Seemingly new is the Presidents recent nod toward corn ethanol and clean coal. In the first place clean coal is a highly inflammatory subject and many would argue there is no such thing. Secondly, corn ethanol is not nearly as efficient as the President and his staff would have the public believe.

Today in Biofuels Opinion: Reaction to Obama Administration on new …

“The only way to invest into biofuel programs correctly is to make sure the public gets real environmental protection for our climate, our water, our wildlife and our health. …. Despite intense pressure from the corn ethanol industry to exclude emissions from indirect land use change the EPA found that such emissions are a major source of heat-trapping pollution from food-based biofuels such as corn ethanol. This finding affirms the view of 200 scientists and economists …

Biofuels, clean coal top White House energy initiative | NewsWatch …

Friends of the Earth was glad the EPA took into account land use policies when considering the ultimate environmental impact of biofuels, but found many of their conclusions too optimisitc: … The EPA’s prediction that in 2022 most corn ethanol will result in less carbon pollution than regular gasoline is surprising and strikes us as highly optimistic, especially since the EPA acknowledged in its rule finalized today that corn ethanol production is driving the …

Is Corn Ethanol Cleaner than Crude Oil? – Environmental Capital – WSJ

Really it’s hard to comprehend how a superpower whose cotton and other producers are laying waste to farms all around the third world, is suddenly getting so sensitive when it comes to ethanol land and water use tradeoffs. …

There is a bumper sticker many of you have probably seen – Extinction is forever. It addresses a very real problem that is directly related to ecosystems and their destruction.

Global warming skeptics and proponents of the use of fossil fuels – themselves fossils – often discuss the cost to switch to renewable energy sources. Yes it will cost to switch and their will be job losses, although there should also be job creation, but these proponents never seem to consider the economic factors having to do with the destruction of the planet.

If the world we live in is a gift from the almighty and the resources provided are limited, the destruction of any living specie is a tragedy of monumental proportion. Not only does each individual specie support the ecosystem it is a part of, losing the hereditary germ deprives future generations of the necessary antidote to who knows what disease. Morally speaking this can not be right, but morality aside, this is just plain foolhardy.

It costs to build solar paneling or wind turbines just as it costs to pump oil, dig coal and harvest a rain forest, but over harvesting a rain forest will cause it to burn down whereas a healthy rain forest will not burn down. As one of nature’s pharmacies is destroyed this becomes catastrophic from a purely economic point of view.

Tropical rain forests are complete ecosystems that, everyone knows by now, have an extraordinary ability to turn sunlight into first-tier energy producers otherwise known as plant life.

What many people do not know about are the services rain forests provide. Aside from obvious goods such as paper products, rain forests provide trillions of dollars worth of services: climate control, erosion prevention, recycling of nutrients, storing of nutrients and recreational services, to name a few.

If a rain forest is burned off to create grazing land for cattle the grasses will do well until the ash disappears and the soil becomes barren. This harks back to the Dust Bowl era and the great depression.

When we talk of climate control we are also speaking of the water table, bringing water inland and supplying the rivers of much needed water. It is a cycle that does not want interrupting and an integral part of a larger scheme we cannot risk losing.

Development Vs Tropical Rainforest

Development Vs Tropical Rainforest I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about.

3. Why Save Our Rainforests? Mission of BTRF – Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation

Energy produced from wind turbines is not something we’ve discussed in awhile but Amanda Little’s recent book Power Trip has rekindled that subject. Her interview with T. Boone Pickens – “Texas Tea, Black Gold” – was of particular note. “I’m a man who thinks with his wallet,” he told her. He also told her, “we’ve reached peak oil.”

Loosely translated, that means the world is producing oil at optimum levels and already on a par with demand. Since the demand for oil is most likely to increase before we finish this post, it stands to reason alternate energy sources should be uppermost on people’s minds.

Pickens’ determination to pursue these energy sources is significant. For a man of such enormous power, influence and business savvy, not to mention wealth, to make his case against oil in such unequivocal terms is remarkable. This man has spent a good deal of money defeating democrats and supporting republicans. “I’m not Al Gore,” he says quite plainly.

It is interesting to juxtapose the comments of Dr. William Gray and T. Boone Pickens.  Dr. Gray, a renowned atmospheric scientist and avowed global warming skeptic said we should stick with fossil fuels to avoid economic disaster; Mr. Pickens, one of the foremost businessmen of our age and whose fortune comes from fossil fuel, says differently.

He might have suffered a temporary set back regarding all those wind turbines he put up in Texas, and he has long been a proponent of natural gas along with other clean energy sources.

Natural gas may also be too expensive and only a temporary solution to a long term problem but the oil man does not like our dependence on foreign oil, “sucking hind tit,” as he puts it. His move from wind turbine to natural gas is just a slight hitch up in the git-along but, as Mr. Pickens continues to think in terms of  green energy solutions, we’re happy to saddle up and ride along side him.

