McCain Signs On to Schwarzenegger Global Warming Agenda

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain, applauding Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for taking on the 'compelling issue of global climate challenge,' pledged Wednesday to make California's global warming fight the model for a national effort to curb greenhouse gases. Appearing with the governor at the Port of Long Beach, McCain said he will fight in the Senate - and if elected president - to adopt low carbon standards for vehicle fuels to cut pollution blamed for climate change. McCain also sharply criticized the Bush administration for only belatedly acknowledging the global warming threat and failing to come up with solutions."

Don't be surprised by his flip-flopping ways. In the last two weeks, he has publicly defended the war and the decision to send more troops, and at the same time lambasted the vice president and Donald Rumsfeld for their poor preparation and even labeled Rumsfeld as "one of the worst defense secretaries in histroy." After kissing the administrations ass, yesterday, he criticized the Bush administration for not recognizing global warming as a threat sooner. Granted, McCain has always had strong environmental values, but he also supports phony science organizations like the Discovery Institute and believes that creation and theology have a place in the classroom under the guise of intelligent design. WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU STAND SENATOR? In 2000 you claimed to be a moderate, and recently you are siding with the conservatives and the Christian right on every issue. Which side is it? SCIENCE or RELIGION Mr Senator? And furthermore, what is your stance on anything? Whatever the receiving audience would like to hear? Grow some balls, stop kissing everyone's ass. Be you, be a leader!

More Anti-Incandescent Legislations!!!

Australia pulls plug on old bulbs

Ban the bulb? Australia plans to switch to fluorescent light by 2010

Australia has announced plans to ban incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy efficient fluorescent bulbs.

The environment minister said the move could cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tonnes by 2012.

"It's a little thing but it's a massive change," Malcolm Turnbull said.

The decision will make Australia the first country to ban the light bulbs, although the idea has also been proposed in the US state of California.

Fluorescent first

Mr Turnbull said that he hoped the rest of the world would follow Australia's lead in banning the traditional bulbs.

"If the whole world switches to these bulbs today, we would reduce our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australia's annual consumption of electricity," he said.

The incandescent light bulb, which wastes energy in heat dispersed while the light is switched on, is based on a design invented in the 19th century by engineers including Thomas Edison and Joseph Swan.

The bulbs will be completely phased out by 2010 and replaced with the more fuel efficient compact fluorescent models which use around 20% of the electricity to produce the same amount of light.

Not such a bright idea?

Matt Prescott of the UK-based Ban the Bulb campaign said he was delighted that Australia and California are moving forward on this issue, which he highlighted in an article for the BBC News website a year ago.

"I'm now hoping that Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Howard make firm commitments to support these proposals, explore other energy saving technologies which are already available and enable their economies to reduce their carbon emissions, save money and benefit from rapid innovation," he said.

Green campaigners and the opposition party in Australia picked up the same theme, suggesting that ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would be a more powerful way for the country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

"The major producers of emissions in this country are not individuals, they're governments and business," Peter Garrett, the opposition's environment spokesman, said.

Orkney to get 'biggest' wave farm

from BBC

Scottish ministers have announced funding for what has been described as the world's biggest wave energy farm.

The Pelamis device has been tested at the European Marine Energy Centre (Emec) on Orkney by Leith-based company Ocean Power Delivery.

Scottish Power wants to commission four more at the same site.

Deputy First Minister Nicol Stephen announced a £13m funding package that will also allow a number of other marine energy devices to be tested.

Ocean Power Delivery has already exported the Pelamis for use in a commercial wave farm.

Click here to see how the wave power system works

The large, tubular segments were taken to a site off the northern coast of Portugal last year for a project which aimed to generate enough power for 1,500 households.

At that stage the company warned that the industry could be forced to quit Scotland if there were no opportunities to use the technology closer to home.

Scotland has the potential to generate a quarter of Europe's marine energy Nicol Stephen Deputy first minister

Now Scottish Power is planning a venture which it believes could create enough power for 2,000 homes.

