http://members.greenpeace.org//blog/proclus This is a Greenpeace member blog en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 proclus http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus/2010/08/04/do-we-need-extinction-to-slap-our-face- Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:36:46 +0000 Main 12798@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblog Some of our best minds have indicated that global warming from carbon pollution will present humanity with a species- level threat. We must do whatever is necessary to avoid that eventuality. note: What follows is a bit of rambling intended as rough, quick, ad hoc contribution to solving this emergent problem. Comments and suggested edits are welcome, so that we can address the problem together. What are we to do with the fact that electricity is typically inefficient transduction from fossil fuel burning? All told, electric cars are comparably about as bad as gas or diesel in most cases, and this is true for other types of electricalization as well. Any difference in contribution to greenhouse effect is relatively small, because the pollution is merely displaced to another location, with associated power loss due to transport. Natural gas, though widely promoted as a solution is only worse, because it contributes just as much carbon pollution, AND underground fresh water sources are ruined by shale fracturing. It should be noted that like oil, there is low transduction loss with natural gas. One supposes that natural gas wins the transport and transduction argument, so that it can be considered as most efficient, although the pollution of underground fresh water supplies is not acceptable, and it is a source of carbon pollution leading to greenhouse effect. It could be noted at this juncture that the benefits of low transport and production costs can contrast with the inefficiencies of high transduction loss and loss in the associated centralized infrastructure. This would explain the move in recent years to decentralized electrical grids. A relatively small increase in infrastructure can sometimes result in a large increase efficiency, and reliability is improved as well, which provides additional incentive. These facts probably explain why electric cars are promoted by some credible, heavy-weight, green agencies, although the benefit is small. Concerns about transduction loss must be balanced with the cost of production and transport for fossil fuels. One expects that these costs make fossil fuels less efficient, than what? Electricity by and large is generated by transduction from fossil fuel burning, sometimes a very inefficient process, which contributes vastly to carbon pollution. For decades we have faced the problems of air and water pollution, and much has been done to address these problems, but little has been done to address the fundamental underlying causes. From a simple survival perspective, pollution of fresh water and air are among the worst things that you can do, because air and water are our most immediate needs, to say nothing of greenhouse effect. This would likely explain the relatively poor uptake over the years of natural gas energy, in spite of the effiencies. Environmentalists note that it pollutes both air and fresh water supplies. They will now argue that it is also a source of carbon pollution leading to greenhouse effect. Fresh water and air pollution is a problem to be avoided with nuclear as well, and probably largely explains the ferocity of opposition. It is a obviously a problem that oil and coal power do not avoid. In spite of these problems, we have continued largely with the status quo. Even if we go nuclear, it is still ineffecient transduction, although it can take advantage of existing infrastructure, with comparable efficiencies of other forms of electrical generation. In theory, this will address global warming, which has become an immediate problem, but it creates other large and growing problems becoming more hazardous as time goes by. There is also the three mile island type of hazard to consider, which can be comparable to the bp oil spill in its enormity. Nuclear waste is likely comparable to a slow motion bp oil spill, which will become more and more pressing as time goes by. Nonetheless, the importance of nuclear probably cannot be overstated, because it can reduce greenhouse gas emittance which is an urgent problem, and because it will also provide tutelage for future projects. Possible solution components: 1. Increase efficiency. (go green) This means finding ways to use less power and make equipment more efficient. Conserve energy. 2. Reduce transduction and transport loss by generating clean on site using alternative energy solutions, such as wind and solar. The problem of production cost must be addressed with solar. These costs may include environmentally hazardous production methods. 3. Continue improvments to the electrical infrastructure, so that it can be used to as the most efficient current means to distribute power that is not produced from fossil fuels, as such nuclear sources coming online. 4. As an alternative to 3. and nuclear power, focus on 1. and 2. so that energy usage is reduced, and a small offset of production from fossil fuels may not be harmful. This will have the added benefit of avoiding the problems associated with nuclear power. 5. Is like 4, but a small offset of nuclear power is used in order to project its problems further into the future and manage them. 6. Moving away from fossil fuels is all the more imperative when it is realized that developing nations may inevitalbly adopt coal power to build their emerging infrastructures. Developed nations can offset this problem by reducing greenhouse gas emitance. Perhaps alternative incentives can be found for developing nations. 