Wind energy in west Texas, Wind Turbines

Clean energy technology refers to any energy source that does not further pollute the environment. We understandably think in terms of renewable energy sources – energy sources that are part of a natural cycle, where energy is created but nothing is lost in the process. We also think in terms of whole businesses and entire industries that will make use of this clean energy technology by incorporating it into the design concept.

Clean-energy firms win tax credits

President Barack Obama says 17000 jobs will be created by $2.3 billion in tax credits that have been awarded to 183 clean-energy manufacturing projects in 43 states. … Industry-Partners technology-based platform provides industry networking, educational outreach and on-line capital. marketplace for residential and commercial real estate,. private equity and fund management marketplace. Over 250000 professionals worldwide utilize our …

Oil Free Technology » Blog Archive » Be Aware Of Alternative …

Ocean-produced energy has a huge advantage because the timing of ocean currents and waves are well understood and reliable. Investments in hydro-electric technology have grown in the last two decades. Hydro-electric power is clean; …

Green Technology: Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing

One hundred eighty three projects in 43 states will create tens of thousands of high quality clean energy jobs and the domestic manufacturing of advanced clean energy technologies including solar, wind and efficiency and energy …

Clean Energy for a Smarter Planet

If you live in an apartment or condo you might find it more difficult to separate organic waste from recyclables. My wife happens to be slightly bonkers and refuses to separate recyclables from garbage so it all ends up in the same trash bin. Having one closeted, central bin for the entire house also serves to keep the dogs out of the garbage. It’s part of her organizational bent and, from my point of view, a bit of pain.

It means that I have to wade through the garbage to remove all the recyclables. And, as it turns out, most of the garbage is recyclable – boxes, plastics and my daughter’s soda cans – very little of what remains is actual organic refuse which can easily be placed in the communal compost pile.

None of it, for the most part, ends up in the dumpster, and I find myself reusing the same trash bin liner which makes for less plastic going into the land fills. It really is not that time consuming and it makes me feel good about doing some small thing to help the environment.

We Americans generate over200 million tons of trash every year, which ends up in landfills. The organic trash, that is mostly kitchen scraps, can all be decomposed and used as fertilizer, which helps the environment and boosts the garden. Gardening is something else that might not be convenient for those living in complexes. We’ll have further posts on gardens for apartment dwellers and even in door gardening. This all comes under the general heading of individual small efforts to reduce the carbon foot print. By making less garbage and by planting a garden to create another carbon sink, tiny though it may be, these efforts can add up.

Basic Gardening Tips : How to Build a Compost Pile

Global climate change is a topic that is polarizing – excuse the pun. Experts will disagree most vehemently. Let’s step outside the fray for the moment to  focus on carbon sinks. This seems appropriate since we are sure to find agreement across the board on the benefits.

Cap and Trade is a debatable issue and, at least in the United States, it appears dead on arrival. And although as individuals we have little control over the rain forests, except to petition hope to accumulate growing numbers in support of our cause, we can still be effective on an individual and local level. Home grown gardens are a good jumping off place; tomorrow we’ll discuss compost piles.

Halle Tecco: School Gardens Across the Nation, And A Resource List …

They take it home, often literally.” 24th Street is the prototype school for the Garden School Foundation, which works in partnership with Los Angeles Unified School District to bring gardens and kitchens to schools (among other goals). …

« Homestead Gardens

Improved health; Increased home gardens; Elevated awareness for our environment. “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” with Kathleen Merrigan. Key to the initiative is a farm-school program that would make it easier for schools to use …

How to Plan and Plant Your Home Garden For Dummies

We are focused on renewable energy and sustainable energy sources. We support the movement toward Green industry and away from fossil fuels. We acknowledge the upheaval that would be caused by any dramatic move away from a fossil fuel-based economy, though viable suggestions as to how to go about that continue to be made – everything from government purchased land for compost piles to stratos-shields that would cool the planet – and governmental and university think-tanks are mulling over the challenge as we write this. Despite our views we wish to approach the issues at hand in a responsible way. We therefore try to put forth opposing arguments.

We turn our discussion for the moment to the issue of global warming. If you read some of our recent posts you are aware of the debate between learned scientists over this issue, especially in connection to GWMs (global warming models.) Many scientists feel they create a false positive, if you will, that their out put is totally reliant upon proper in put so the results are questionable.

Also, these scientists deny that an accurate measurement of average ground temperatures is achievable. Moreover, they suggest that this is the wrong point of focus. Stratospheric cooling is far more measurable and far more relevant than global warming. How much rainfall are we likely to expect and how many major storms in the coming year? These questions, they say, are more immediate and more answerable based on stratospheric cooling data, since it relates directly to carbon dioxide and has a direct result on the ozone layer, particularly over the Arctic.

