/liter is another chaeap-shot so is Canada at 0.88 Euro/liter. And you know already what we think? Those that pay more for their gasoline have also decreased their dependence on oil by efficiency methods and conservation - they also developed alternatives to oil and have started building the economy of the future. So, it is actually the US that is falling behind while it transfers its funds to the Gulf States hoping that the increased National Debt will devalue the US$ to the point that it remains valueless paper in their hand.The problem is that they do not sit on the money anymore. They actually buy assets with that money - among that buying spree they also buy up chunks of America. So what then? Will they agree to American taxation without representation - or the US will eventually find out that Bush made a Faustian Deal with the US oil companies and with his Arab friends. Our advice to our Austrian readers is thus - DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TAX ON FUEL - BUT MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS USED SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY LESS OF IT. The following is what we got in the mail - then look at what we added for the sake of analysis. if our other readers want to get the actual numbers in US dollars, please use the above conversion factors. BENZINPREISE INTERNATIONAL Benzin that is Gasoline - but much of the posting is about Diesel - this because in Europe the motor-fuel of choice is high quality Diesel. Afghanistan Normalbenzin € 0,43 Algerien Diesel € 0,11 Aserbaidschan Diesel € 0,31 Ägypten Diesel € 0,14 Ãthiopien Super € 0,24 Bahamas Diesel € 0,25 Bolivien Super € 0,25 Brasilien Diesel € 0,54 China Normal € 0,45 Ecuador Normal € 0,24 Ghana Normal € 0,09 !!!!!!! Grönland Super € 0,50 Guyana Normal € 0,67 Hong Kong Diesel € 0,84 Indien Diesel € 0,62 Indonesien Diesel € 0,32 Irak Super € 0,60 Kasachstan Diesel € 0,44 Katar Super € 0,15 Kuwait Super € 0,18 Kuba Normal € 0,62 Libyen Diesel € 0,08 !!!!!!! Malaysia Super € 0,55 Mexico Diesel € 0,41 Moldau Normal € 0,25 Oman Super plus € 0,20 Peru Diesel € 0,22 Philippinen Diesel € 0,69 Russland Super € 0,64 Saudi Arabien Diesel € 0,07 !!!!!! Südafrika Diesel € 0,66 Swasiland Super € 0,10 !!!!!! Syrien Diesel € 0,10 !!!!! Trinidad Super € 0,33 Thailand Super € 0,65 Tunesien Diesel € 0,49 USA Diesel € 0,61 Venezuela Diesel € 0,07 !!!!! Vereinigte Arabische Emirate Diesel € 0,18 Vietnam Diesel € 0,55 Weißrussland Diesel € 0,51 EU und dem Finanzminister sei dank ist der Österreicher bzw. Europäer dumm Bitte dieses E-Mail weiter zu schicken damit wenigstens einige Leute Benzinpreise auf der eigenen Webseite And looking at international prices for July 4, 2008 at - http://benzinpreis.de/international.phtm… Land Normalbenzin in € Superbenzin in € SuperPlus in € Diesel in € Österreich 1,26 1,29 * 1,28 1,32 * UK 1,40 1,46 1,50 1,58 Finnland 1,47 1,50 1,50 1,36 Frankreich 1,39 1,34 * 1,44 1,37 * Irland 1,26 1,26 1,15 1,43 Island 1,35 1,40 1,47 1,50 Israel - 1,05 - - Italien 1,36 1,46 1,34 1,45 Japan 0,99 1,08 - 0,79 Kanada 0,88 0.87 0.82 0.90 Neuseeland 1,03 0,97 - 1,46 Niederlande 1,56 1,61 1,69 1,31 ** Norwegen 1,60 1,61 1,46 1,56 Schweden 1,37 1,39 1,36 1,47 Schweiz 1,24 1,21 * 1,23 1,37 * Ungarn 1,29 1,26 1,20 1,31 Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 4th, 2008 Groundbreaking Lawsuit Accuses Big Oil of Conspiracy to Deceive Public About Climate Change. Now you see why the Bushies love “tort reform”… Posted by Democracy Now!, www.Democracy Now! on July 3, 2008. Earlier this week a judge in Georgia blocked the construction of a coal-fired power plant because the plant did not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions. In what is being described as an unprecedented ruling, the judge said the plant could not receive an air pollution permit unless it limits its emissions. Today we are going to look at the rapidly growing field of global warming litigation. I am joined here in Aspen, Colorado by the attorney Steve Susman. He is the founding partner of the law firm Susman Godfrey. Earlier this year he helped file a groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of 400 Inuit villagers in the Alaskan town of Kivalina who are being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by global warming. The suit accuses 20 oil, gas and electric companies of being responsible for