Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

What Will the Green Economy Look Like?

By Adele M. Stan, Media Consortium. Posted August 23, 2008.


We all say we want to go green, but do we all see the same kinds of change when we imagine an eco-friendly economy?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In Denver, Colo., Tom Plant, director of the Governor's Energy Office, is practically giddy. It's just days before the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Colorado's biggest city, and a long-sought goal in Gov. Bill Ritter's New Energy Economy program has just been met: Vestas, the Danish wind-turbine manufacturer, has announced its plan to open a new manufacturing plant just outside the city limits -- its second in the state.

Plant reels off some numbers: 1,350 new jobs at the new Vestas plant; 650 employees already employed at another the Vesta plant that opened last March, and the prospect of an additional 400 workers at a plant expected to open two years from now. Colorado now generates more than a gigawatt of energy through renewable energy sources -- three-quarters of that created in the 18 months since Plant's boss took office.

And how many people does he expect to arrive with the convention?

"About a gazillion, I think," Plant says, laughing. "Maybe two gazillion."

A cleaner, greener future has long occupied the dreams of progressives. With an historic "change" election upon us and a crisis in fuel pricing and climate change, the moment appears at hand for the public to accept profound changes in our way of life and the very structure of our economy.

Economists and philosophers, community organizers and labor negotiators, all see in the current crisis an opportunity to create change that reaches beyond the immediate boon of a cleaner environment. Some look through the green crystal ball and see new opportunities for industry or a revitalized labor movement. Others see a new role for government as a change-maker, and still others see a quantum leap in the evolution of the human soul. As goals, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. But the paths imagined by green advocates don't always converge. Already the sound of dissonance is audible between those who envision a completely new economic model, and those who seek to work with and clean up the old one.

Democratic Party officials surely had the "change" theme of this year's presidential campaign in mind when they chose Colorado to host their convention. The Colorado legislature swung from its traditional red to blue when Ritter, the state's first Democratic governor in 50 years to enjoy a legislative majority, rode into office in 2006, promising a new and vibrant state economy that capitalized on the crisis of global climate change.

Ritter's New Energy Economy plan got a jump start before he was even elected, with the passage of a ballot measure in 2004 that called for the state's utilities to bring the level of renewable energy sources in their portfolios up to 10 percent by the year 2015. Executives at Xcel Energy, the state's largest utility, protested loudly, then went on to meet the standard eight years ahead of schedule. This year, Xcel's lobbyists urged a doubling of the standard.

While Colorado's mandate for renewable sources from its energy providers may have caught the attention of Vestas and other green technology companies, Plant sees something much bigger in their expansion. "When a company like Vestas locates 2,500 jobs in Colorado, it's not to feed an entirely Colorado demand; I mean, they're looking at the entire country," Plant says.

Plant isn't alone in seeing an opportunity to improve the economic fortunes of everyday Americans in the climate crisis.

Carla Din, Western field director of the Apollo Alliance, doesn't think she's asking for much: all she wants is a raft of green energy projects in California that build partnerships between organized labor, developers, environmentalists, social justice advocates and government. The Apollo Alliance seeks to build coalitions among interests that often conflict -- such as labor and business -- with a focus on meeting the needs of a green economy.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: wind energy, green economy, van jones, green jobs

Adele M. Stan is the author of the weblog, AddieStan.com, and the book, Debating Sexual Correctness.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Most Important Change ~ Finance
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 23, 2008 1:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our current financial system is based on leveraged debt to create our lifeblood, the money and credit that keep the economies wheels turning. Leveraged debt is created by fractional reserve banking. That is, when a loan is created money is placed in the economy. Banks have been given free of charge the right to loan $10 for every $1 in deposits so that there are $9 more debt in the system than deposits! Then there is the interest on the debt that hasn't been monetized so automatically the economy is short of money to pay existing principle and interest payments. Without growth through loans the needed money isn't created causing a vicious spiral of bad debt and further money destruction as banks become crippled with non-performing loans.

Think about it, What is Debt? Debt is an obligation to pay money in the future. This money is only created through loans and loans are only created through growth which is only created by exponential resource extraction. In other words, with fractional reserve banking needing ever more debt through loans the world's natural resources are being mortgaged and without their exploitation the economy crashes due to the lack of credit and money.

Is there a solution? YES! A Public Central Bank that creates our money without debt, the Treasury just prints it. Why should we borrow our own money? Well the reason we borrow our own money is that the banks refuse to give up their monopoly of money creation through loans that ultimately encumber and despoil the entire environment through extraction and pollution.

Without a new monetary system based on debt free currency and credit creation either the environment collapses or the economy collapses. The New Green Economy must have a financial system that compliments a sustainable future. Our current banking system using fractional reserve banking is the antithesis of sustainabilty. The growth it needs to survive has only one comparable natural phenomena ~ Cancer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for this, mmckinl Posted by: CalKid
» "Not Worth a Continental" Posted by: gellero1
It all comes down to individual and family survival
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 23, 2008 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I'm an Obama fan, I have no illusions about the kind and extent of changes he can make in our bureaucratic, special-interest controlled federal government. Barack might well be pissing in the wind after he occupies the White House.

In a future America, the survivors will be individuals and families who can support themselves, no matter what the economy does. If that means evading income taxes, so be it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

elements of a green economy
Posted by: lclark on Aug 23, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A green economy would include:
- energy production from renewable reosurces such as wind turbines
- converstion of energy consumption to electricity ( transportation and heating)
- dismantling of globalism, especially for food production. Support for family farms instead of corporate collective farms
- support for essential industries at a national level (steel, cement, auto, basic commodities)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» elements of a green economy... in Russia or China Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» Cuba... really Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Cuba... really Posted by: djnoll
» Quite so ... the trouble is ... Posted by: harryf200
Remember????
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 23, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An eco-friendly economy is less people and more wilderness = LESS PEOPLE AND MORE WILDERNESS = LESS PEOPLE AND MORE WILDERNESS !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That won't work Posted by: Last Chance
» LIAR !!! Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: LIAR !!! Posted by: harryf200
» RE: LIAR !!! Posted by: jwverez
» I never said that !!! Posted by: Last Chance
» A breath of fresh air! Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: A breath of fresh air! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: A breath of fresh air! Posted by: maxpayne
» Neo-Malthusian RACISISM. Posted by: jwverez
As long as the ban on hemp remains and fossil fuels dominance continues,
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 23, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
going green will just not sustain. I'm telling you people that the base to sustain going green lies in ending this phoney "War on Drugs" and getting rid of the ban on hemp. Do you want your solar panels and wind turbines to keep being manufactured with fossil fuels or are you ready to learn how Henry Ford built his first cars from plant fibers especially HEMP? My wife and I always said that beauty comes from within. The same goes for going green. If you're not starting at the roots of it all, you my friend are being GREENWASHED and are without realization following the path towards GREENWASHING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Important hints in this story
Posted by: Growthbuster on Aug 23, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's ironic that Tom Plant is giddy about thousands of new jobs and gazillions of people coming to Colorado. While a new job creating wind turbines beats the heck out of a new job at a cement plant, it is still not carbon-neutral. We should celebrate every job we can shift from dirty to clean, but let's not fool ourselves that creating millions of green jobs is living within our means on planet Earth.