Global Cooling followed reduction of CFS?

Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the …

Intellectual Ventures Lab » StratoShield FAQ

Although the change in sunlight would be imperceptible to human eyes—and probably beneficial for plants—it would have a substantial cooling effect for the part of the Earth under the shield. … Intellectual Ventures is simply urging that research on geoengineering options, including stratospheric aerosol enhancement, begin in earnest now. We share with many others a concern that the massive scale of technological development, deployment, investment, and lifestyle changes …

As the debate continues we mention that proper stewardship of the planet should be everyone’s goal no matter which side of the argument one falls on. We support the slow movement and a return to a simpler life and suggest availing ourselves to this. Future posts will include ways to go about it, since this is a more proactive approach and, since the debate is likely to continue, most of us can accomplish more on an individual or grass-roots level.

An Even Simpler Proof of Global Warming by Greenhouse Gases

We admit to having our needle stuck on this issue debated by two leading atmospheric scientists, Dr.Kevin Trenberth – head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co. and Dr. William Gray, another Coloradan, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Dr. Gray is a long time opponent of global warming propaganda put forth in large part by those who stand to profit by the general public’s lack of knowledge, he says.

The argument is interesting from several standpoints. Obviously, if there is a serious threat to our planet most of us are concerned or should be it would seem. All scientists agree there are natural cycles to our changing climate and oceanic cycles that alternate between warm mode and cold mode over several decades are perhaps most influential on climate change. Dr. Gray also seems to believe that all motives are fundamentally economic; this also, sounds practical and logical but does not automatically make it true. He remarks in the recent debate that global ‘warming skeptics’ dare not come out of the closet for fear their grant funding will be taken away.  And it is likely if we were in their shoes we’d  feel the same way.

Dr. Gray argues that the warming model simulators, used to calculate warming trends, project way into the future by design in order to avoid near term predictions. If they made close predictions, Dr. Gray suggests, they’d risk exposing themselves as charlatans.

Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues contend that carbon dioxide leads to increased upper-level water vapor with the warming trend, whereas Dr. Gray argues the opposite effect on upper-level vapors from warming and so on and so forth.You show us your scientists and we’ll show you our’s. And it is hard to get past the notion of experts that receive federal funding and must undergo peer-review. Historically, this kind of system has impeded the sort of scientific research that later rather than sooner leads to great discovery. Sponsoring, peer-reviews of published papers, grant-funding, and the like,do tend to support the status quo and rein in the mavericks. Scientists do not tend to appreciate maverick thinking, though. And the question that pops up is, which group represents the status quo and which group represents maverick thinking?

Also, in the most recent debate, both scientists stuck primarily to atmospheric science, environmental models and methods of calculation. Neither addressed the alarming trends of increased population and the systematic degradation of the two most obvious carbon sinks: our all important rain forests and our troubled oceans. Perhaps in some future debate they’ll also address the falling water table vs. a population that is growing out of control.

We need this kind of debate from educated people. It is encouraging that such a debate could take place. And it is quite sobering to think that honest scientific research and important conclusions are being controlled by bureaucrats whose power exceeds their prowess.

The warming skeptics, as they are often referred to,  include many renowned scientists, such as Dr. William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

These scientists reject the Global Climate Model simulations used by government laboratories and universities. They regard them as flawed, and argue that they have become institutional and self-sustaining. Moreover, these warming skeptics, for lack of a more convenient term, claim that their fellow scientists, and the  resulting substantive debate, have been stifled. Dr. Gray in a recent debate referred to his fellows as “closet” warming skeptics who receive federal grant support, making them reluctant to give full expression of their views for fear of losing that support.

While it is true that reports of melting ice, fears of warming trends and another ice age are not new and similar warnings go back to early in the last century, at what point does the debate become irrelevant?

If the population of the planet, for example,  will exceed its resources in the not-too-distant future, if sea animals are dining on plastic, if fisheries are dying off and rivers are running dry, what does it matter if the warming trend is for real or if it is anthropogenic (man-made)?

Dr. Gray also insists that a dramatic switch away from a fossil fuel-based economy will have devastating effects on our economy and further argues that we need money to continue research on alternative energy sources. His is a market driven logic based on cost-effectiveness.

But Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has pointed out that lowering taxes and taxing carbon polluters would also create a scenario that was  market driven, cost effective, and would more gently move us in the direction of renewable energy sources.

Also, if  global warming is a joke according to Dr. Gray (our words, not his) why does he feel the need to research alternative energy sources at all?

No matter what your take is on the global climate change, it is hard for anyone to argue against being more conscious about what we eat and drink and where we stow our empties.