The biggest single handout of more than £4m will go to a Scottish Power subsidiary, CRE Energy, which will build the wave farm.

Mr Stephen said: "Today marks a vital milestone in Scotland's drive to be the world leader in the development of marine renewables."

Create jobs

Of the Pelamis scheme, he said: "This will be the world's biggest commercial wave project - significantly bigger than the major Portuguese scheme.

"Scotland has the potential to generate a quarter of Europe's marine energy and kick-starting the sector is vital if we are to create a significant industry based in Scotland and meet our long-term renewables targets."

Mr Stephen said the industry had the potential to create thousands of jobs and attract millions of pounds of investment.

Scottish Power's director of renewables, Keith Anderson, said: "This is a massive step forward.

"It will be a test of the actual devices that will be used commercially and, if successful, should help propel Scotland into the forefront of marine energy throughout the world."

'Emerging economies'

Emec managing director Neil Kermode said: "We are delighted to see this level of support from the Scottish Executive.

"It sends a clear signal that the executive is determined to push forward the development of tidal and wave technologies - technologies that will unlock the enormous renewable energy potential of our coastal waters.

Mr Stephen said it was an exciting development for Scotland

"The technology is moving forward, but we must never underestimate just how difficult - and expensive - an environment this is to work in."

Friends of the Earth Scotland's chief executive, Duncan McLaren, said: "Wave and tidal power could supply a fifth of UK's electricity needs and Scotland is ideally placed to generate significant amounts of this pollution-free energy.

"It is critical that we see full-scale devices in our waters soon, otherwise the world-leading expertise Scotland has built up will rapidly depart these shores."

Green speaker on energy, Shiona Baird MSP, said: "Any investment is to be welcomed - but it pales into insignificance with the Portuguese project.

"Despite the gusto with which this announcement is being made, ministers remain determined to build more roads and expand airports, so it's going to take a lot more than this to reduce climate pollution."

Time for Europe to tackle looming water crisis: environment agency

Wed Feb 14, 2:19 PM ET

PARIS (AFP) - European countries must start planning now to cope with climate change, as shifting rain- and snowfall patterns will inflict water stress whose effects will ripple across the social and economic spectrum, the European Environment Agency (EEA) warned.

"Changes in precipitation, combined with rising temperatures and reduced snow cover, will have impacts on water quality and quantity, requiring water managers to incorporate climate change in their planning and investment decisions," the EEA said.

"While uncertainties remain about the level and extent of changes in precipitation in specific locations, enough is known for action."

The new EEA report, Climate Change and Water Adaptation Issues, draws on the latest research on global warming, including the just-published first volume of a global assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC said that by 2100 global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 C (1.98 and 11.52 F) depending on how much carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, is in the air.

Within this range, the "best estimate" is Earth's surface temperatures will rise between 1.8 and 4.0 C (3.2 and 7.2 F), the IPCC said. Sea levels would increase by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1 to 23.2 inches) by 2100.

The EEA said that in Europe, the temperature would rise by between 2.0 (3.6 F) and 6.2 C (11.16 F), with a mean increase of 2.1-4.4 C (3.8-7.9 F). Larger increases could be expected in eastern and southern Europe.

This would affect every country, it said.

"We in Europe need to get our act together on adaptation (to climate change) in the same way that we are leading on mitigation," said EAA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade. Mitigation is the term for tackling the man-made greenhouse gases that drive global warming.

These are among the potential impacts, according to the EAA report:

-- Annual precipitation in northern Europe is likely to rise by as much as two percent per decade, although summers will be drier. But in southern Europe, there will be a fall in annual precipitation, especially in summer when rainfall will decrease by around five percent.

-- Flooding will become a more frequent risk over all of Europe. Northern Europe will run a higher risk of drought in the summer; southern Europe faces the risk of more droughts in all seasons.