MORE green jobs is slightly better than MORE dirty jobs. But it is still MORE in a world that is buckling under the current load - a world where we really ought to be aiming for LESS.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, science is not fixed... Posted by: bornxeyed
And what about replace Big Agri's corn-fed shit with small/local farmer grass-fed meat and diary?
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 23, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to go green, start out by getting rid of Big Government's oversubsidization of Big Agri. How can you people expect global warming to slow down if you keep buying into corn-fed shit which requires loads of fossil fuels to manufacture let alone transport? Think about it. Corn seeds (gm or otherwise), fertilizers, antibiotics since animals were meant to eat grass and not corn seeds, rbgh, enclosing animals in factory farm concentration camps and keeping the lights on 24/7, etc ... ! Contrast that to local/regional grass fed meat and diary. Far less fossil fuels are used, less global warming because animals won't be forced to emit toxic waste into the air but excrete naturally, and the products don't weigh as much, hence transportation costs go down as less fuel is consumed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Izzatso Posted by: gellero1
» Wrong. Posted by: jwverez
This writer is clueless and never even comes close to actually answering her own question
Posted by: logansafi on Aug 23, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an empty commentary. The question, What will a Green economy look like? is never answered in the least, and the writer's supposed answer is as silly as you can get by connecting it all up with the Denver Democratic Party Convention. In fact, it is nothing more than a fluffy bit of cheerleading for the Democratic Party, which is about as leaden as Joe Biden is.

Joe Biden? Where's all the talk of CHANGE now? He is a pathetic conservative hack who is about as much about change as Joe Lieberman is. Oh, I forgot, that sad sack 'DP' Joe will be McCain's possible VP pick!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only One Problem
Posted by: Gravitas on Aug 23, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A green economy would be far more democratic and distribute power more evenly. The current power-elite will have to crumble before that happens. It is not that solutions don't exist, it is that the system first and foremost has been set up to benefit those at the top at the expense of the rest of us and the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» New masters for old Posted by: Last Chance
a green economy will have to be vegan (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook. "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."

Half the water consumed in the U. S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water wash away their excrement. U.S. livestock produce 20 times as much excrement as does the entire human population, creating sewage which is 10 to several hundred times as concentrated as raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause 10 times as much water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes 3 times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.

Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contribute to half the water pollution in the U.S. The water that goes into a 1,000 lb. steer could float a destroyer. It takes 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized by the American taxpayers, hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

The burden of subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over 7 dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. 17 western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose 4 million acres of topsoil each year and 85 percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace lost soil, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U.S. has been 1 acre every 5 seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, 7 are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

One-third of all raw materials in the U. S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes 3 times as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods. A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

Nor can fish provide any help here. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

Providing the entire world with a Western-style diet is absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of topsoil, forests, groundwater and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy will have to be vegan (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook. "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."

I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined. Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands." The journal further states that dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

---Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Assocation

A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to that of 20 to 40 humans.

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audobon Society)

On average 990 liters of water are required to produce one liter of milk. (United Nations)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Part 3 Posted by: jwverez
Are Vegetarians Bad for the Environment?
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 23, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m always reading about people eating less meat in order to reduce their carbon footprint. These people say that the most important thing you can do to help the environment is to go vegetarian.

For example, Kelly Freston wrote this article last year in the Huffington Post: Vegetarian is the New Prius:

Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

Seems logical. But is it really true?

I read a great article recently in the spring edition of Wise Traditions (the Weston A. Price Foundation quarterly journal). The article was written by Matthew J. Rales, who has a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Middlebury College in Vermont. He also recently completed an apprenticeship at Joel Salatin’s grass-based Polyface Farm.

This article is so dense and so brilliantly constructed that I can’t do it justice in one post. So I am going to do a series of posts discussing Matthew Rales’ arguments against vegetarianism as pro-environment.

Let’s start with the assertion that vegetarians make that rainforests are being destroyed by livestock.

“Make no mistake; rainforests are not cleared in any drastic measure by independent farmers who want to graze a few steers. They are cleared by United Nations-supported corporate giants under the guise of feeding the world and alleviating poverty — all for the production of more of their patented seed.”

“A recent article in Business Week reports that Brazil alone grows over 25 million acres of soybeans — all of which are genetically engineered. The Wall Street Journal reports that Monsanto’s stock has tripled in the last year due to Brazil’s demand for Roundup Ready soybeans — a genetically engineered plant that can withstand multiple, frequent applications of toxic herbicide.”

“Our society has been conditioned to support a co-opted environmental movement in the name of a chemical-intensive vegetable bypass industry, at the tragic expense of good health to both man and environment via the qualities of grazing animals and their products — meat and milk for people, manure for the soil — none of which we can afford to lose.”

Why are cows being blamed for the destruction of the rainforest? Farmers who raise cows on pasture do not buy soybeans. They do not buy corn. They feed their animals grass and hay.

Clearly, this argument made by the U.N. that raising animals for food is destroying the environment is fallacious. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Rales writes:

“The U.N. points its global finger not at bad management practices like feedlots and confinement dairies, but at the cows themselves; not at Monsanto, but at real farmers, who raise livestock in accordance with nature’s principles — on grass.

The U.N.’s accusations ought to be directed at chemical-intensive, industrial CAFO agriculture.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are Vegetarians Bad for the Environment? pt 2
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 23, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back to Kelly Freston’s article on the Huffington Post. The worst, most misleading part of her article are these two sentences:

Recent years have seen an explosion of environmentally-friendly vegetarian foods. Even chains like Ruby Tuesday, Johnny Rockets, and Burger King offer delicious veggie burgers and supermarket refrigerators are lined with heart-healthy creamy soymilk and tasty veggie deli slices.

Environmentally friendly? Burger King?

