Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Scam Artists Are Prepped to Fleece Green Industries as Soon as the Money Comes in

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted April 28, 2008.


As long as an investing class makes all major environmental decisions, no new sources of energy will replace even one barrel or ton of fossil fuel.
Advertisement

Hard times are looming. And in their desperation to keep the American economy afloat, government and business will be tossing overboard any proposals for real environmental protection. No time for such romantic foolishness when there are investments to be protected. Get those tax refunds back into retailers' registers, quick!

Not that we won't be hearing about the environment; indeed, the next growth spurt, if it comes, is likely to be clothed in a green as green as the felt on a blackjack table.

Earlier this year, entrepreneur Eric Janszen declared in Harper's magazine that the next bubble -- alternative energy -- had already been "branded". His projection: the eventual creation of $20 trillion in fictitious, speculative wealth, "money that inevitably will be employed to increase share prices rather than to deliver 'energy security.'" and that "when the bubble finally bursts, we will be left to mop up after yet another devastated industry." After that next big bust, not only alternative energy but a host of other "green" industries will be left in ruin.

As long as an investing class is allowed to make all major environmental decisions, no new sources of energy will actually replace even one barrel or ton of fossil fuel; rather, they will go to further parasitizing the planet in the cause of growth. The boosters of "green" capitalism have never even bothered to argue otherwise in any effective way.

Typical is a book by Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston entitled Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, which became an immediate hit among "green" tycoons when it was published in 2006. It was a how-to manual for business people wanting to run the kinds of companies that, in the authors' phrase, "get ahead of the Green Wave," whose "environmental strategies provide added degrees of freedom to operate, profit, and grow."

These are some of the helpful tips to be found in Green to Gold:

"Most successful green marketing starts with the traditional selling points -- price, quality, or performance -- and only then mentions environmental attributes. Almost always, green should not be the first button to push."

"Eco-labels can provide legitimate environmental information to a demanding public. But they can also be used as a trade barrier, disadvantaging competitors in the marketplace."

"Corporate strategy 101 tells us that a company can drive revenues by increasing price or volume. With green products, volume is a much safer route."

"Partnering gives a company a strong defense against NGO [nongovernmental (nonprofit) organization] attacks, but a large part of that defense is the demonstration of genuine progress. We call it brand inoculation ... " [their bold]

Right in the first chapter, Esty and Wilson rank companies they've designated as green "WaveRiders". Number One in their international ranking is petroleum giant BP. Their account of how BP reached the top of the green heap is little more than a description of a masterful public-relations campaign. "Despite being in a business with large environmental impacts, the company is now seen as green," they write, and "Here's the real proof: BP's brand value, as measured by experts in measuring intangibles, has jumped significantly."

But BP's primary mission is still to earn a profit by selling fossil fuels, so it was no big shock when the Independent reported in 2005 that the company had been lobbying against substantive proposals then before the U.S. Congress that would cap carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, BP supported a watered-down move that would have "companies only try to cut emissions with the promise of tax breaks."

Then, last year, the Environmental Protection Agency exempted BP from what the company regarded as a too-restrictive environmental law, allowing its Whiting, Indiana facility to discharge increased quantities of ammonia and other pollutants into Lake Michigan and to continue dumping mercury into the lake. This reportedly was done so that BP could refine heavy crude oil from Canadian tar sands.

Under a hail of criticism from local residents and environmentalists, BP promised, cross-its-heart, to stick to the old water-pollution limits, but its pending state permit for a $3.8 billion expansion of the Whiting facility has critics fuming over potential impacts on local air quality. The permit is expected to be approved by June 1. That is an important deadline, because it's then that some of BP's previously earned air-emission credits will expire. BP claims that by juggling credits, it will decrease the "net" carbon emissions from the new plant -- ecological virtue as thin as the paper the credits are printed on. And, according to reports, "particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions would increase."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy sources, consumerism, environment, capitalism, green investing

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, was just published by Pluto Press.



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:
BP, Bullshit Pile ...
Posted by: gazooks on Apr 28, 2008 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there a more irresponsible petro producer with a longer list of incompetence and imagination exhausted spin department?