-- Climate change will strongly affect natural habitat and biodiversity.

For example, loss of groundwater may badly affect dunes and wetlands in the Netherlands; streams and lakes in Austria that are fed by glacial meltwater could dry up; and new diseases, pests and species that thrive in an altered climate could threaten native species in Britain.

-- Water supplies for human consumption will also come under severe challenge, because at present, reservoirs and use of groundwater stocks are designed for a long recharge season.

If the recharge season is short, or it provides so much rain in one go that the ground surface saturates and the water cannot infiltrate, this will badly add to stress. Southern Spain, southern Italy, Greece and Turkey are singled out.

The report adds that the cost of these impacts could be very high.

Less rainfall will affect which crops can be grown and the availability of water for coastland tourist resorts and golf courses. It could also lead to worse quality of drinking water. And lower water levels in rivers and waterways will also affect electricity generation by hydropower and impede navigation.

Droughts alone have cost 85 billion euros (110 billion dollars) over the past 30 years in the
European Union (EU), led by 2003, a year that cost 7.5 billion euros (9.75 billion dollars) alone.

This is a big deal, and its an issue that will face humanity in the very near future. In the next 20 years, wars will no longer be fought for oil, or "for freedom and democracy around the world" as our conservative screwheads would have you think, they will be fought for drinking water. Already a large portion of the world's population lives without safe drinking water, and with privatization by big corporations like Pepsi, Coca Cola, and others, much of the water in third world countries like India, is "owned" and the people are unable to access it without paying an arm and a leg for it. Imagine if tap water in America cost the same as a bottle of Evian spring water? Bottled water already costs more than milk or gasoline, and in the future it will not get better. Check out this documentary called Thirst. It is scary.

Al Franken for Senate

This isn't entirely related to my blog, but he is very intelligent and articulate, and I think he would do a great job. Plus he is very environmentally conscious so it sort of relates to my blog here.

STEP IT UP 2007!

This April 14th, tens of thousands of Americans will gather all across the country at meaningful, iconic places to call for action on climate change. We will hike, bike, climb, walk, swim, kayak, canoe, or simply sit or stand with banners of our call to action:
Find an action near you and participate. Send letters to your state and federal representatives. Send photos. Let them know you are serious about fixing the problem.

There are already 642 events planned in 47 states across the country!

Find an Action Near You

But we still need hundreds and hundreds more in every city, state, and county.

Check out the website for more details.

New Packaging from HP to Cause Big Drop in Emissions

Source: GreenBiz.com

PALO ALTO, Calif., Feb. 13, 2007 -- HP has announced that its redesigned print cartridge packaging for North America will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 37 million pounds in 2007 -- the equivalent of taking 3,600 cars off the road for one year.

The emissions savings are the result of smaller, lighter packages that both reduce the total carbon footprint of each cartridge and the truck and freighter transportation traffic required to ship them. Newer packaging also contains more recyclable and recycled content.

"What I see here is smart design," said Greg Norris, Ph.D., environmental life cycle assessment instructor at Harvard University and creator of the Earthster project, an open source software platform designed to make opportunities for sustainable production and purchasing globally accessible. "The changes all go in the right direction environmentally and all in ways that make economic sense to HP and its customers. More power to these designers."

For retailers, the new packaging is also expected to save significant transportation and storage costs while freeing up valuable display space.

Read the rest here.

This is big news, and I wish more corporations would follow suit. Have you seen all the useless packaging used? Have you bought a flash drive whose package was the size of a book? Thats oil used to make the plastic, space taken up so less can be moved, more packages lead to more shipping and more wasted oil... This is a big step...

NJ Steps It Up!

Corzine's order puts New Jersey in forefront of global warming fight

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

BY DEBORAH HOWLETT

Star-Ledger Staff

As expected, Gov. Jon Corzine yesterday signed an executive order that sets aggressive new tar gets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey, saying he was taking action "to preserve our planet for our children and grandchildren."