Let’s take a look at what’s in a BK Veggie Burger:

Vegetables (Mushrooms, Water Chestnuts, Onions, Carrots, Green Bell Peppers, Red Bell Peppers, Black Olives), Textured Vegetable Protein (Soy Protein Concentrate, Wheat Gluten, Water for Hydration), Egg Whites, Cooked Brown Rice (Water, Brown Rice), Rolled Oats, Corn Oil, Calcium Caseinate, Soy Sauce (Water, Soybeans, Salt, Wheat), Onion Powder, Corn Starch, Salt, Hydrolyzed Corn, Soy, and Wheat Protein, Yeast Extract, Natural Flavors from non-meat sources, Sugar,Soy Protein Isolate, Spices, Garlic Powder, Dextrose, Jalapeño Pepper Powder, Celery Extract.Contains: Soy, Wheat, Milk and Egg. This is NOT a vegan product. The patty is cooked in the microwave.

I bolded all the processed foods that are contained in that single patty.

With that amount of processing, there is a ton of energy that goes into making that patty. Not to mention all the energy and chemical fertilizers that went into growing all those vegetables and soybeans and oats and rice. Oh, and there are egg whites in there, too. So you have to factor in raising chickens and slaughtering them as well. Plus those chickens were fed corn and soybeans.

And where do you think the corn and soybeans come from that were used to make this BK Veggie Burger? Do you think they came from organic farms tended by environmentally-conscious sustainable farmers?

Not likely. They are most likely genetically modified soybeans from industrial farms.

And where a lot of those industrial farms located? Why, in South America. Where the rainforests used to be.

All right, okay, so maybe you can still be a vegetarian and save the planet. You just won’t eat at Burger King. Maybe you’ll just buy those faux deli meats like Freston recommends at the health food store. Like “Smart Bacon”. After all, they are made from soybeans that are not genetically modified. So you’re safe, right?

Not so fast. What’s in Smart Bacon?

Water, soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, soybean oil, textured soy protein concentrate, textured wheat gluten, less than 2% of: natural smoke flavor, natural flavor (from vegetable sources), grill flavor (from sunflower oil), carrageenan, evaporated cane juice, paprika oleoresin (for flavor & color), potassium chloride, sesame oil, spice extractives, fermented rice flour, tapioca dextrin, citric acid, salt.

Again, I’ve bolded the processed foods. Any idea how much processing goes into some of these ingredients?

Take paprika oleoresin. I looked it up on Wikipedia:

Paprika oleoresin (also known as paprika extract) is an oil soluble extract from the fruits of Capsicum Annum Linn (Indian red chillies), and is primarily used as a colouring and/or flavouring in food products. It is composed of capsaicin, the main flavouring compound giving pungency in higher concentrations, and capsanthin and capsorubin, the main colouring compounds (among other carotenoids).[1]

Extraction is performed by percolation with a variety of solvents, primarily hexane, which are removed prior to use.[2]

Hexane? Where does hexane come from? Wikipedia?

Hexane is produced by the refining of crude oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are Vegetarians Bad for the Environment? pt 3
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 23, 2008 2:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, okay, so Smart Bacon is made with hexane, a refined petroleum product. Gee whiz, how can that be good for the environment? I thought we were trying to reduce our dependency on oil.

So I guess Vegetarian is the New Prius, like Kelly Freston said, seeing how the Prius also requires gasoline.

But let’s get back to that Smart Bacon. What else is in there? TSP — textured soy protein. According to Wikipedia, this is how it’s made:

TSP is made by forming a dough from high nitrogen solubility index (NSI) defatted soy flour with water in a screw-type extruder such as the Wenger and heating with or without steam. The dough is extruded through a die into various possible shapes; granules, flakes, chunks, goulash, steakettes (schnitzle), etc., and dried in an oven.

OK so you have to grow the soybeans then dry them then grind them into flour then defat (?) the flour by extruding it and then heat it with or without steam.

Hmm… not sure how much energy is involved in that process but I do now that anything extruded is made in a factory.

Here’s a picture I found of a soy extruder:

Soy Extruder

You think that thing needs oil, too? Just like the Prius and the Smart Bacon? Or do you think it runs on solar power?

Anyone want to take a guess — which has a lower impact on the environment: a grass-fed farmer selling meat at the farmer’s market or extruded soy patties from a factory?

So who’s destroying the rainforests? Who’s using up the most energy to produce their foods?

Is it the small farmers raising grass-fed cows and those of us who support them by purchasing grass-fed meat and dairy products directly from the farmer?

Or is it multinational corporations like Monsanto and Burger King and Lightlife Foods (makers of Smart Bacon), and all the veggie-burger-eating vegetarians?

Wake up, folks. Just because you are avoiding meat does not mean you are avoiding factory farms.

If you really want to avoid factory farms, support your local farmer.

PS: We’re having cheeseburgers tonight. Grass-fed beef from Organic Pastures Dairy up in Fresno — where the cows are on pasture all year long.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» About vegetarians. Posted by: jwverez
A Green Economy Needs a Union Label
Posted by: BobS on Aug 23, 2008 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creating a "green economy" based on the exploitation of labor is not an answer. It would be all too easy for green capitalists to make the energy and manufacturing conversion based on the vicious exploitation of labor that is all too common these days.

Farm labor conditions are also abominable is most parts of the USA. Simply removing the danger of pesticide poisoning without raising pay and providing decent housing and benefits is not an answer either.

A green economy should be a fair economy.

Bob Simpson
The BobboSphere

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy places people ahead of profits (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Half the world's population does not receive an adequate amount of food to eat. Ten to twenty million die annually of hunger and its effects. The Institute for Food and Development Policy reports that, "Forty thousand children starve to death on this planet every day," or one child every two seconds.

The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the country. We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of the oats. Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for people. Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain-fed livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The world's cattle alone, not to mention pigs and chickens, consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people--nearly double the entire human population of the planet. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes. That same acre of land, if used to grow cattlefeed, can produce less than 165 pounds of beef.

In his book, The Hungry Planet, Georg Bergstrom points out that protein.-starved underdeveloped nations export more protein to wealthy nations than they receive. He calls this "the protein swindle." Ninety percent of the world's fish meal catch, for example, is exported to rich countries. One-third of Africa's peanut crop winds up in the stomachs of European livestock. Half the world's cereal crop is fed to livestock and the United States annually imports one million tons of vegetable protein from Third World nations--just to feed its farm animals.

Bergstrom writes: "Sometimes one wonders how many Americans and Western Europeans have grasped the fact that quite a few of their beef steaks, quarts of milk, dozens of eggs, and hundreds of broilers are the result, not of their agriculture, but of the approximately two million metric tons of protein, mostly of high quality, which astute Western businessmen channel away from the needy and hungry."