I can't help but hope that the sheer velocity and volume of exposed deception from corporate pr sources will collide head on with the stunning reality of a tapped out middle class.

Good luck to the market growth ambitions of WF. Unless of course there's a Whole Mart in our future.

Grow, buy local. Boycott BP.

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

» RE: BP, Bullshit Pile ... Posted by: wittler youth
I once parked a rusty Ford in front of Whole Foods
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 28, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only time I ever went there oh wait Ive been twice...At any rate When people decide to sell organic food along side of conventionally grown food, the prices should be different. Organics are more costly to produce in a small or large scale. I certainly do not fault Wal Mart for selling organics either. There seems to be too much concern about where you get your organics. Now I am beholden to local growers for obvious reasons, but like I have said many many times, How do you feed 300,000,000 people and not grow it on a large scale. To this date no one has been able to tell me how to do it. I want everyone to take into consideration that the average age of a farmer in this country is 55, that less people are willing to take the chance on raising food for a living than ever before,and that there is a decreasing land base. I am not saying that there is no way we can feed ourselves.. There is plenty. I am saying that given the circumstances though that we are going to have large scale agriculture until folks start getting off their asses and start farming. If you have ever remotely dreamt about farming it is possibly one of the best times in our history to be a small farmer. I am saying JUST DO IT.If you want the agri businesses to shrink, you have to put yourself on the line and become a farmer. Personally though those folks that are growing that food are providing a service at this time. If you can dream it, you can do it.

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

» Wrong Question Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Wrong Question Posted by: astralman
» RE: Wrong Question Posted by: g50
» RE: Wrong Question Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE:decreasing land base Posted by: Sushi
Getting back to replacing [not burning] one ton of coal:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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 or super batteries. There are special locations
and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot
replace coal and nuclear any time soon.
Those windmills are just nuisances that electric companies are
forced to put up with. They aren't really reducing the need for
coal because the wind is too variable. The coal fire has to be kept
burning to maintain a "spinning reserve." There is one and only
one practical way to replace coal fired power plants at the present
time. That one way is nuclear power. Nuclear power works for
base load and nuclear power is clean and safe. Nuclear fuel is
recyclable. There is no such thing as nuclear waste.
We don't have batteries that are good enough and cheap enough to
solve the problem of wind variability yet. We need research into
energy storage and room temperature superconductors. The
research will take an unknown amount of time. We don't have
that time. Batteries and room temperature superconductors
have been under research for a very long time already, so don't
expect any breakthroughs next week.

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

Sticking to the original topic of replacing fossil fuels
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [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]

Solar power cannot replace coal because of price.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://science-community.sciam.com/
blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422

The Cost of Solar Power   From Dan M.'s Blog  
by Dan M.
"One source that seems good is solarbuzz.com(1)(2). From the
name, it sounds like a pro solar energy source, but the data seem
to be realistic.
From the first referenced page at this site, we see that residential
costs have dropped 6% to 37.59 cents/kwH, while
commercial/wholesale costs have dropped 0.6% between July
2000 and November 2007 to 21.37 cents/kwH. "
"For comparison purposes, the wholesale price of electricity was
0.06 cents/kwH. "

Dividing the solar cost by the wholesale grid price, we see that
solar power costs 356.2 to 626.5 times as much as electricity from
the wholesale grid. That is during the daytime. At night, the
cost of solar power is much higher because you have to add the
cost of energy storage, the cost of converting the energy to store
it, the cost of converting the energy back, and all of the
inefficiencies. You would be lucky to get 5% efficiency overall
for stored energy, so multiply by at least 20 purely because of
inefficiency. Double or multiply by some larger number the
capital cost to cover the cost of storage. Solar power is
unaffordable at night.

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

» RE: Solar power cannot replace coal because of price. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Your friends do not have air conditioning Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Not to mention Boggarting the thread Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
organic scam
Posted by: wittler youth on Apr 28, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yea..if you were old anoufgh in 1973 and liveing in l.a. every thing had a organic sticker on it..it was bull shit back then just as it is now..yea slap a 1/10th of a cent sticker on your shit and make 50% more $$$..woo-wee..b.p. went green..and my ass just turned red from there drill bit looking for consumer gold..pleezz screw me the old fashiond way...tell me you love me!..then feed me round up ready any shit and label it 'ORGANIC'...hey lets call mt. top removal..peaceful displacement.lol.