The order commits the state to cutting emissions 20 percent from current levels by 2020 and 80 percent from current levels by 2050. Corzine characterized the goals as "pro-active and ambitious," noting that California is the only other state that has been as aggressive in curbing emissions.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier this month cited emissions from cars, electric power plants and other sources as being "very likely" the major culprit in global warming. Scientists and environmental advocates have said an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 is a critical step in preventing the most devastating effects of global warming. The federal government has yet to take action on reducing emissions nationwide.

"In the absence of leadership on the federal level," Corzine said, "the burden has now fallen upon state executives and legislatures to lead the way on this issue and I'm proud that New Jersey is helping to blaze that trail."

The state is already a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cooperative effort by Northeast and mid-Atlantic states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Corzine administration is also working to establish a cap on carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants.

Corzine directed the Department of Environmental Protection to work with the Department of Transportation, Board of Public Utilities, the Department of Community Affairs and interest groups to develop a plan over the next six months to meet those goals for reducing emissions. The ideas will be incorporated as part of a state master plan on energy that is cur rently being developed and is due to be presented to Corzine in October.

While acknowledging the Legislature will need to enact into law some of those ideas, Corzine stopped short of endorsing any specific bills that have been introduced by legislators.

Assemblyman John F. McKeon (D-Essex), chairman of the Assembly environment committee, will hold the first public hearings next week on a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D- Union) that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Corzine announced his order at an event in West Orange, in McKeon's district, to tout an energy conservation program target ing youth.

"Global warming is not a trend issue; this is a real threat to our future," McKeon said. "The governor has set a standard that should be codified into law. The Assembly environment committee is preparing to take this issue up in earnest so we can begin to reverse the suicidal course we are now following through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases."

I am proud there is some common sense somewhere. The important thing to note, that through careful planning this is actually a goal that can be easily accomplished. Granted, people will have to make some sacrifices, like getting rid of SUVs and paying a little extra for LED lights, but it will benefit the country and the world. A report released by a group of scientists from the Sierra Club and energy experts from the American Solar Energy Society unveiled a report last week detailing how the U.S. could cut global warming emissions 60-80% by 2050 -- using only efficiency and renewables. The report provides a roadmap not only for where we want to be in terms of emission levels, but also how we can get there using solutions that are available today. This report lays out how we can build a new energy economy based on clean energy, and new, good-paying manufacturing jobs.
The big deal is energy efficiency is the bulk of the reductions. Check the report. Download the report here.

DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN!

I know the election is still a year and a half away, but this is not a man who should be voted for. The problem is this, most people remember that he was the more moderate Republic who lost the primaries to George Bush. However, since then he has drastically changed his ways and I don't think the public is kept well enough aware. Since he lost his primary, he has become a war monger in the worst kind (and you would expect someone who went through the rigors of turmoil in vietnam would never want that to happen to anyone again, and would quickly realize a mistaken and lost war like vietnam was), he went against his word to speak at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, three years after calling falwell "a preacher of intolerance" and now is a keynote speaker at the Discovery Institute, whose sole purpose is to fund bad science and initiatives to put the biblical teachings into public schools. That is against the Constitution of the United States. I cannot stand by and let this fucking asshole hypocrite be thought of as some moderate republican. He is a conservative in the worst ways. He is for the war, for tax cuts to the rich, for temporary worker status (so big corporations can keep treating immigrants like shit), against a woman's right to choose and now he is for intelligent design. This guy is worse than George "What the fuck" Bush himself. Please please please, if you never come back to my blog again, please spread the word that John McCain is a scumbag conservative and we don't need another one in the White House.

McCain To Deliver Keynote Speech For Creationists

Today is Darwin Day, commemorating the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and of the publishing of On the Origin of Species. The National Academy of Sciences, “the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization,” declares evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.” President Bush’s science adviser John Marburger calls it “the cornerstone of modern biology.”