Jeremy Rifkin, author of a dozen influential books and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, writes in his 1992 bestseller Beyond Beef:

"Cattle and other livestock are devouring much of the grain produced on the planet. It need be emphasized that this is a new phenomenon, unlike anything ever experienced before."

"Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year...Increased poverty has meant increased malnutrition. On the African continent, nearly one in every four human beings is malnourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 28 percent of the people border on starvation, experiencing the gnawing pain of a perpetual hunger."

"In the Near East, one in ten people is underfed. Chronic hunger now affects upwards of 1.3 billion people, according to the world Health Organization--a statistic all the more striking in a world where one third of all the grain produced is being fed to cattle and other livestock. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species--nearly 25 percent--been malnourished.

"The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grains represents an...evil whose consequences may be far greater and longer lasting than any past examples of violence inflicted by men against their fellow human beings."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy places people ahead of profits (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1970s, the United Nations Secretary General said that the food consumption of the rich countries is the key cause of hunger around the world. The United Nations has recommended that the wealthy nations cut down on their meat consumption.

According to Buckminster Fuller, there are enough resources at present to feed, clothe, house and educate every human being on the planet at American middle class standards. The Institute for Food and Development Policy has shown that there is no country in the world in which the people cannot feed themselves from their own resources.

Moreover, there is no correlation between land density and hunger. China has twice as many people per cultivated acre as India, yet less of a hunger problem. Bangladesh has just one-half the people per cultivated acre that Taiwan has, yet Taiwan has no starvation, while Bangladesh has one of the highest rates in the world. The most densely populated countries in the world today are not India and Bangladesh, but Holland and Japan.

The food industry takes in over $150 billion every year--more than the auto, steel, or oil industries. This industry is dominated by a few, giant multinational corporations, who possess extensive political control. Multinationals are buying more land. A study of over 83 countries reveals that just over 3% of landholders control about 80 percent of the farmland.

The Worldwatch Institute has released a remarkable report entitled Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, which lists nation after nation where food deprivation has followed the switch from a grain-based diet to a meat-based one.

Most of the nations that now import grain from the United States were once self-sufficient in grain. The main reason they aren't is the rise in meat production and consumption. In Taiwan, for example, per capita consumption of meat and eggs increased 600 percent from 1950 to 1990. With this change, vastly increased amounts of grain have gone to livestock, raising the annual per capita grain use in the country from 375 pounds to 858 pounds. In 1950, Taiwan was a grain exporter; in 1990 the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.

In mainland China, the situation is similar. Increased meat consumption has meant less grain available to feed people. Since 1978, meat consumption has more than doubled, to twenty-four kilograms. The share of Chinese grain fed to livestock rose from 7 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 1990.

Beginning over 300 years ago, the Western colonialist powers established the plantation system in their subject lands. The plantation's sole purpose was to produce wealth for the colonizers - tobacco, rubber, cotton, tea, coffee, cocoa, etc.--all of which had little or no nutritional value. The name subsequently giver to them, "cash crops," is quite appropriate.

Cash crops became established in world trade, so that even after their emancipation from formal colonial control, Third World countries were "economically hooked" on these crops as their only means of survival. Coffee, for example, the second most valuable commodity in world trade, is the economic lifeblood of fourteen developing countries. Coffee symbolizes millions of acres of agricultural land in a hungry world.

In Central America, where over 70% of the children are hungry, 50% of the land is used for "cash crops" (such as lilies). While multinational corporations use the best land to grow their cash crops (coffee, tea, tobacco, exotic foods), the natives are forced to use slopes and eroded land on which it is hard to grow food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy places people ahead of profits (part 3)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since 1960, the number of landless people in Central America has multiplied fourfold. American aid goes to prop up Latin America's livestock industry. According to economist Bruce Rich: "No other single commodity in developing countries has ever received such extraordinary outside support."

Nor does this support benefit the impoverished. Over half Of Latin America's beef production is exported, and the rest is too expensive for any but the wealthy to purchase. From 1960 to 1980 beef exports from El Salvador increases over sixfold.

Meanwhile, increasing numbers of small farmers lost their livelihood and were pushed off their land. Today, 72 percent of all Salvadoran infants are underfed.

In Brazil, major portions of the Amazon tropical rain forests have been destroyed so that wealthy multinational corporations can produce beef for the wealthy. Corporations such as Volkswagen, Nestle, Mitsubishi, Liquigas, King Ranch, and Swift-Eckrich have bulldozed and burned literally hundreds of millions of acres, replacing the world's oldest and richest ecosystems, home to two million or more species of plant and animal life with a single crop--pasture grass for cattle. And here, the beef produced has not gone to feed hungry Brazilians; it has been primarily exported to Western Europe, the Middle East, and North America. In 1987, the United States imported three hundred million pounds of meat from countries in Central and South America.

With the help of international lending institutions, Brazil has mounted an enormous effort to increase agricultural production, but this has been primarily meat-oriented production and for export. Twenty-five years ago, soybeans were almost nonexistent or Brazil. Today, this crop is the nation's number one export--but almost all of it goes to feed Japanese and European livestock. Twenty five years ago, one third of the Brazilian population suffered from malnutrition. Today, the figure has risen to two thirds.

Oxfam, the international charity, reports that in Brazil huge cattle ranches take up some of the most fertile soil in the whole country, yet 60 percent of Brazilians are malnourished. Oxfam estimates that in Mexico, 80 percent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, yet the livestock are fed more grain than the human population eats! The livestock are exported of course, to satisfy the developed nations' craving for cheap hamburgers.

Only thirty years ago, sorghum was almost unknown in Mexico. But by 1980, it covered literally twice the acreage of wheat. Sorghum isn't grown for humans. It is fed to livestock. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed only 6 percent of Mexico's grain. Today, the figure is over 50 percent. This is a trend throughout the Third World. Copying the United States' meat-oriented diet, these poor countries devote increasing percentages of their resources to meat production.

In Mexico, land that was once used for growing corn for Mexicans is now used for the production of fancy vegetables for U.S. citizens; the profit is 20 times greater. Hundreds of thousands of former farmers have found themselves landless. Unable to compete with the large landowners, they first lease their land to make at least some money from it; the next step is to work for the big firms; finally, they find themselves migrant workers, roaming in search of work so their families can survive. Such conditions have led to repeated waves of rebellion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy places people ahead of profits (part 4)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 6:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Throughout Latin America, land availability is a prominent social issue. Revolutionaries as well as reform-minded moderates have made land reform a major issue. Yet in many Latin American countries, forests are being leveled in order to create pastures for cattle grazing land. In a region where land availability is a central social issue, existing land is being gobbled up by livestock agriculture. The resulting social tensions have resulted in civil wars, repression and violence.