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

» RE: organic scam Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Well, what else can you expect when you have nothing but a WEAK Left ?!?
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 28, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask the so-called "Left" to fight to LEGALIZE and put to work the 26000 industrial uses of HEMP and all you'll get is "pot smoker", "reefer madness" propaganda BULLSHIT replies.

Ask the so-called "Left" to fight to improve the 3 decades of DECAYED public transportation infrastructure by switching to light rail, improving the bus routes for more people, and cutting down those OBSCENELY high fares, what do they do? NOTHING !

And remember all those tax breaks for gas guzzlers? Why did the Democrats vote with the GOP on that 6 years ago?

Ask the so-called "Left" to actually take on Big Government subsidizing Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear and instead divert that money towards sustainable alternative renewables such as solar, wind, petroleum-free biofuels such as algae, switchgrass, hemp, etc ... but what happens? They buy into the BIG LIES that the so-called EROI is "low" despite the fact that it has already been proven that solar and wind can easily be improved to yield a higher energy return to meet the actual world's energy needs.

Try to tell the so-called "Left" that not all biofuels are harmful and that in fact unlike corn and sugar based ones, there do exists biofuels which are actually petroleum free from production to consumption such as algae, switchgrass, and hemp and the only reply you'll ever get is their buying into the rightwing LIES that "All biofuels cause more 'global warming'" BULLSHIT !

Well, oil, light sweet anyway, is running out so what do you want? Sour Heavy Oil or more toxic nuclear waste to poison this planet to DEATH with? Do you want to be a SORE LOSER CRYBABY like the author and yet allow the politicians to keep begging the Saudi royal elites for more oil? Do you want more wars for oil and possibly nuclear?

Then be my guest and keep writing off the solutions I and countless others have proposed and keep laughing at us frugal individuals who are actually saving the environment compared to the phoney LATTE LIMOUSINE "liberals". Keep writing off red state America and keep voting for any Tom, Dick, and Harry idiot with a D next to it. For those of you attacking me for bravely supporting RALPH NADER for president, here's a song that best suites you LOSERS falling for another sucker "D". It's called "ABUSE ME" by SilverChair. Look it up on youtube.com and enjoy being ABUSED by both parties and the phoney greenwashers. The rest of us will keep trying to get these solutions out there no thanks to either party !

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

» RE: Well, good music max Posted by: Smiggsy
a quote from Keynes
Posted by: twoten on Apr 28, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Capitalism is the widely held misconception that the worst people, operating under the worst of motives, will somehow end up doing good for us all."

John Maynard Keynes

Seems ridiculous doesn't it? That a bunch of psychopathic scumbags jerking each other's wangers at the gold plated urinals of the executive washroom would help anything other than themselves. It oughtta be a crime to poison the world to death so that you can build an even bigger pile of money that you won't ever spend. Disgusting.

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

» RE: a quote from Keynes/ Posted by: erichwwk
» great quotes! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
I notice fewer arguments in favor of biofuel since food riots began
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is a form of progress. Many posters are now aware that we
cannot replace fossil fuels with biofuel. Why did it take food
riots to convince them? They should have listened when I
said that 2 or 3 more Earths would be needed to replace fossil fuel
with biofuel. Hemp is no better than other biofuels because
plants, including hemp, have a very low efficiency of converting
sunlight. Plants are less efficient than solar voltaics by ~20 times.
Neither corn nor soybeans nor jojoba beans nor hemp nor sugar
cane nor palm oil can do any better. Using the entire plant helps,
but you still run out of land. Converting tobacco and opium
poppy fields would help, but you still need more than one earth.