Yet, on February 23, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will be the keynote speaker for the most prominent creationism advocacy group in the country. The Discovery Institute, a religious right think-tank, is well-known for its strong opposition to evolutionary biology and its advocacy for “intelligent design.” The institute’s main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, “a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law.”

McCain has an ambiguous record on whether he supports intelligent design in the science curriculum. In 2005, he said it should be taught:

Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?

McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they’ve got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don’t think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there’s nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.

Daily Star: Does it belong in science?

McCain: There’s enough scientists that believe it does. I’m not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.

But last year, he said the intelligent design theory should not be taught in the science classroom:

“I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view,” he said. “I happen to believe in evolution…I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.“

As McCain continues his lurch to the right, where will he come down on intelligent design in the science classroom? We’ll be watching.

Cool!

The Underwater Channel.tv Launches First Broadband Site Dedicated to the Underwater World

by Underwatertimes.com News Service

London, England (Jan 30, 2007 17:50 EST) January 29th, 2007 sees the launch of the world’s first broadband TV channel dedicated to the mysteries and marvels of the underwater world: www.theunderwaterchannel.tv.

The Underwater Channel.tv is fuelled by the passion of divers, oceanographers, surfers, snorkellers, scientists, students or the simply curious who cannot get enough of the underwater world. The Underwater Channel.tv will entertain, educate and interact with a global audience over the world-wide-web. The soft launch of the channel will be free to air.

Programs will showcase unique and unusual marine encounters alongside underwater expeditions, scientific developments, YouDive video blogs, scuba adventures and in-depth features on scuba destinations. “Viewers can now go underwater without leaving their desks by logging onto www.theunderwaterchannel.tv All aspects of this magical realm will be up for exploration” says Emmy award-winning founder and MD, Nicholas Claxton.

UWC Presenters include prominent diving figures from UK:

• Miranda Krestovnikoff (presenter of the BBC’s Coast and C4’s Wreck Detectives)
• Monty Halls (presenter & film-maker - Full Circle Expeditions)
• Tim Ecott (author of Neutral Buoyancy: Adventures in a Liquid World)
• Anne-Marie Kitchen-Wheeler (UK free-diving team)
• Peter Scoones (revered underwater cameraman: BBC TV Blue Planet and Planet Earth)
• Amanda Ursell (author of Going Down, TV presenter and columnist for The Times)
• Andrew Pugsley (diver & adventurer)

Join them for exclusive footage of manta rays, world free-diving records, scientific expeditions to the abyss and in-depth profiles of underwater adventurers and photographers.

“I’m thrilled that the concept of www.underwaterchannel.tv has been met with such enthusiasm from so many key figures within the dive community, not just in the UK but in the USA and Asia-Pacific too" says Claxton. "The estimated 20 million divers worldwide are young and internet-savvy. This is the birth of a pioneering venture which will cater for their passion online.”

A pilot edition of the UWC’s output will run for ten weeks and will be free to air for everyone with access to broadband around the globe.

France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

By KATRIN BENNHOLD

Published: February 1, 2007

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.

Mr. Chirac spoke as scientists from around the world gathered in Paris to discuss an authoritative international report on climate change, portions of which will be released on Friday.

Mr. Chirac’s critics say that despite his comments in support of environmental measures, his record as president is far from green. He angered environmentalists across the globe when he conducted nuclear tests in a Pacific atoll within months of coming into office in 1995. He has been a loyal ally of French farmers and their pollution-causing practices, blocking some proposed Europe-wide reforms.

Most recently, France’s national plan for allocating carbon emission credits to businesses had to be revised after the European Union rejected it as too generous.

Good, maybe this will get into our government's thick skulls... Dollars are the only things that seem to matter to the administration...