In 1975, Columbia's best soil was used to produce 18 million dollars of flowers. Carnations brought 80 times greater profit than did the former crop, wheat. Our food security is not being threatened by the prolific, hungry masses, but by elites that profit by the concentration and internationalization of control of food resources. In Guatemala, 75 percent of the children under five years of age are undernourished. Yet, every year Guatemala exports 40 million pounds of meat to the United States. It borders on the criminal!

Many of us believe that hunger exists because there's not enough food to go around. But as Frances Moore Lappe' and her anti-hunger organization Food First! have shown, the real cause of hunger is a scarcity of justice, not a scarcity of food.

Hunger is really a social disease caused by the unjust, inefficient and wasteful control of food. In Costa Rica, beef production quadrupled between 1960 and 1980, but almost all this beef is exported to the United States, and what does stay in the country is eaten by a tiny minority. Though more and more Costa Rican land is being turned over to meat production, the population is not eating more meat for the change. The average family in Costa Rica eats less meat than the average American housecat.

In country after country the pattern is repeated. Livestock industries are consuming feed to such an extent that now almost all Third World nations must import grain. Seventy-five percent of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to people. In country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is squeezing out staple production for the poor.

The same trend can be found in the Middle East and North Africa--increases in grain-fed livestock require more imported feed. Twenty years ago, Egypt was self-sufficient in grain. Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's grain. Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain. As a result, Egypt must now import eight million tons of grain every year.

Twenty-five years ago, Syria was a barley exporter. But in the intervening years, livestock has consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain. Now, despite a phenomenal 1,000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

Because of its reliance on livestock agriculture, Israel's economy depends heavily on groundwater use. You can't make the desert bloom through sheer hard work; it requires water. Today Israel is heavily dependent on water from the West Bank, and the Israeli press is full of talk of retaining the West Bank in order to protect water supplies from encroaching Arab wells. One analyst gloomily concludes that the water in the West Bank region--which the Israelis captured from the Arabs in the 1967 war--is "fast becoming the most ominous obstacle to any peaceful settlement in the region."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy places people ahead of profits (part 5)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any economy that relies on meat production is in serious trouble. Any social system which persists in putting an emphasis on meat production will be progressively weakened until it as destroyed or until its policies are changed. The amount of time which will pass before a serious social disaster sets in, of course, will vary from region to region. In the case of the United States, which still has abundant agriculture resources, there are probably many decades left. In the case of Africa, the disaster is there today.

Regardless of social system or ideology, any country that emphasizes meat production is going to make its food situation worse. In the richer nations, food may simply become somewhat more costly. If the livestock industry is subsidized by the government--as is the case in both the United States and the former Soviet Union--then other areas of the economy may suffer, as they are sacrificed go keep agriculture afloat. In the poorer nations, food may become unavailable to many and starvation may result.

In Ethiopia and Mozambique, we have two cases of very poor countries which have relied heavily on livestock agriculture with tragic results. In both countries, thousands have died and tens of thousands more are in danger of dying. In both countries, livestock agriculture has played a key role in crippling the ability of the food system to produce food.

Ecological disaster is not new in Africa. Northern Africa, once the granary of the Roman Empire, was reduced to a barren wasteland by the pastoral nomads which entered the area after the Empire's collapse. The march of the Sahara desert southward, preceded by large herds of livestock animals, has been observed for decades. Numerous independent observers have confirmed that soil erosion today is rampant in Africa. The destruction has been savage. Fifty years ago, 40% of Ethiopia was covered with trees, while only 2% to 4% is covered with trees today.

So the famine in Ethiopia during the 1980s should not have been a surprise. Many blamed the drought, the civil war, or governmental incompetence in pushing the country over the edge into starvation; and certainly these factors played a role. but we cannot ignore the ecological realities which are the underlying conditions responsible for Ethiopia's getting to the brink of disaster in the first place. Overgrazing by cattle has played a key role in Ethiopia's decline.

Incredibly, while the people are starving, Ethiopia today has a larger livestock population than any other country in Africa, though it is only ninth in total land area!

Similar problems have affected Mozambique. Here we have a country which recently liberated itself from colonialism. Yet Mozambique then proceeded to import beef from abroad to satisfy the demands of the urban elite for meat. Perhaps even worse, they are intensifying their production of corn--one of the most erosive of all plant foods--and feeding it to their cattle!

This is a recipe for disaster and a most depressing pattern throughout many third world countries. They throw out colonialism, but they keep or even intensify the colonial system of food production.

Most news reports on shortages and hunger in the former Soviet Union emphasize the lack of meat, which is really an unnecessary luxury and not a necessity. Meat consumption has severely aggravated the country's problems.

In 1991, Worldwatch noted: "Since 1950, meat consumption has tripled and feed consumption quadrupled. Use of grain for feed surpassed direct human consumption in 1964 and has been rising ever since. Soviet livestock now eat three times as much grain as Soviet citizens. Grain imports have soared, going from near zero in 1970 to twenty-four million tons in 1990, and the USSR is now the world's second largest grain importer."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brak the two-party stranglehold.
Posted by: lclark on Aug 23, 2008 7:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The duopoly is a scam. National elections are presented like a sports event. Vote for anyone BUT the Democrats or Republicans and break their lock on the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen ! Posted by: maxpayne
Simpler Living
Posted by: macdon1 on Aug 23, 2008 10:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it folks, the average American lifestyle has to change. We over consume in this country and it has to stop. If you eat meat, 4 ounces a day satisfies the protein needs of an average person. That's a piece about the size of your palm. If everyone cut back to that amount it would eliminate a lot of problems. Then after that be sure to recycle and compost whatever is left and walk instead of driving to the store. A 4 wheel cart is a great, fuel-less way to get the shopping home. It's a pretty easy way to make your life greener...I've been doing it for years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Simpler Living Posted by: richholland
a green economy supports animal rights (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 10:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patrick Corbett, Professor of Philosophy at Sussex University, captured the spirit of the animal rights movement with these words:

"...we require now to extent the great principles of liberty, equality and fraternity over the lives of animals. Let animal slavery join human slavery in the graveyard of the past."

Dr. Tom Regan, the foremost intellectual leader of the animal rights movement, says the animal rights movement is a part of (rather than apart from) the human rights movement. The campaign to abolish animal exploitation and cruelty -- including the use of animals for food -- can in no way be equated with religious dietary laws, sacred cows, or ritual slaughter.