7. Leave the trees standing. Use a little plastic or steel, and leave the trees standing. As previously noted, this essay is still in very rough shape, but imperatives do come to light. Imperatives: 1. Conserve forests. Stop deforestation. 2. Stop natural gas. 3. Promote clean on-site power generation, mostly with alternatives. 4. Stop the cars. Change can be good; for example, walking and bicyclling are far more healthful than driving, especially in consideration of the toxic motor culture. The Northeast historically has supported a large population because they have reduced reliance on coal (or got it out of the city), and centralized power production, while letting the trees grow and using plastic, concrete, and steel instead. These considerations drove early conservation efforts. Some people may not realize what a vast transformation this was from the days when all the trees had been cut down and they burned coal in the cities. Now the Northeast has many wooded areas again. We need a new transformation. Things will be different, and if we use our ingenuity, things will be better. Trees and plants convert the main greenhouse gas to food we can eat and oxygen for us to breath, fresh air. If we do our part, the trees will save us from global warming, and we will enjoy many pleasant forests. We obviously should not be cutting down green fields and forests in order to build vast solar arrays. This is really just a matter of choosing healthful living. Global warming will make the trees grow faster, as long as we don't cut them down, and nature may assist us instead of exterminating us. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ Posted via email from #p]]> http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus?p=12798&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments proclus http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus/2010/06/15/boycotts-work-boycottbp-bp-oil-spill-oil Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:32:19 +0000 Main 12350@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblog It is infuriating to hear that boycotting only hurts the franchise stores. First of all, the aim of the boycott is not to hurt but to help. Second, it is well known that the franchise owners make almost no money from gasoline sales, because they are being gouged by big brands like BP. It is BP that makes the lions share of profits from gasoline sales, and boycotting affects BP most. From GNU-Darwin Action tumblr blog These types of actions work. Regards,proclushttp://www.gnu-darwin.org/]]> http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus?p=12350&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments proclus http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus/2010/05/29/gnu-darwin-supports-the-bp-boycott Sat, 29 May 2010 15:01:35 +0000 Main 12184@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblog #BP #aging #antiwar #asd #bicycle #bike #black #boycottbp #cancer #diet #fitness #flavonoids #food #foss #gulf #health #oilspill #pain #parsley #recipes #tagmaker http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ The GNU-Darwin Distribution has joined the BP Boycott and blackened their web site. It is black, like the poor birds and fishes, who have been colored by BP and their oil spill. This environmental catastropie is already causing tremendous problems in the health and public welfare arena. If you care about health and fitness, if you care about nature and animals, if you care about your country and the earth, You will black out with GNU-Darwin this weekend, and join the BP Boycott. In years to come you will be glad that you were a part of it, and it is for your own good. Regards, proclushttp://www.gnu-darwin.org/ Posted via email from proclus-gnu-darwin's posterous | Comment » Posted 20 minutes ago]]> http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus?p=12184&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments proclus http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus/2010/05/23/the_earth_is_bleeding_out_howto_staunch Sun, 23 May 2010 14:46:51 +0000 Main 12132@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblog How long until we realize that the spill is a global scale problem, that requires a global response? How long until we realize that we need to stop what we are doing and address the problem now. Recommendations to the activist community: http://posterous.com http://ping.fm Use them to spread the word, petition links, etc. I use ping, posterous, livejournal, and stumbleupon together. It works OK most times. Hellotxt.com is also sometimes useful ;-}. This is a public health storm on the horizon. Sign petitions and contact your congressmen to let them know that it is imperative to solve this problem and address the aftermath. Here is an example. Facebook | 1,000,000 Strong to Boycott BP http://www.facebook.com/pages/1000000-Strong-to-Boycott-BP/115963105110083 Make creative tweets and blog articles. Think of something that is important to you that will be affected by the spill. It will affect everyone in some way. Make tweets about it and write about it in your blog. Give it your best. Own your actions. You have nothing to be ashamed of. Here are some of my tweets. Are seafood lovers angry at BP yet? I am boycotting BP. What contaminant is in your fish oil? I am boycotting BP. BP PR would like us to think that it is happening far away, but it is a global scale spill. It IS a global scale oil spill. There is already enough oil to cover a continent. The spill is near the equator. It is vastly huge. It will be crossing the equator soon, if it hasn't already. The sea currents will tend to push the oil south, far away from the US. Where is the economic incentive for the US to address the spill? Northern fisheries will do just fine. There needs to be an international response, to a global scale problem. Is the UN on this? Organization of American States? Address your concerns locally as well. Regards, Michael L. Love Ph.D Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry School of Medicine Johns Hopkins University 725 N. Wolfe Street Room 608B WBSB Baltimore MD 21205-2185 Interoffice Mail: 608B WBSB, SoM Shipping Dock: 1915 E. Madison St. office: 410-614-2267 lab: 410-614-3179 fax: 410-502-6910 cell: 443-824-3451http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ Posted via email from proclus-gnu-darwin's posterous | Comment » Posted 4 minutes ago Tagged: antioxidant, blackribboncampaign, boycottbp, BP, diet, food, health, nutrition, oilspill, seafood, .]]