Once a Dream Fuel, Palm Oil May Be an Eco-Nightmare

I have read this in other places before, but it recently made it into the New York Times, that the actual cost of these biofuels, in terms of carbon production to grow the plants and convert the energy is not efficient or "green" in any way... Its a real knock on the whole sustainable energy/biofuel environmental movement, but I always thought that solar cells should be made more efficient, wind and tide generators should be developed better, and more money should be put into nuclear fusion. Thinking that we could grow our own fuel, in the costs of land and water and labor and gear never really made that much sense now that I think about it... anyway, here is the article:
Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: January 31, 2007

AMSTERDAM, Jan. 25 — Just a few years ago, politicians and environmental groups in the Netherlands were thrilled by the early and rapid adoption of “sustainable energy,” achieved in part by coaxing electrical plants to use biofuel — in particular, palm oil from Southeast Asia.

A palm oil estate on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Exports hit a record $9 billion last year because of strong European demand.

Spurred by government subsidies, energy companies became so enthusiastic that they designed generators that ran exclusively on the oil, which in theory would be cleaner than fossil fuels like coal because it is derived from plants.

But last year, when scientists studied practices at palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, this green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare.

Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there.

Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Considering these emissions, Indonesia had quickly become the world’s third-leading producer of carbon emissions that scientists believe are responsible for global warming, ranked after the United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both in the Netherlands.

“It was shocking and totally smashed all the good reasons we initially went into palm oil,” said Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands, a conservation group.

The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.

As a result, politicians in many countries are rethinking the billions of dollars in subsidies that have indiscriminately supported the spread of all of these supposedly eco-friendly fuels for vehicles and factories. The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which demands that all member states aim to have 5.75 percent of transportation run by biofuel in 2010, is now under review.

“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.”

He added, “It’s important to take a life-cycle view,” and not to “just see what the effects are here in Europe.”

In the Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has provoked soul-searching, and helped prompt the government to suspend palm oil subsidies. The Netherlands, a leader in green energy, is now leading the effort to distinguish which biofuels are truly environmentally sound.

The government, environmental groups and some of the Netherlands’ “green energy” companies are trying to develop programs to trace the origins of imported palm oil, to certify which operations produce the oil in a responsible manner.

Krista van Velzen, a member of Parliament, said the Netherlands should pay compensation to Indonesia for the damage that palm oil has caused. “We can’t only think: does it pollute the Netherlands?”

In the United States and Brazil most biofuel is ethanol (made from corn in the United States and sugar in Brazil), used to power vehicles made to run on gasoline. In Europe it is mostly local rapeseed and sunflower oil, used to make diesel fuel.

In a small number of instances, plant oil is used in place of diesel fuel, without further refinement. But as many European countries push for more green energy, they are increasingly importing plant oils from the tropics, since there is simply not enough plant matter for fuel production at home.

On the surface, the environmental equation that supports biofuels is simple: Since they are derived from plants, biofuels absorb carbon while they are grown and release it when they are burned. In theory that neutralizes their emissions.

But the industry was promoted long before there was adequate research, said Reanne Creyghton, who runs Friends of the Earth’s campaign against palm oil here.

Biofuelswatch, an environment group in Britain, now says that “biofuels should not automatically be classed as renewable energy.” It supports a moratorium on subsidies until more research can determine whether various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting manner.

Read the next page here.

Awesome photo from NASA's Earth Observatory...

The Mariana Islands are part a volcanic island arc—surface volcanoes formed from magma generated as one tectonic plate overrides another. In the case of the Mariana Islands, the Pacific Plate is being pulled, or subducted, beneath the Philippine Plate along the famously deep Mariana Trench, which is more than 11 kilometers (nearly 7 miles) below sea level. Pagan Island (image right) is made up of two volcanoes connected by a narrow isthmus of land. The volcanoes are stratovolcanoes, which are tall, typically cone-shaped structures formed by layers of dense, crystallized lava and less-dense ash and pumice. Mount Pagan, the larger of the two volcanoes, forms the northeastern portion of the island and has been the most active historically.