Will something analogous happen with wind and solar power?
Hopefully without too many deaths? And hopefully before it is
too late to stop global warming because of too many thresholds
having been crossed. The food riots are a great lesson. Food
riots WILL happen in the USA if global warming is allowed to
continue. Wind and solar power are not adequate to put an end to
burning fossil fuel. I hope wind and solar power advocates come
to their senses soon enough. EFFECTIVE action has to be taken
immediately to stop the burning of coal first, because coal is the
biggest single source of CO2. People who advocate solar, or
wind power are playing into the hands of the $100 Billion/year
coal industry because the coal fire must be kept burning to even
out the variability in wind and the lack of sunshine at night. Of
course, the coal industry keeps putting up front web sites and
funding books claiming that nuclear power is dangerous. Nuclear
power is the safest. I do not have a financial connection to the
nuclear industry.

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

Glass Pies in the Sky: A Solution to Global Warming?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Summary (Apr 23, 2007): If global warming sizzles out of control, could 16
trillion small disks deflect enough sunlight to cool the planet? Astronomer Roger
Angel proposes to find out.
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&file
=article&sid=2309&mode=
thread&order=0&thold=0
[NASA document not copyrighted]
Pies in the Sky: A Solution to Global Warming?
By David Tenenbaum
As the reality of global warming sinks in, the scramble for solutions has begun. In
the mainstream are ideas for energy conservation and non-carbon energy sources
such as wind and nuclear power. Further afield are proposals to recover carbon
dioxide spewed out by power plants.
Much more speculative are some ambitious plans for high-tech parasols to block
sunlight before it reaches this planet. At the NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts (NIAC) meeting last fall, Roger Angel, an astronomer and optics expert
at the University of Arizona, produced a highly detailed – and highly futuristic --
proposal for a sunshade huge enough to cut incoming sunlight by 1.8 percent.
That, he says, should counteract the warming expected from a doubling of
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Angel’s plan builds on an early design by James Early of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, but it slims the mass down from 100 million tons to 20
million tons – something that, he says, conceivably could be launched from Earth.
Angel does not consider solar sunblock the optimum choice in the struggle against
global warming, but rather a fallback position “if things get seriously bad.” If, for
example, ice starts sliding faster from Greenland than expected, sun shields “may
be a useful idea” to prevent vast coastal flooding.
The Early concept calls for a giant sun-shield near the L1 Lagrange point, about
1.8 million kilometers (about 1.2 million miles) above Earth. Here, the gravity of
Earth and sun balance, enabling a shield to remain stationary for years.
Angel suggests that the shield, covering an area of 4.7 million square kilometers
(slightly smaller than the area of the continental United States west of the
Mississippi River), would be best made as a cloud of 16 trillion free-flying circular
refractors, each 0.6 meter (2 feet) in diameter. . Each refractor would be about 5
microns thick and weigh 1.2 grams. The refractors would be launched in stacks
and then deployed upon reaching the target zone.
At every stage, Angel has proposed high-technology solutions to staggering
challenges. He would launch the refractors to escape velocity with an
electromagnetic coil gun, which propels a missile based on electromagnetic
repulsion, then propel them to L1 with ion thrusters using argon as fuel. Once in
place, each disk would sense its position using hyper-miniature cameras that detect
sun and Earth. Adjustable trim tabs (tiny mirrors) catch solar radiation pressure as
needed to maintain the disk’s correct orientation and position in space.
If the disks had reflective mirror surfaces, they would quickly be pushed toward
Earth by solar radiation pressure, so they will be designed to refract (bend)
sunlight, not reflect it. Since they would make only a small deflection, the disks
would evade most of the radiation pressure, Angel says.
He estimates the disks could remain in orbit for at least 50 years, until their solar
cells degraded and they could no longer position themselves.