The animal rights movement is comparable to the abolitionist movement that ended human slavery, the women's rights movement, the labor movement, and the various campaigns against poverty, racism, drunk driving, child abuse, rape and nuclear power. A number of the early American feminists, including Lucy Stone, Amelia Bloomer, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were connected with the 19th century animal welfare movement. Together with Horace Greeley, the reforming, anti-slavery editor of The Tribune, they could meet to toast "Women's Rights and Vegetarianism."

With the power of the religious right has come concern in liberal circles for the separation of church and state. On the abortion issue, Catholics, fundamentalists and born-again Christians appear to be imposing their morality upon everyone else. The animal rights movement, however, is a secular and nonsectarian campaign comparable to women's or civil rights.

Religion has been wrong before. On issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion impeded social and moral progress. The church of the past never considered slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states, actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral, " but "founded in right." The slave trade was caller "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-25, I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2, Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's Epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

In 1852 Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel, " wrote in 1867, "the tempter in the Garden of Eden was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is like that of human slaves in centuries past, Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28, or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th century would have been met with the same response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

A growing number of Christian clergy, theologians and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. The teachings of the Reverend Andrew Linzey and Reverend Marc Wessels are especially significant in this regard. A 1988 statement issued by the World Council of Churches called for "The Liberation of all Life."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a green economy supports animal rights (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2008 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Animal rights activist B.R. Boyd writes in his 1987 booklet, The New Abolitionists:

"Many notable revolutionaries have come from powerful classes, radicalized by acute contradictions between the realities of class exploitation and whatever ideas of justice were harbored within their breasts. We humans, stratified, divided, and warring among ourselves, are nonetheless the indisputable ruling class of planet earth. In fighting for our own intra-human liberation, we have largely ignored or trivialized the oppression and violence perpetrated in our name--often in response to our direct and personal economic demand--against nonhuman animals.

"Seventy to one hundred million, including lost and abandoned pets, are quite literally injected, infected, mutilated, driven insane, strapped immobile for years on end, blinded, concussed, burned, mechanically raped, dismembered, disemboweled, mutilated, and otherwise violated--often without adequate anesthesia--in order to test shampoos, oven cleaners, make-up, and scientific hypotheses; to advance medical science or personal careers; to develop and test nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional weapons; or for general scientific curiosity, and because public funding is available.

"Twenty million unwanted pets undergo euthanasia every year and countless others are abused by their owners. Spay-neuter clinics get little or no public funding, while the pet-breeding industry continues to enrich itself by pumping out living, disposable toys.

"Seventeen million wild fur-bearing animals (and twice as many "trash" animals) are mangles in steel jaw traps and 17 million more factory farmed, then gassed or electrocuted, that we may wear furs.

"170 million animals are hunted down and shot to death in their habitats, mostly for sport, often leaving their offspring to die of exposure or starvation.

"Industrial pollution, habitat destruction, and our transportation system kill and maim untold millions, while we kidnap and imprison others for our entertainment in zoos.

"Ten billion animals are killed in America every year for food. We force-breed, cage, brand, castrate, and over-milk them, cut off their beaks, horns, and tails, pump them full of antibiotics and growth stimulants, steal their eggs, and kill and eat them."

"I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race in its gradual development to leave off the eating of animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came into contact with the more civilized."

---Henry David Thoreau

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dangers of wind turbines
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 24, 2008 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture.

I watched the 3 YouTube films, "Voices of Tug Hill", and
it's appalling. Greed has no boundaries, no conscience, no
morals, no standards"

No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support your local physics department
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 24, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted
over enormous areas [more than one continent] to provide
continuous power because wind varies from minute to minute.
Direct current is required because the voltage and frequency of
AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. Long
distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC
just doesn't go far otherwise.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen or liquid helium is the Achilles heal
of this scheme. It isn't really a "room" temperature
superconductor. Any accidental warming brings the grid to a
halt. Energy is required to make liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen
must be cooled to 77 degrees Kelvin to make it a liquid. [Zero
degrees Kelvin is absolute zero, -273.15 degrees Centigrade.]
Liquid helium is at 4 degrees Kelvin or colder. Superconduction
usually means a requirement for liquid helium. Liquid Helium is
very expensive. The cable has to be thermally insulated and
cooled its entire length. The cable also must be physically
separated into "out" and "return" wires, and the force between the
2 wires will be large. As stated in the article I gave you the URL
of, it won't be cheap.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much
magnetic field will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that
point. The cable will instantly melt, creating an electric arc. All
of the energy that was flowing through that spot will instead be
dumped there, creating an explosion. The power grid will be
disabled for some time since repairing a superconducting cable is
not as easy as splicing a wire. Is this the kind of electric service
you really want? We really don't have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? Check the
efficiency, the availability of leak proof caverns, etc. Storing
wind energy as compressed air is a pie in the sky. What about
storing wind energy in batteries? We can't make that many
batteries. Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors. There are special locations and circumstances
where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot replace coal and
nuclear any time soon. Nuclear power is the only kind that can
actually take coal fired power plants off line. If allowed to
compete, nuclear power would already have replaced coal fired
power because nuclear is 30% cheaper and 24000 American lives
per year safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the commercial and industrial applications of hemp
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 24, 2008 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under our drug laws, even the growing of cannabis hemp -- the nonspyschoactive variety of the plant--is outlawed in order to enforce the marijuana laws.

Hemp has many economic uses. It contains the longest fiber in the plant kingdom and is one of the strongest and most durable. It can be used for commercial and industrial applications, including insulation, textiles, clothing, and rope. The fiber and pulp can be used to manufacture nondeteriorating paper using a relatively pollution-free process. The plant can also be used for biomass applications. Its seeds yield oil similar to linseed, which can be used in many commercial and industrial applications. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the seeds have been used even for human consumption.

"Hemp. It's marijuana's nonspyschoactive sister," writes Ed Rosenthal. "You couldn't get a buzz if you smoked a bale of hemp, but it's still illegal to grow it in the United States." Industrial hemp is legally grown in over thirty countries. For thousands of years, people grew hemp and prospered. It flourishes without pesticides. Thomas Jefferson considered hemp so vital to America that he risked his life to smuggle hemp seeds out of France. George Washington grew hemp and instructed his caretaker at Mount Vernon: "Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere."

Industrial hemp was first grown in Kentucky 250 years ago. It is currently grown in other countries across the globe, including France, England, Canada, Australia, China, Hungary and the Ukraine. Industrial hemp has virtually no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It cannot be used as a drug. None of the countries that allow industrial hemp production have experienced any drug problems relating to the crop. Using modern processing techniques, hemp can be used in place of petrochemicals. Instead of synthetic plastics made from oil, we can use natural fiber and processed bioplastic derivatives. Plastics and polyester rely on foreign oil, while cotton consumes enormous amounts of water, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides.

Industrial hemp is very clean, easy to grow and is one of the most environmentally sound sources of industrial fiber in the world. Environmentally friendly detergents, plastics, paints, varnishes, cosmetics, and textiles are already being made from it in Europe. Industrial hemp can meet our fiber needs while also revitalizing our struggling rural economies.

Hemp is already being used in place of trees for pressboard, particleboard, and core concrete construction molds. Paper made from hemp is acid-free, stronger and lasts far longer than paper made from trees. Hemp fabrics are far stronger and more resistant to mold than any other natural fiber. Builders in France and Germany use hemp for construction material, replacing drywall and plywood. Hemp can be used to manufacture plastic plumbing pipe, replacing such toxic materials as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Hemp fiber is already being used in place of glass fiber in surfboards and snowboards. Hemp could also provide the resin itself.

For ideological reasons, the federal government refuses to allow farmers to grow hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp is currently grown legally worldwide. The current Bush administration took anti-hemp policy to a new extreme, attempting unsuccessfully to ban the import of hemp foods and cosmetics. Erwin "Bud" Sholts, director of the Wisconsin Agriculture Department's marketing division, said hemp "is the most value-added, prolific fiber crop man can grow." Sholts acknowledged that hemp is an emotional issue, but points out that "other nations with drug laws as tough or tougher than ours have overcome this hurdle."

The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that prohibits the growing of industrial hemp; anti-drug hysteria should not blind the public to the commercial and industrial applications of hemp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and, of course, don't kill ants.
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 24, 2008 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keith Akers addresses the moral question of killing insects in A Vegetarian Sourcebook: "What about insects? While there may be reason to kill insects, there is no reason to kill them for food. One distinguishes between the way meat animals are killed for food and the way insects are killed.

"Insects are killed only when they intrude upon human territory, posing a threat to the comfort, health, or well-being of humans. There is a huge difference between ridding oneself of intruders and going out of one's way to find and kill something which would otherwise be harmless."

According to Akers:

"These questions may have a certain fascination for philosophers, but most vegetarians are not bothered by them. For any vegetarian who is not a biological pacifist, there would not seem to be any particular difficulty in distinguishing ethically between insects and plants on the one hand, and animals and humans on the other."

I'd like to see a return to organic farming. In 1989, concern over the use of the pesticide Alar on apples caused many Americans to consider organic produce. We produce pesticides at a rate some 13,000 times faster than we did in the 1950s. Our environment is being flooded by pesticide compounds.

Poisons used to kill insects accumulate on crops, in the soil and in greater concentration in the tissues of living creatures higher on the food chain. The EPA's Pesticide Monitoring Journal reports that "Foods of animal origin (are) the major source of pesticide residues in the diet."

In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, How to Survive in America the Poisoned, pesticide authority Lewis Regenstein writes: "Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than do plant foods...Thus, by eating foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals."

A 1976 study by the EPA found the breast milk of mothers who consume animal products to be 50 to 100 times more contaminated by pesticide residues than the milk of vegetarian or vegan mothers.

Organic farming and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are getting more attention today. These utilize natural insect controls, such as predatory insects, weather, crop rotation, pest-resistant varieties, soil tillage, and other environmentally safe practices.

A 1979 Department of Agriculture task force of scientists and economists came to "...positive conclusions on the importance of organic farming and its potential contributions to agriculture and society." Until the end of the Second World War, American farmers produced bountiful harvests without relying on pesticides. There is no reason why America cannot do so again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you do on calm days?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 24, 2008 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There ARE places where the wind blows steadily.
But those places don't happen to be everywhere.
And they don't happen to be in convenient places.
And the wind doesn't blow hard enough for the power required
HERE. [I'm not in Texas.]
Some places may not have as many people who object to any
change, like Senator Kennedy. So just because it works in some
other place that happens to be a special case is no indication that it
will work here. But don't believe me. Go invest YOUR OWN
money in a wind power project and go broke. If you get rich
instead, fine. If T.B. Pickens wants to waste a billion dollars on
wind power, that is fine with me. Put your money where your
mouth is. If you expect other people to invest their money, the
numbers have to work first. Remember that climate has an
impact on whether wind energy will work in a given place.
There just isn't enough wind power in the world and it is too
intermittent to be useable for base load. If you capture all of the
wind power, you will have changed the climate.
The impracticality of wind power may have something to do with
Congress's unwillingness to subsidize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind power can't hack it
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 24, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Ocean Wind Energy Potential
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
Newsroom/NewImages/
images.php3?img_id=18090

Large images [On the original web site. If you look at the images, you see that the best wind is at very INconvenient locations, like near Antarctica and in the North Pacific ocean.]
June-August (436 kB JPEG)
December-February (432 kB JPEG)

Wind energy has the potential to provide 10 to 15 percent of the world’s future
energy, according to Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Once windmills are installed, wind can be converted to electricity
inexpensively. But not everyone likes wind farms. The giant collection of whirling
blades mars scenic views and can kill birds and bats, particularly if located in a
high-traffic flyway. To minimize these risks, one solution may be to place wind
farms in the ocean. Wind tends to blow stronger over the ocean than over land.
The ocean presents a smooth surface over which wind can glide without
interruption, while hills, mountains, and forests tend to slow or channel wind over
land.

But, as any sailor could tell you, wind over the ocean isn’t consistent. In some
places, the air is still, while in others, the wind blows fiercely. To identify potential
wind farm locations, NASA scientists Tim Liu, Wenqing Tang, and Xiaosu Xie, all
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, mapped out average wind intensity over the
ocean between 2000 and 2007. They created their maps from data collected by
NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuickSCAT), which measures wind speed and
direction over the world’s oceans. The satellite sends pulses of microwave energy
through the atmosphere to the ocean surface and measures the energy that bounces
back from the wind-roughened surface. The energy of the microwave pulses
changes depending on wind speed and direction. The scientists averaged
QuikSCAT’s measured wind speeds by season, and then calculated the wind
power density, the amount of energy that could be derived from a wind turbine in a
given location. Their maps for the winter and summer seasons are shown here.

Wind strength is influenced by seasonal patterns, land-ocean interactions, land
topography, and ocean temperatures. All of these interactions are evident in this
pair of images. Areas of high wind power density, where winds are strongest, are
purple, while low power density regions are light blue and white.