> http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus?p=12132&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments proclus http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus/2010/05/21/gnu_darwin_action_boycott_bp Fri, 21 May 2010 16:14:51 +0000 Main 12119@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblog Michael L. Love/proclus/GNU-Darwin tumblr blog GNU-Darwin Action: Boycott BP We have to do something to hold BP accountable for what's turning into the worst oil spill of all time! This is just a first step - and it's not like there's a good oil company - but I just signed a pledge to boycott BP for three months. You can join the boycott at www.BeyondBP.org and make at least a dent in the profits of at least one negligent corporation. Posted via email from proclus-gnu-darwin's posterous | Comment » Posted 52 seconds ago GNU-Darwin Action: Boycott BP - Common Dreams Why? Because BP must pay. Eleven oil workers are dead. One of the largest oil spills in U.S. history continues to worsen. BP's oil gusher at the floor of the Gulf of Mexico may be 100 times worse than BP first estimated (and 20 times worse than the company presently claims). 100 times! BP's oil gusher is now threatening coastal lands in Louisiana and is almost certain to destroy fisheries and the livelihoods of people who fish and shrimp in the Gulf, or rely on the Gulf for tourism business. The giant plumes of oil deep underwater will exact an unknown toll on sea life. And the spreading oil may even wind up in currents that eventually take it to the U.S. Eastern shores. BP CEO Tony Hayward is sanguine about the whole problem. The Financial Times quotes him saying, “I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest.” A boycott will send a message to BP that its shoddy oversight of this project and its history of environmental and worker safety violations is unforgivable. Take the BP Boycott Pledge, and commit not to buy gas from BP for at least three months. Go here: www.beyondBP.org BP cares desperately about its public image. This is the company that has sought to rebrand itself as “Beyond Petroleum.” BusinessWeek estimates the BP brand as worth $3.9 billion - the highest among oil companies. “Not even an Alaskan oil spill or an explosion at a Texas refinery has put a dent in BP's strong [brand] performance,” said BusinessWeek in 2006. This time must be different. A boycott will express the organized consumer anger that BP so fears. This is a company that should fear the public's wrath, for the Deepwater Horizon blowout was a preventable disaster. While much remains unknown, there is mounting evidence that BP could have averted the catastrophe. BP made a conscious decision not to install a $500,000 safety device that could have prevented the blowout. There is good reason to believe BP's contractors on the Deepwater Horizon made multiple mistakes leading up to the disaster, but it is ultimately BP's job to make sure its contractors are exercising sufficient care. And Mike Williams, the chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon, told 60 Minutes that BP pressured its contractors to skirt other safety measures that might have prevented the disaster. All this from a company that made $14 billion in profits in 2009 - a bad year. First quarter profits in 2010 were over $6 billion. After the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, Tony Hayward reportedly asked why bad things keep happening to BP. But this is not a case of bad things happening to good people. BP has one of the worst environmental and safety records of any oil company operating in the United States. BP has pled guilty in just the last few years to two crimes and paid more than $730 million in fines, penalties and settlements for environmental crimes, willful disregard for workplace safety and energy market manipulation. BP sometimes says it will pay for the harms caused by the spill, but at other times hedges what it may be willing to do. There will be litigation and fines, and BP won't have the final say on what it wants to pay. In any case, cash compensation for economic harms caused - while necessary - doesn't bring back destroyed ecosystems and does little to mitigate the company's culpability for not preventing the blowout in the first place. The only good that can come out of the BP disaster is if it forces the United States to fundamentally reorient energy policy. As a matter of simple common sense, the Obama administration should reverse its new policy and stop offshore drilling expansion. More fundamentally, BP's oil gusher is yet another reminder of the need for a massive shift away from fossil fuels and to investments in efficiency and renewable energy. The disaster also emphasizes how crucial it is to hold Big Oil accountable. The BP boycott is a way to start. There are no “good” oil companies, but BP is a particularly bad and irresponsible actor. Consumers should make it pay. Take the BP Boycott Pledge: . Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. via commondreams.org Posted via web from proclus-gnu-darwin's posterous | Comment »]]> http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/proclus?p=12119&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments