rigorousintuition.ca

Perhaps you could show us Nordic, where anyone suggested we should not plant trees? Here's what I wrote: "Planting trees, while always a good idea, will not do the job; they take too long to grow to maturity when they become most effective as carbon sinks. We just don't have that long to effect the change necessary.

It's just not enough and it's not enough to merely limit emissions, as you suggested, because neither will be effective in reversing the warming trend within 8 years. Now with this report certainly the urgency to act is much greater and more radical action is required.

We should plant trees and as you suggest, we should not harvest our rain forests. But talking about what needs to be done and working to implement the necessary changes are quite different things, one being more effective than the other in tackling the task at hand

So how many trees did you plant today, Nordic? Did you plant many enough to offset your own family's carbon footprint or that of the next five families, your neighbors?

Perhaps you've heard of this guy Eric Cantor (R-VA), who's been pushing the GOP legislative agenda? He's the Republican Majority Leader of the US House of Representatives. Earlier this year he published his "Jobs Memo," his party's agenda to disembowel the regulatory authority of the EPA. Using the scare tactic that regulations such as those the agency sought to impose on industry limiting their pollutants would cost tens of thousands of American jobs, he's been quite successful so far, at least in the House.

Some jobs will be lost, particularly those working at certain multi-national cement plants whose owners successfully delayed the implementation of rules limiting mercury and other heavy metals and toxic chemical emissions. They now find these obsolete plants to costly to retrofit with air pollution control devices.

This delay in rulemaking has caused many thousands of premature deaths of workers and the general population, cost us billions for caring for those made ill by these deadly emissions and has increased the cost for caring for and educating our ever-growing 'special needs' population, whose condition may have been caused by their mother's exposure to industrial pollutants while in utero.

Certain industries release much more potent greenhouse gases than others and some of these chemical compounds actually increase their warming potential over time, some over very long periods of time, like Tetrafluoromethane and Sulfur Hexafluoride. Tetrafluoromethane is released in emissions related to aluminum production and some types of cement production and it’s also used to micro-etch silicon chips used in computers. This chemical compound lasts 50,00 years in our atmosphere and has a warming potential 6,500 time that of Carbon Dioxide and doubles its warming capacity over 500 years. Sulfur Hexafluoride, released in magnesium production, lasts 3,200 years in the atmosphere and over 20 years has more than 16,000 times the warming potential of CO2; over 500 years, it too doubles is warming potential, to more than 32,000 times that of CO2.

Those are but two of the many hundreds of chemicals to be found in industrial emissions.

We need to quickly transition away from the dead-end path we’ve been led down to a sustainable zero waste, zero discharge society, but it’s the same old story ~ those with the wealth and power to effect the change needed are reluctant to enact the desperate measures necessary to achieve sustainability, because they feel doing so will so alter they way we function and force the sharing of their power and wealth.

When you’re drinking you’re next soda or beer that’s brought to you in a single-use aluminum can, think just for a moment of the environmental impact its creation and recycling causes. Isn’t there a better way? Like maybe reusable glass containers? What small sacrifices are you willing to make to achieve a sustainable future for your descendents?

HOL is right... We are not doomed. But I can't say the same about future generations, if we don't pull the plug on all industrial emissions now.

Oh, and Nordic I’m Buddhist. I don’t believe in pawning off my responsibilities onto “One Great Savior.” I alone am responsible for my actions and for what I contribute to future generations.

edited once to remove unnecessary single quotation mark after last word in first paragraph and inserted an 's' after 'change' in the last sentence of the third paragraph and also this: "are quite different things, one being more effective than the other in tackling the task at hand"

I deliberately hurled a strawman your way. My point is that we have to do everything we can, and not think "oh no it's not enough!"

Because nothing we can do at this point is "enough". It is literally impossible to stop this at this point in time. Hell, just the methane being released from all the melting permafrost will negate anything we might do.

Really at this point we have to nurture the planet herself into dealing with it at this point. That's really the only hope, that the power of the planet's own homeostasis will be enough to counteract this, and that means giving her as much to work with as possible.

And beyond having to use a car to drive to all the different worksites I have to go to as part of this so-called "job" I have, my footprint is as small as I can make it. No aluminum cans in this house fer instance.

Iamwhomiam wrote: HOL is right... We are not doomed. But I can't say the same about future generations, if we don't pull the plug on all industrial emissions now.

Oh, and Nordic I’m Buddhist. I don’t believe in pawning off my responsibilities onto “One Great Savior.” I alone am responsible for my actions and for what I contribute to future generations.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with the world that is not also wrong with each of us. In seeking to make it better we must begin by looking into a mirror. We face a choice, to be ruled by our passions, or be ruled by reason.

Harvey wrote:Exactly. There is nothing wrong with the world that is not also wrong with each of us. In seeking to make it better we must begin by looking into a mirror. We face a choice, to be ruled by our passions, or be ruled by reason.

Or maybe, to be ruled by our rulers, or by the laws of nature.

And in one, critical sense, it's not our choice: this world is unsustainable. How we get to what follows, we may still have some input in that. But we have ever-shrinking options.

By "One Great Saviour" I meant not god or jesus but the great technological fix that will "change everything". Like hemp. Sure, plant hemp everywhere you can. But its not a magic fix-it-all. Magical thinking is not your friend. Whether its magical thinking about free markets, libertariuanism, hemp, whatever.

Thinking we're need one grand brilliant piece of as-yet-uninvented genius to totally negate 400 years of burning the earth's coal and o and denuding her of most of her green lung tissue is just a waste of time.

Jeff wrote:Or maybe, to be ruled by our rulers, or by the laws of nature.

And in one, critical sense, it's not our choice: this world is unsustainable. How we get to what follows, we may still have some input in that. But we have ever-shrinking options.

We are ruled by the laws of nature. And our rulers appear to have turned their backs on us although perhaps they are every bit as perplexed as we are and are doing their best amid contrary obligations.

All I know is that I'm part of the problem. If everyone else is like me, then we each have a part to play. The time is now to play it.

Peace and Love

Harvey, here's something you can do, as should anyone else concerned about atmospheric warming and pollution:

Please call your U.S. Senators to persuade them to prevent the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R- KY), which was placed on the Senate Calendar on Thursday November 3, 2011.

S.J.RES.27: A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 11, 2011, entitled `Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals' (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 2011)), relating to the mitigation by States of cross-border air pollution under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and such rule shall have no force or effect."

For this and other dangerous GOP legislation promoted by Cantor's Jobs Memo, please visit links below.
(Sometimes Thomas' searches time-out. If you find this to be the case with this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:27:./list/bss/d112SJ.lst::
please go to this page
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=Browse and find the link under 'Senate' labeled 'Senate Joint Resolutions'; click on it and scroll down the page to S.J. Res. 27.)

I will close with the hope you will do all you can to help protect our health and environment and leave you with the words reported on an Earthjustice factsheet:

"Over its 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been one of our nation’s most successful pieces of legislation, offering an astonishing return of more than 40 to 1 on our nation’s investment in clean air. A peer-reviewed EPA study earlier this year estimated that the Clean Air Act will deliver $12 trillion in net economic benefits between 1990-2020.

In its first 20 years, the Act prevented more than 205,000 premature deaths. The same study projects that the Act will have prevented 4.2 million premature deaths between 1990 and 2020.

Don’t let this life-saving trend stop."

I think Harvey is not a US citizen, so he has no US representative to call.

But positive action in the world is necessary now, no question about that. I am sure it is good advice for US citizens, IamwhomIam.

Action within and without would be ideal I think.

I think I'll start writing to my MP again. That might be fun.

Jeff wrote:And in one, critical sense, it's not our choice: this world is unsustainable. How we get to what follows, we may still have some input in that. But we have ever-shrinking options.

I agree: "this world is unsustainable." We are going to get to what follows though, whatever this turns out to be: either transitions to new and sustainable human civilizations around the globe (I think the age of the single overarching, global human civilization is over), or massive, massive human death.

At this point unfortunately, my bet is on both — because I don't see any way of avoiding the latter, and I think our only material hope as a species is on the former.

Simulist wrote:

Jeff wrote:And in one, critical sense, it's not our choice: this world is unsustainable. How we get to what follows, we may still have some input in that. But we have ever-shrinking options.

I agree: "this world is unsustainable." We are going to get to what follows though, whatever this turns out to be: either transitions to new and sustainable human civilizations around the globe (I think the age of the single overarching, global human civilization is over), or massive, massive human death.

At this point unfortunately, my bet is on both — because I don't see any way of avoiding the latter, and I think our only material hope as a species is on the former.

Yes, and we each choose which team (end of the spectrum) we personally are heading towards, and we all know which and when we do. The fantastic amazing underpublicised thing is that becoming one of the committed changers/malcontents/dreamers is confronting and painful and fun and beautiful and transformative and often, eventually, the personal liberation of the individual.

Thats been a huge web-delivered dividend of Tunisia/Egypt/OWS et al, seeing and hearing so many people radiant with love and joy after crossing their own rubicons of fear and taught-smallness. When people are so lulz hungry they'll swap cat videos, surely theres a crack in the door for sincere passion (big ups to the host for adding to the video armory of love).

Laodicean wrote:END:CIV

I've been meaning to thank you for this, Laodicean. So, "Thank you."

The day you posted this link, I downloaded the movie; a day or two later, I burned it to a disc. Then I watched END:CIV.

It's not only worth watching, it's also "must see TV" — in the honest sense of the phrase.

Just wanted to drop by to let you know some good news and some bad news...

First, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-VA) Senate Joint Resolution 27 was defeated by a Yea-Nay vote of 41 to 56, and that's the good news. Friggin madman!!

The bad news is...
Trash plant eyed for Albany port
Waste-to-energy proposal billed as $60M answer to region's trash disposal

By ERIC ANDERSON and JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGELIST Staff writers
Updated 10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 10, 2011

ALBANY -- A Connecticut company is proposing a $60 million waste-to-energy plant at the Port of Albany that would consume 440 tons of municipal trash a day and generate 25 megawatts of electricity.

The proposal -- billed as "a solution to the Capital Region's waste problem" -- was the only one submitted by the Oct. 31 deadline to the Albany Port District Commission, which had requested proposals for an 18-acre site after plans for an ethanol production plant fell through.

Under the new proposal, the company, Green Waste Energy Inc. of Greenwich, Conn., would heat unsorted bags of household garbage under pressure and without oxygen -- a process known as pyrolysis, said James D. Burchetta, the company's founder and CEO.

The proposal comes as the city and region grapple with how to handle its trash once Albany's Rapp Road landfill is full by the end of decade, potentially leaving more than 200,000 people from Albany and surrounding communities without a place to send their garbage.

A study released in June urged the creation of a regional solid-waste management authority to make future waste planning decisions -- decisions that would include exploring new technologies to replace Rapp Road.

Environmentalists fear that is shorthand for a waste-to-energy facility, which they contend are often bad investments that pollute the environment.

The issue is even more complicated -- and potentially controversial -- in Albany because of its past with waste-to-energy. A state-run incinerator in the city's Sheridan Hollow neighborhood burned trash to heat Empire State Plaza from the 1970s until the early 1990s but was plagued with emissions problems that culminated in a blanket of soot that one winter extended across town to the governor's mansion.

That facility, known as the ANSWERS plant, was subsequently shut down, resulting in a $1.4 million settlement with the surrounding neighborhoods.

But advocates of waste-to-energy contend there's no comparison between that experiment and much newer, cleaner technologies already in use elsewhere.