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

» SPAM - it's not just for breakfast! Posted by: thoughtcriminal
glass pies in the sky continued
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With money from NIAC, Angel says, “we have built a prototype optical element, a
micron-thick [refractive] hologram on glass.. When you hold it up and look
directly at the moon, the moonlight disappears off the axis and is spread away into
radial spectra.”
Lagrange point 1 is between the Earth and the sun. The solar wind reaches it about
one hour before reaching Earth. In 1978, the International Sun-Earth Explorer-3
(ISEE-3) was launched towards L1, where it conducted solar observations for
several years. Now the ESA/NASA SOHO solar watchdog is positioned there.
Despite every effort to control weight, the total launch weight for the project
would be about 20 million tons: 20 million launches at 1 ton apiece. Angel
proposes launching stacks of 800,000 disks from a 2-kilometer coil gun. The
mouth of the gun would be 18,000 feet above sea level, enabling the projectiles to
start their journey above half of the atmosphere, where air friction is reduced.
Because coil guns are so efficient, the electricity necessary for 20 million launches,
even if generated by burning fossil fuel, would cause only a minimal increase in
global warming, Angel estimates. However, giant electricity-storage facilities
would still be necessary, as would enormous factories to produce 16 trillion disks.
Angel suggests the total system could cost $5 trillion. That’s a heap of money, but
if the shield lasted 50 years, the average annual cost would come to $100 billion.
That is just 0.2 percent of current world gross domestic product, and a lot less than
some estimates of the cost of global warming.
Given the size and futuristic nature of the technology, the program would need
plenty of advance planning – as much as 30 years for feasibility studies,
manufacturing, and launching, Angel says.
The pies in the sky do have some advantages over competing plans, Angel says.
Unlike suggestions for placing reflective particles in the high atmosphere, his plan
would not need constant renewal.
“It probably has a minimal number of side effects, it just turns down the knob on
the sun, does not put anything in the atmosphere,” says Angel. “On the other hard,
it’s probably the most expensive route” to blocking the sun.
Robert Kennedy, an engineer from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, wonders about funding.
“How are you going to fund it? With a magic waving of hands, you spend several
hundred billion, or several trillion dollars. The human race generally does not do
that, it generally suffers the pain rather than spending the money.”
In 2000, Kennedy and colleagues proposed a plan to place giant mirrors at L1. The
mirrors would contain photovoltaic arrays, and so could both block sunlight and
beam power back to Earth. “In addition to solving the primary problem,” he says,
his proposal “actually makes money” through electricity sales.
Although the refractors proposal could be an ace in the hole if global warming gets
out of hand, Angel hopes humans will be smart enough to devise less-radical ways
to confront warming. But if, as some suspect, the climate system is near a “tipping
point,” the refractor plan might start looking attractive, he adds. Right now, he
says, “You want to understand your options, have some idea of what the thing
might cost, how long it would take, and what the side effects might be.”
For a few hundred million dollars, he says, it should be possible to test whether
disks at the Lagrange point indeed can remain stationary enough to deflect sunlight
over decades.

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

Market Dogma
Posted by: erichwwk on Apr 28, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stan Cox writes:

Of all religions, the one to which Americans cling most tightly is the doctrine of the free market.

Amen. USSR came apart largely by clinging to the mirror image of that doctrine, that a command economy works best.

What happened in this country was that a rigid system was created, and then life was herded into it." -- Mikhail Gorbachev

We are doomed if we can't find our way back to an economy/government that is science, rather than dogma, based, and recognizes that whether a good is private or public is intrinsic in the nature of the good, and not something that a politician gets to decide. Both types of goods co-exist in the real world.

“Reality is that which, when you don’t believe in it, doesn’t go away” -- Peter Viereck

China did just that (as have most other countries), in Deng Xiaoping's famous statement:

"I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice."


Another quote from Keynes you may be interested in, as it describes our current government:

"“I work for a Government I despise for ends I think criminal”. Letter to Duncan Grant (15 December 1917)

"The purpose of studying economics is to keep people from being deceived by economists" -- Joan Robinson

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith

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

Hey You Fossil Fuel Freaks, Stop Raping Mother Earth
Posted by: robbrian on Apr 28, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To date every proposed palliative treats symptoms rather presenting global solutions. Reducing carbon emission over x number of years through credits and bartering is a fools errand. All other alternative, renewable energy solutions pose environmental, aesthetic, and economic pitfalls that in sum raises the cost of usage to the consumer over and above the inefficiencies of current modalities. Ethanol uses more petroleum to achieve the same results as petroleum.

There should be clearly defined benchmarks for the development of renewable energy policies, programs and funding mechanisms. National and global polices need to address immediate problems with immediate solutions not extensive research and testing, which is the ploy of the fossil fuel mavens contributing to Universities, politicians,and controlling inputs of small firms lacking leverage. The major criteria for renewable energy solutions are: (1)the extent to which carbon emissions are reduced and, (2)that renewable solutions must be clean and relatively cost efficient given other renewable alternatives; (3)we need a distributed energy system based on renewable energy -- not coal and nuclear. Coal and nuclear are problem switching, not problem solving.

What then must we pursue as an ultimate solution that is renewable, clean and, can be produced and distributed at costs far below current modalities?? For 85 years the answer has been ocean energy.

In the U.S. the cost to produce one kilowatt hour of energy ranges from .10 cents to .60 cents per kilowatt hour for fossil fuels. For renewable modalities, the costs range from .05 cents to $4.60 cents per kilowatt hour. These costs can be offset partially by tax subsidies for consumers and producers, reducing costs/kw to that experienced by the fossil fuel freaks. We have been led to believe that these are the best competitive prices we can expect. Not so!

Ocean Resource Group, with offices in Miami, and New Brunswick, puts the technology's potential on the line, stating we only need 1% of the available power from ocean currents to light up the world.

(Currently, approximately 11,200 TWh/yr of primary energy is required to meet total U.S. electrical demand.) Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) devices have the greatest potential for applications at islands such as Hawaii because of the combination of the relatively high ratio of available shoreline per unit energy requirement, availability of greater unit wave energies due to trade winds, and the relatively high costs of other local energy sources. Wave energy can be produced and distributed at .04 to .08 cents/kw.

The Fossil Fuel Folks will Foam at the mouth, when obscene profits are threatened by .04 cents/kWh electricity generated from the clean, renewable ocean. However, the real money in the new order of ocean energy will be in distribution infrastructure. True, margins won't be obscene, but there will be profits derived from capturing the 76% of American power users who got sucked into the Fossil Fuel Furnace when Henry Ford mass produced the model T and had to switch from steam driven motors to the internal combustion engine.

Approximately 16 years ago Prof. Alexander Gorlov invented the Helix Turbine. Only recently has the U.S. government grudgingly allocated a few dollars for testing this revolutionary invention.

The South Korean government recently asked Gorlov to design an arrangement of turbines for the narrow Uldolmok channel that separates the peninsula from an island. Gorlov came up with a system that now produces more than 80 megawatts - enough to power 80,000 houses - without disrupting the channel's extensive shipping. Representatives of the government met with Gorlov last month to review expansion of the project."A big plus to the turbine is that it doesn't need a dam."

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

» Nuclear does not have problems Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» Hemp is snake oil Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» See my Chernobyl post below. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Stan Cox should be glad he has food. It won't last forever.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

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

This is why we need government regulation of industry.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 28, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the major 8.9 Loma Prieta earthquake hit the Bay Area, around a hundred people died. A similar sized quake in Turkey, 1999 killed tens of thousands. As the engineer there said,

"In California and in the United States, particularly in California and in the Western United States, we have a very strong building code. Engineers have worked hard to make that building code better so that our buildings are constructed to resist, when at all possible, damage, and particularly collapse, from earthquakes of this size. We also work hard at enforcing that code. The contractors have to get their plans inspected and then inspectors go actually into the field to the construction sites to assure that the buildings are being constructed to the standards to which they were designed."

A case example of how scam artists avoided regulation is the rush to install solar water heater systems across the U.S. southwest in the late 70s and early 80s. Shoddy construction by amateurs looking to make a buck led to hundreds of defunct rotted-out rooftop systems.

The same thing is going on with solar installers in California right now. Shady contractors who underpay their employees, inflate their bids and do subpar work? Claiming to be environmentally conscious greenies is just another marketing gimmick. Thus, buyer beware.

However, remember that the fossil fuel industry has spent the last century working constantly to inflate fossil fuel demand and eliminate competition from renewable energy systems. They flood the press and the message boards with PR - for one reason - they know that renewables really can replace all fossil fuel demand, which would make thier coal fields and tar sands and oil wells worthless.