emitting millions of tons of greenhouse gases causing the Arctic ice to melt. Companies named in the suit include ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Peabody. The suit also accuses eight of the corporations of being involved in a conspiracy to mislead the public about the causes of global warming. Susman and his legal team have adopted a legal strategy similar to that used by lawyers who fought Big Tobacco in the 1990s. Susman was also involved in that litigation – he was an attorney for the tobacco giant Philip Morris. Steve Susman also recently represented the Texas Cities for Clear Air Coalition in their successful effort to block the energy company TXU from building 10 new coal-burning power plants. The case was featured in Robert Redford’s documentary, “Fighting Goliath—Texas Coal Wars.” Attorney Steve Susman joins me here in Aspen. Steve Susman is founding partner of the law firm Susman Godfrey. He recently filed a pioneering global warming lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and 20 other oil, coal and electric companies on behalf of residents of the Alaskan Native coastal village of Kivalina. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 25th, 2008 Eat Shit and Die: Contaminated Veggies Are the Meat Industry’s Fault: The latest salmonella scare shows that even vegetarians are still at the mercy of the meat industry. Despite being one of the most grotesquely overfed populations in recent memory, Americans remain preoccupied only with the quantity, not the quality, of their food. They don’t mind if scientists inject their french fries with high-fructose corn syrup as long as McDonald’s super-sizes their order for a nickel. Yet, the attitude toward vegetarianism is changing in the United States. While it’s difficult to quantify how many vegetarians live within our borders, it’s easier to observe the attitude toward vegetarians. Twenty years ago, “What’re you, a Commie?” was a typical response to a confession of veggie brotherhood. Nowadays, despite the occasional stink eye, meat eaters at least understand that vegetarianism is healthy, if not a lifestyle particularly suited for them. Even though the United States is more veggie-friendly these days, it’s still difficult to avoid crappy food, even if one chooses to become a vegan, as I did six years ago. Despite my decision, I found myself projectile vomiting into my toilet last week. Diagnosis: food poisoning. Suspect: tomatoes. Unfortunately, becoming a vegetarian or a vegan doesn’t ensure healthiness. Sure, vegetarians enjoy many health perks (low rates of: heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.) but we’re still at the mercy of the meat industry in many ways. For starters, the meat industry poisons the environment. A 2006 United Nations report described the devastation caused by the meat industry as “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” Aside from global warming, meat production is a large factor in deforestation, wasted land, and air and water contamination. Water contamination may play a large part in increasing reports of vegetable and fruit contamination. In 2007, a California produce company recalled bagged fresh spinach after a sample tested positive for salmonella. Nearly a year before, an outbreak of E. coli in fresh spinach killed three people and sickened 200. The recent tomato salmonella outbreak has affected at least 145 people, resulting in 23 hospitalizations, and many believe water contamination is the cause of the affected tomatoes.
But in a realer, more concrete sense, frenzied production lines coupled with lax management have resulted in a dramatic increase in food poisoning. The shitty (literally) food is so prevalent that it’s affecting non-meat-eaters. While salmonella prefers fleshy fruit like tomatoes, our friend E. coli prefers leafy greens like spinach. The problem is prevalent. A recent census of produce outbreaks between 1996 and 2007 counted no fewer than 33 epidemics from salmonella-contaminated fruits and vegetables. Some scientists claim the cure for salmonella and E. coli contamination isn’t scrubbing clean the fruits and vegetables because doing so could remove the good bacteria humans rely upon for survival. The solution will come from the government and outraged citizens demanding that the meat industry clean up its practices so fresh produce doesn’t suffer.
Still, all of this isn’t cause for concern. Unless, of course, citizens are worried about the expanding legion of rotund American children who despise vegetables, binge on bagged chips and walk only if the landscape slopes downhill. The obesity rate is so wildly out of control that Americans collectively celebrated this year — not when the child population began to lose weight, but when they ceased to get fatter and obesity rates finally plateaued for the first time in 20 years. Unfortunately, Americans can’t fix their unhealthy eating until supposedly “healthy” food is clean of bacteria originating in diseased cows. Of course, the crazy practices of the meat industry shouldn’t concern citizens … unless they’re worried about global warming. The Environmental Defense Fund reports that if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted it with vegetarian foods, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads. In fact, the crazy practices of the meat industry probably won’t rock citizens at all until they find themselves knelt over their toilets, hurling. Right about then, they’ll understand how cow shit affects them all. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 25th, 2008 EU fails to convince OPEC to boost oil production writes Renata Goldirova from Brusells for the EUobserver. 24.06.2008 - The group of major oil-exporting countries, OPEC, has ruled out a further increase in oil production, saying there is sufficient supply to the market and that other factors, including US foreign and economic policies, are to blame for record price hikes. “All you need to do is look at the data to be convinced that the market is well-supplied in oil, that we have enough surplus capacity and we have enough stocks in the market,” Chakib Khelil, the president of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), said on Tuesday (24 June).
The price of petrol has passed from ten dollars in 1999 to 95 dollars last year. Speaking after discussion with the European Union in Brussels, Mr Khelil cited the recent US sub-prime mortgage crisis, financial market speculation, the weak US currency and worsening geopolitical situation as main factors behind the high prices. When asked about how much the price will jump over the summer holiday season, Mr Khelil replied: “It is the sixty-billion dollar question”. “The market is waiting to see how the dollar is to evolve in July, how the geopolitical situation is going to evolve with the threats made to Iran. So if you can answer those questions, I can answer the question concerning the price,” he said. The EU, for its part, insists that the oil price is to large extent driven by fast growing energy consumption in China and India. It has repeatedly called for supplies to be boosted. EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs urged OPEC to scrap the production ceiling in order to provide relief for the market. “In my opinion, there is no reason to keep ceilings on production,” he said. “If there are no ceilings, markets will adapt much faster,” he added. “In this respect we could expect prices to go down, not to go up as the tendency has been till now.” “We need to work much closer to discover what action should be taken because investments take billions and to change consumer behaviour also takes time,” the commissioner added. He also suggested stronger supervision of activities in financial markets and reiterated the EU’s intention to decrease oil import dependency through its energy-climate change package. Under the package, the EU has committed itself to boosting renewable energy production and cutting energy consumption. In response to the EU’s plans, the OPEC president said: “All of this of course is going to lower the demand, but I think it is a good thing to lower the demand. We just have some more supplies and maybe some lower prices.” “The EU is doing a very good job and should continue this way,” Mr Khelil added, underlining the potential benefits for OPEC members of having new technologies linked to energy efficiency and CO2 emission cuts. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 24th, 2008 From: goldmanklein at gmail.com PRESS RELEASE: 06/24/2008 Ellen O. Tauscher, Member of Congress, will host a seminar on July 8, 2008 featuring government contracting experts who will explain how to sell products to the armed forces and federal government. America was built on the efforts of the small businessman and businesswoman. Goldman & Klein is here to help the small businessman succeed. If you have space, a line or two in your newspaper or publication with our contact information would be appreciated. See the details of Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher’s contracting seminars on our website. Medical Clinics, Hospitals, Schools & Research Institutions Aircraft Parts & Services Call 858.842.2437 or e-mail us at goldmanklein at gmail.com. We are online at www.goldmanklein.com. Ellen O. Tauscher is Democrat from California’s 10th District: Washington D.C. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Antioch, CA 94509 Biography: Tauscher was born in Newark, New Jersey, moved to California in 1989. Tauscher was educated at Seton Hall University and was an investment banker and member of the New York Stock Exchange. Tauscher was active in Democratic circles as a fundraiser before challenging 10th District Congressman Bill Baker in 1996. Tauscher charged that Baker was too conservative for the district (particularly in his anti-environmental statements) and won a razor-thin victory. Tauscher won solid victories in 1998 and 2000 against vigorous Republican opposition. While the 10th was widely considered the most Republican of the Bay Area districts, Bay Area Republicans tend to be somewhat more moderate than their counterparts in the rest of California. Tauscher usually won by getting support from moderate Republican women. In 2000, redistricting made Tauscher much safer when some of the more Republican parts of her district were cut out as part of state-wide redistricting. They were replaced with some more Democratic territory near Sacramento. She has since won reelection three more times without serious opposition. Tauscher is a leading moderate Democrat. She is Chairwoman of the New Democrat Coalition, the caucus of centrist/moderate Democrats in the House of Representatives. She became a target of liberal activists after the Democrats took back control of the House of Representatives in 2006. However, she is strongly supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. She is chairwoman of the House Strategic Forces subcommittee. ————— We decided to post this thanks to our own experience in past years. The US Department of Defense was traditionally much less permeated by the influence of the oil industry then the US Department of Energy that was nothing less then the outpost of Big Oil. With the Washington based CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) we were able to get in the 1980s DOD to establish experimental fleets of motor-vehicles running on ethanol, methanol or CNG, while it was still extremely difficult to get DOE to do this. The argument was that for National Security reasons it is important to diversify the US military fuel system - this in case there is a scarcity in traditional fuels. We have no doubt that a National Security reason could be found for DOD, and the Goverment at large to get involved in this age of consciousness in recognition of the effects of climate change - Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels Makes for Better National Security. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 24th, 2008 Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Big emitters can’t agree on CO2 cuts, writes Japan Times online.
The delegates agreed major emission cuts are necessary, the sources said. {so far so good - so what?} But the failure to agree on a 50 percent cut by 2050 in the Seoul meeting makes reaching an agreement at the MEM leaders meeting next month in Hokkaido extremely difficult. If MEM leaders fail to produce a certain level of outcome, it may be difficult for G8 leaders to agree to the proposal by Japan last year to halve global emissions by 2050. The U.S. appears reluctant to set such a target unless it involves China, India and other emerging economies that are rapidly increasing emissions. The Seoul session of the 16-nation forum, involving both major industrial and emerging economies, was the last chance for delegates to coordinate views on future emission reduction goals before the G8 meeting. The Seoul meeting convened Saturday and talks continued through Monday morning. The MEM groups the G8 countries, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea and South Africa, which together account for about 80 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The draft, dated June 10, said MEM countries are considering four options regarding the envisaged target. They are a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050, a cut by an unspecified amount by 2050, a 50 percent reduction by 2051 or later, and a more than 50 percent cut by 2051 or later. The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush regards the MEM process, launched last September, as the main vehicle for setting future climate change steps by Washington. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 23rd, 2008 From: info at climatecrisiscoalition.org Climatologist James Hansen Testifies Today. As per Andrew C. Revkin, NYTimes, June 23, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/scienc… “Twenty years ago Monday, James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA, shook Washington and the world by telling a sweating crowd at a Senate hearing during a stifling heat wave that he was ‘99 percent’ certain that humans were already warming the climate. ‘The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,’ Dr. Hansen said then… To many observers of environmental history, that was [when] global warming moved from… looming issue to breaking news… [helping] propel the first pushes for legislation and an international treaty… [to be] enacted [with]… the Kyoto Protocol... added… [Today, Monday June 23, 2008], Dr. Hansen, 67, plans to testify [before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming] that it is almost, but not quite, too late to start defusing what he calls the ‘global warming time bomb.”’ He believes in a plan for cuts in emissions and also a warning about the risks of further inaction…
We received Dr. Hansen’s further statementon these issues. Please see his presentations at the National Press Club, in Washington DC, and the briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming, at: Powerpoints used are at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/Tippi… or Permalink | |