"There are no emissions because it's a sealed vessel," Burchetta said of his company's proposal, adding that no incineration is involved because the process is done without oxygen.

Under Green Waste Energy's process, a synthetic gas would be created that would then be used to power a gas engine or turbine to generate electricity. At that stage, there would be some emissions, Burchetta said.

About 20 percent of the electricity generated would be used to run the operation, while the rest would go to the grid.

In addition to revenues from electricity sales, the company also is counting on a 3-cent per kilowatt-hour renewable energy credit, and on sales of metals and other materials recovered from the trash.

City officials described the proposal as preliminary, and a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Conservation said that agency had not yet received any applications connected to it.

"I think 'very early' is great way to describe it," said Michael Yevoli, the city's planning commissioner. "To take it to the next level, I think that involves a lot more discussion than has occurred."

The plant would occupy an 18-acre parcel at the Port of Albany that was to have been the site of the ethanol plant. That proposal was withdrawn as future subsidies for ethanol became less certain and financing became more difficult.

Burchetta said the processes would be contained in one building.

One of the criticisms of waste-to-energy facilities is that they can cost tens of millions of dollars to build and have, in the past, required large public subsidies when run by trash authorities.

The Green Waste Energy proposal adds an interesting wrinkle to the debate in that it would be privately run and would not seek public money, Burchetta said. "We'll finance this ourselves," he said.

The county study of a regional trash authority included preliminary research that estimated a waste-to-energy plant capable of taking 2,100 tons of trash daily -- twice the daily capacity of the Rapp Road landfill -- from the greater Capital Region could cost as much as $545 million.

That study assumed the participation of as many as nine counties in the authority, though it remains far from certain there is the will to move forward with it and the planning process has stalled.

Burchetta said his company doesn't intend to bring trash to the plant from outside the region. He also said it wouldn't compete with existing trash haulers. Still, several waste haulers have facilities at the port, including a sorting operation that retrieves recyclable materials from trash.

Richard Hendrick, the port commission's general manager, spoke briefly about the waste-to-energy project at the monthly commission meeting on Wednesday.

Port officials will look at the company's technology, which was developed in South Africa and is used at a plant operated by a company called Prestige Thermal there. They'll also look at potential job creation, the company's finances and the project's likelihood of getting financing, Hendrick told the commission.

Burchetta said his company also has held informal discussions with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the Public Service Commission, and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Councilman Lester Freeman, who represents the South End neighborhood adjacent to the port, said he first learned of the proposal Wednesday. He said he would reserve judgment until learning more but acknowledged it was impossible not to reflect on the failure ANSWERS plant.

"This obviously brings back the nightmares of Arbor Hill and what they had to get through," Freeman said.

Common Council President Carolyn McLaughlin, also a South End resident, phoned Burchetta to schedule a meeting as soon as she learned of the proposal Wednesday.

"My immediate concern was the neighborhood,'" McLaughlin said. If nothing else, she said she hoped the proposal would refocus attention on the fact that the city's landfill will soon be full. "Because we still don't have a solution for 2020."

McLaughlin said the neighborhood may be justifiably skeptical of plan, citing an unwillingness to jeopardize the positive momentum created by recent redevelopment.

"The city and the port and whoever is going to consider this cannot wait until the back end to bring the community in on this," she said.

Reach Eric Anderson at 454-5323 or eanderson@timesunion.com.

http://www.timesunion.com/business/arti ... 260444.php - page-1

Scream me the change unimagined in the fire of revolt. Let the poor and the bourgeois lock arms in an unstoppable rush of the castles. Scream what Kafka said so long ago “the world order is based upon a lie.” Let the fury of the masses rise in a flood to drown out the vile clowns of propaganda and let the politicians, bankers and kings, bow down before our feet and beg us for mercy as we instruct them on how to reorganize society and save some small piece of what we now call life for our progeny - for if we don't, in two generations there will be nothing left to breathe but fire.