Burnt Planet in the tar sands, ExxonMob in the tar sands, Shell in the tar sands - all want to exploit these reserves and sell the product in the United States. This is just another example of business as usual. The coal industry is still pushing for more coal-fired power plants, while spending millions on a ridiculous pro-coal advertising campaign, complete with techno jingles featuring shiny rocks of coal.

Governments do have the power to ban this trade in tar sand oil as an offense against basic human rights and the stability of the planet's atmosphere, you know - same as they had the right to ban the slave trade.

This is worth memorizing:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

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

» RE: Squarehead, er du Svensk? Posted by: Squarehead
» oops! Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Complaints Department
Posted by: ClassAct on Apr 28, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don’t look to government to repairs malfunctions in the marketplace. You can just talk to the invisible hand.

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

Don't you think
Posted by: willymack on Apr 28, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time we returned some of the love practiced upon us by the "energy" companies? We can begin by seizing their physical plants and impounding their money. Next, we can force them into a crash program aimed at developing energy sources that don't burn anything. (hint: fuel cells made their first appearance in the 1950s), without using ONE DIME of taxpayer money. Finally, once #s 1 & 2 are accomplished, we can return the companies to the former owners with the warning that they'll be watched very closely, and that any return to their crokked ways will be met with arrest and imprisonment.

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

Nationalize the American Oil Industry..and all holdings..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 28, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We Must Nationalize the America Oil Industry and all Holdings..

It is the only real solution and then we can cut costs by 30-33% and still have $50-60 Billion per year for alternate energy and new technologies and create an economic boom..!

Eventually we must Nationalize all Energy such as Electric as well it's the future why are we still burdened with this 19 Century economic model Exxon-Mobil and the other oil companies are bring America and so many other companies to their knees, as if an enemy foreign power...!

We can still also trade the stock for this on our market as is done in every other nation with state run Oil entities..which are the fastest growing and most successful by the way..

The American Oil companies are 49% of OPEC..!

They do not pay $120 per barrel for the oil only around $40 dollars, which is by the way only 42 gallons per barrel not 55 gallons as many believe..

Then they make 33% on a gallon of gasoline as well plus the profits on the petro-chemical off shoots..other products..


NATIONALIZE THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES AND INDUSTRY AND ALL HOLDINGS..!

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

Conservation is clean, safe, affordable, and we have the technology today.
Posted by: Rune on Apr 28, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And yet, as always, most of the attention and funding goes into coming up with some way of squeezing more energy out of more dwindling resources so we can use it to extract and consume ever more natural resources, many of which are already so tainted, disrupted, or in short supply that they threaten the very existence of crucial ecosystems that are necessary to our own existence.

Why?

I think there are two primary reasons. First, people are afraid of large changes, especially when they are not well informed about what advantages and disadvantages of those changes might entail. That is just human nature. We would much rather stick with what we know, by substituting tools and resources that require only incremental changes, than undertake learning about wholly new ways of valuing and living life.

Second, as this article points out, new energy projects lend themselves to large scale, industrial and financial scamming with a steady stream of revenue to inflate the next bubble so long as demand for energy does not start to decline. So, quite naturally, the big money continues to hype the need and promise of more energy while the alternatives and problems surrounding that vision remain out of the media spotlight (and, thus, mostly out of the public's knowledge and imagination).

Massive conservation efforts, beginning with simply making terribly inefficient and unhealthy buildings much safer and more efficient, could be undertaken in fairly short order and it could scale down much faster and more cost effectively than new sources of energy can be developed and rolled out in the next decade or two--which is the general timeline for making serious emissions reductions to head off the worst of predicted climate destabilization. The main impediments are a lack of skilled labor to use building science alongside new construction and retrofitting, as well as a general lack of public awareness of the great potential for cutting the energy use of buildings (which exceeds energy used for all forms of transportation) by 30% (cheap) to 70% (expensive) while making the buildings more comfortable and healthy to be in. And that is just buildings.