The largest patterns shown in the images are seasonal patterns. In December,
January, and February, winter storms fuel strong winds in the mid-latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere. In June, July, and August, winter reigns in the Southern
Hemisphere, and the pattern is reversed. The Asian monsoon also controls the
seasonal distribution of wind. In June, July, and August, strong winds gust across
the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. From December to February, the monsoon
winds blow over the East China Sea. Finally, the trade winds trace their way
across the tropics, stronger in the winter than in the summer.

==================article continues at the URL above=========

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To those who make antinuclear a religion:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 24, 2008 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference Book: "The Paranoia Switch" by Martha Stout. Coal
companies push your buttons and pull your chain, just like George
W. Bush, Adolph Hitler, Senator McCarthy and others. MRI
used to be called NMR. The name was changed to get patients
into the scanner. Most Americans are paranoid of terrorists and
all things nuclear. If the "human" brain had been designed by a
competent god, the coal industry would not have a $100 Billion
per year cash flow and George W. Bush would never have had a
chance of being elected once. We all know that we have to
convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear worldwide by 2015,
but it won't happen because the average American has an
irrational fear of all things nuclear. To solve the global warming
problem, the whole USA needs to be sent to a mental health
professional. We have enough time and technology. It is only
mental health and education that are lacking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nuclear power is a disaster (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 24, 2008 10:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory scientists estimate that if the U.S. became as energy efficient as Japan, it would save $220 billion per year on its energy bill. Nuclear power has proven to be a disaster: 116 plants have been canceled in the United States since 1973 and no new plants ordered since 1978. This has been an economic waste of more than $50 billion.

Nuclear power suffers from uncontrollable expenses due to construction, operation, maintenance and radioactive waste management. The nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power generation is deadly, and contains isotopes that remain toxic for up to 220,000 years. There is no safe way to dispose of it.

In June 1989, the citizens of Sacramento voted to shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear plant after 15 years of operation. The plant may be converted to solar power. The New York’s Shoreham nuclear plant will never operate due to public opposition. The nuclear industry ignored the public outcry, and it now costs the taxpayers and the industry $6 billion.

The nuclear power industry is an industry plagued with safety hazards, routine radiation releases, mismanagement, cost overruns, increased maintenance costs, extended outages and a dependence on federal subsidies. Forbes magazine has called the failed nuclear power program “the largest managerial disaster in U.S. business history,” costing as much as the space program and the Vietnam War combined.

According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, moving from fossil fuel to nuclear power on a global level would require building a new reactor every one to three days for the next 40 years, at a cost of $200 billion per year. This would result in 300,000 tons of radioactive waste in the United States alone.

Reasonable alternatives exist. Solar energy is abundant, non-polluting and dependable. Electricity-producing wind turbines exist in 95 countries, with an installed capacity of 1,450 megawatts. They can be installed alone or in clusters. A coal or nuclear plant can take a decade or longer to plan or construct, whereas wind turbine clusters have been built in under 90 days. New wind systems generate power at six to nine cents per kilowatt hour, while electricity from new nuclear power plants costs 13 cents per kilowatt hour.

According to United Nations energy statistics, hydroelectric power supplies 21 percent of the world’s electricity; more than nuclear power. Hydroelectric power provides the most efficient, most reliable and lowest cost source of electricity, with production costs generally one-tenth those of nuclear power. Geothermal energy projects cost less than half the cost of nuclear reactors, and can be built in one-fifth of the time.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nuclear power has become the least competitive of conventional electricity sources. Costs of $2 to $3 billion per plant are now commonplace, with some plants costing upwards of $5 billion. In contrast, while the price of electricity generated by solar energy is not yet as low as that from coal-fired plants, some technologies are already cheaper than nuclear-generated electricity.

The average output of nuclear plants is only about 60 percent of designed capacity, because many plants are forced to shut down frequently for repairs and maintenance. In the 1980s, the time required for construction of a nuclear reactor typically ranged from 8 to 14 years. The real roots of this problem lie in faulty and incomplete design work, inadequate quality control during construction and poor management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nuclear power is a disaster (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 24, 2008 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
General safety issues plague the nuclear power industry. These include the capability of safety control systems to survive fires, earthquakes or hydrogen explosions; the capability of reactor systems to respond to an emergency shutdown command; and the capability of a plant to withstand the loss of power needed to operate safety systems.

A typical nuclear power plant generates over 30 metric tons of highly radioactive material, which remains hazardous to humans for thousands of years. There is no easy solution to the disposal of nuclear waste.

According to Greenpeace, a 1989 Lou Harris poll found 62 percent of U.S. citizens strongly opposed to nuclear power. Like the environmental movement, the antinuclear movement has grown in past decades from a radical fringe element into a mainstream public concern. Questions to ask proponents of nuclear power are as follows:

1) How will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) define safety standards for new reactors?

2) Will the quality of construction be better than in the past?

3) Where and how will the additional nuclear wastes generated by new plants be disposed of?

4) Will the nuclear industry be more willing to accept stringent regulation and enforcement than it has been in the past?

Until these questions are answered satisfactorily, nuclear power remains a risky solution to the energy crisis. Making use of energy-efficient systems, conserving energy, recycling, vegetarianism, and becoming energy and environmentally conscious, however, are steps we can all take towards a sustainable world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A green economy is one that doesn't cause our extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 24, 2008 10:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Galbraith, Jones, and Thorne -- Where is Daly?
Posted by: Rob_Dietz on Aug 25, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very respectful and supportive of the work of Galbraith, Jones, and Thorne. As described in the article, they are working diligently on the transition from our unsustainable growth economy. But we also need to be pushing the work of Herman Daly. For more than three decades, he has been promoting the idea of the steady state economy.

A steady state economy features stabilized population and per capita consumption. We will not achieve long-term sustainability without meeting these conditions. Meeting these conditions, however, requires some fundamental changes in how we structure our economy. For instance, we will have to focus on redistribution more than growth. Several comments posted here have discussed financial institutions necessary to support a more stable economy. Building such institutions is entirely feasible, but only if we first change the goal from growth to sustainability.

As a first step toward changing the goal, you can sign an online position on economic growth at .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tiffany Jewelry on sale
Posted by: qqNageli on Aug 28, 2008 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tiffany Inspired Jewelry. High quality silver jevellery including silver charms, silver rings, silver chains and more.
Just click on banner above to look the whole collection & choose from fine silver jewelry available at outstanding prices.
Sterling Silver Jewelry Store, Wholesale Silver Jewellery: Rings, Earrings, Charms at low prices Tiffany Jewellery
Tiffany price
Tiffany

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]