The most recent major eruption took place in 1981, but since then numerous steam- and ash-producing events have been observed at the volcano—the latest reported one occurring between December 5–8, 2006. This astronaut photograph records volcanic activity on January 11, 2007, that produced a thin plume that extended westwards away from Mount Pagan. The plume was most probably steam, possibly with minor ash content. The island is sparsely populated, and it is monitored for volcanic activity by the United States Geological Survey and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands.

Astronaut photograph ISS014-E-11872 was acquired January 11, 2007, with a Kodak 760C digital camera using a 180 mm lens, and is provided by the ISS Crew Earth Observations experiment and the Image Science & Analysis Laboratory, Johnson Space Center. The image in this article has been cropped and enhanced to improve contrast. The International Space Station Program supports the laboratory to help astronauts take pictures of Earth that will be of the greatest value to scientists and the public, and to make those images freely available on the Internet. Additional images taken by astronauts and cosmonauts can be viewed at the NASA/JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth.

Aussies may soon be drinking recycled water

An interesting convorsation from an Australian television (?) program about the safety of recycled sewage water and the need for it in water-starved Australia. Pretty interesting stuff. Read the script here.

A battle won for environmentalists

Court: EPA must protect aquatic life near power plants

LARRY NEUMEISTER

Associated Press

NEW YORK - The Environmental Protection Agency must force power plants to protect fish and other aquatic life even if it's expensive, a federal appeals court said in a ruling favoring states and environmental groups.

The decision late Thursday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that it was improper for the EPA to let power plants circumvent environmental laws - for instance, restocking polluted water with new fish instead of paying to upgrade their technology.

It said the EPA's decisions must "be driven by technology, not cost," unless two technologies produce essentially the same benefits but have much different costs.

"EPA's goal is to protect fish and the ecosystem while meeting the nation's need for reliable energy sources," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, the agency's assistant administrator for water. The agency was reviewing the decision, he said.

The ruling drew praise from environmental groups and six states that had sued.

"This decision is a strong and stinging rebuke of the Bush administration's underhanded practice of issuing rule changes to undercut environmental laws," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement Friday.

The other states involved are Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

They sued after the EPA published regulations in July 2004 describing how power plants must protect aquatic life when they use water from bays, rivers, lakes, oceans and other waterways for cooling.

Scientists say fish, larvae and eggs are killed in the water-cooling process, which is used heavily in states with many older, mostly fossil-fuel plants.

The appeals court previously rejected arguments that some species are nuisances and require eradication. The court had also dismissed the claim that other species respond to population losses by increasing their reproduction.

Maine Land Use Commission Rejects Wind Power Proposal

Despite LURC ruling, governor upbeat on wind power

By Glenn Adams, Associated Press Writer | January 28, 2007

AUGUSTA, Maine --Despite last week's ruling by state officials that could lead to final rejection of the proposed Redington wind power project in western Maine, Gov. John Baldacci said he remains committed to that form of renewable energy.

The governor did not question last Wednesday's 6-1 vote by the Land Use Regulation Commission, saying that LURC "is an independent, citizen board" that must scrutinize each project in a balanced and measured way.

"They are responsible for evaluating projects like this one. Just because I support an expansion of wind energy does not exempt the project from the review process. These things have to be done in a reasonable way," the governor told The Associated Press.

Maine Mountain Power, meanwhile, remained undecided Sunday on what its next step will be following the wilderness zoning board's ruling against its $130 million project, which called for 30 wind turbines on Redington and Black Nubble mountains, spokesman Dennis Bailey said.

Of course, this seems entirely ridiculous to me, although its impossible for me to give a real opinion without reading the exact details of the proposal submitted and the reasons for rejection. I am just confused as to what the Land Use Regulation Commission is holding out for? I mean we need to start really focusing on renewable energy and Maine can take the pioneering first step into developing multiple wind farms... This is a shot in the foot to all proponents of sustainable energy. Read the rest here.