Putting our money into highly skilled labor that can redesign and remake the common components of our world would shift power away from financial speculators to working women and men. It would create better jobs and growing wages. And it is that potential that makes it less attractive to the financial class that is presently running the show and pushing more of the industrial approaches that got us into this mess (and their next shot at looting yet another bubble economy).

I have focused on just efficiency in buildings, but the potential is there to do the same thing in many energy using sectors of the economy. Ultimately, however, sustaining and furthering energy conservation goals will require doing fewer of the things that require energy (such as commuting in private passenger cars) by displacing them with new habits and hobbies that offer their own intrinsic benefits (such as better health, fun opportunities to learn and grow, or more free time).

And that beings us back to change--real change that we need to muster ourselves, not phony change being hyped by politicians who are actually trying to sell us on the notion that we do not have to change because they will wave their wands and make everything work as before. Can we do it? Can we even find enough confidence and interest to explore and discuss such ideas? Or shall we continue to be led by the nose by those who sold us the current economic vision that is blowing up in our faces as they promise the next version of the same old thing will really do the trick?

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

Zero Human Population Growth -- still the big Taboo
Posted by: stilldreaming on Apr 28, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did Stanley Cox mention the need for population control, voluntary hopefully, until mass catastrhophies do it for us ?!

Bet he did not.

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

Organic, natural...?
Posted by: frankly1 on Apr 28, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time and time again I have read articles and books by authors comparing organic or natural foods and methods that can replace the ways and foods of our current corpoate industrial consumer society, as if the way we exist today has somehow developed a few flaws, that, with a little correction in direction we can all carry on with our wonderfull productive facinating lives, We can drive cleaner cars and eat better food etc if we just can tweak the system a tad, us humans, who are so clever and inventive can solve these little hiccups in our eveloutionary development and sally fourth and spread our greatness throuout the galaxy and then the rest of the universe.
I think a better definition of modern humanity, in particular the Ameican version, would resemble a cancer. We are part of the whole but we are destroying the system in which we exist even though when we complete this we shall also perish.
Civilization and the vast majority of the human race will not survive the impending calamities by getting walmart to sell organic produce or by driving a hybrid. The solution is to change entirely the way we veiw our place on this planet and our relationship with every form of life that we share it with. If we do not do this, quickly, the support mechanism we call earth we impose a solution upon us. Perhaps the next "Dominant" species that evolves will comprehend that all life and all actions are connected and have cosequences for all others.

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

Corn is a better bet than hemp but:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 29, 2008 10:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/04/29/corn_
ethanol_standards/#more-483
Corn Ethanol: Importance of Performance Standards
April 29, 2008 | Posted by Robert Bonnie in Automobiles &
Fuels, Food & Agriculture
This post is by Robert Bonnie, Co-Director of the Land, Water
and Wildlife Program at Environmental Defense Fund.
.........omitted material........
Shifts in land use from diverting food-producing land to grow
crops for energy - called "indirect land-use change" - can
potentially negate the environmental benefits of corn ethanol.
There is still much debate on how to measure it, but no question
it’s important to consider. One recent study published in Science
(Searchinger et. al.) found that using croplands for biofuels causes
a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions relative to
gasoline when indirect land use change is taken into account.
Unintended consequences such as these highlight the danger of
mandating a specific clean energy technology, and the importance
of relying on performance standards instead.
..........................omitted material.........................
According to the Searchinger study, when indirect land-use
change is factored in:
* Corn ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions
relative to gasoline when considered over a period of 30 years,
and emissions remain elevated for 167 years.
* Even biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands,
increase emissions relative to gasoline by 50 percent.
....................omitted material.................

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

In the old days, we recycled nuclear fuel.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 29, 2008 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

Nobody is paying me to post this.

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

How much uranium is in coal? Yucca Mountain?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 29, 2008 11:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yucca Mountain is full of nuclear fuel that needs to be reprocessed. We used
to reprocess spent fuel rods until 1/2 ton of enriched uranium somehow wound up
in Israel.
2. Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56
to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

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

COAL companies have been fleecing you since 1950
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 29, 2008 11:11 PM   
Current rating: N