Alaska fights for their right to fish for halibut

Bend Weekly News Sources

The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is issuing a call to action from saltwater fishermen throughout the country in an effort to make their collective voice heard by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC); an organization forged under a U.S./Canadian treaty to manage the halibut biomass in Pacific waters.

Next week, the IPHC is scheduled to hold closed meetings for discussions on the recreational harvesting of halibut off the coast of Alaska. Currently, Alaska's commercial fleets take over 90% of the halibut resource and kill over 12 million pounds, annually, just in wasted bycatch. This, alone, is close to double the amount that sport anglers catch. However, the commercially dominated IPHC is proposing to cut the charter fleet bag limit to one fish per person, crippling Alaska's charter and tourism industry.

"The IPHC's main job is to continually monitor the health of the halibut biomass and then determine how many pounds of halibut can be harvested by the U.S. and Canada in a given year", explained RFA executive director Jim Donofrio. "In the past, the allowable catch for halibut is then managed federally by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) under the control of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act."

The RFA aims to protect Alaska's recreational halibut fishing industry and uphold legislation in the Magnuson Steven Act (MSA) that dictates fisheries management be a transparent process with public input, by urging individuals to voice their concern to Dr. William Hogarth, assistant administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, as well as their local senators.

"This proposed action sets a terrible precedent for U.S. fisheries policy", states Greg Sutter of the Alaska Charter Association. "We are currently looking into the legality of this action to insure that no jurisdictional bounds have been overstepped."

Now I can't pretend to know the whole situation with the halibut. I do know that in my fisheries course, we looked at the stocks and they were being overfished. However, I love how its always the recreational fisherman that get blamed. Instead of closing the commercial catch (which worked so well for stripers on the Atlantic coast), they will punish the recreational guys who want to keep fish stocks healthy and dont stand to make any profit from the fish... GOOD IDEA IPHC!

Baby fish smell their way home

I know about fish and homing abilities, but I never heard of it for reef fish...
Cosmos Online

Baby reef fish like this damselfish can use smell to find their way back to their own home reef across kilometres of ocean, researchers say. Image: iStockphoto

SYDNEY: Some baby fish manage to find their way to their home coral reef across kilometres of open ocean by using their sense of smell, researchers say.

The discovery, made on Australia's Great Barrier Reef by a team of U.S. and Australian scientists, shines a new light on how the breathtaking diversity of fish on coral reefs has arisen, and has major implications for the management of reefs.

"The babies of many coral fish species are swept off their home reef by ocean currents within days of hatching," said Mike Kingsford of James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, a member of the research team. "Ordinarily you'd expect them to be thoroughly mixed up and this would mean the population of one reef would be pretty much the same, genetically, as another."

"But that is not the case," he said. "There are major genetic differences between fish of the same species on reefs only a few kilometres or even just hundreds of metres apart.

"This genetic separation between reefs may be what gives rise to so many different species in coral reef systems," said Kingsford, who believes that the lack of interbreeding between groups of fish from the same species on different reefs may, over time, have caused them to evolve into separate species.

The impetus for the research came from the researchers' interest in how tiny damsel and cardinal fish, swept off of their home reef, manage to find their way back - braving strong currents and ferocious predators during 20 days at sea - all when only a centimetre or so in size.

"We tested several ideas, but the most attractive seemed to be that they could smell the unique trace of their home reef - rather like salmon can smell the home river," said Kingsford. "We know these late stage fish larvae … already have developed noses - but the question was whether they could use them to recognise what the home reef smelt like, when they left it only a day or so after hatching."

The team exposed tiny fish larvae in a tank to pure streams of water from four different reefs. To their amazement, within minutes a surprisingly high percentage of baby fish had congregated in the water flow from their home reef.

"It was a lot more than you'd expect to happen by pure chance - and it applied, in differing degrees, across several species of fish," said Kingsford.

The fish could also be responding to other stimuli, including distant noise off a reef and the behaviour of other fish, but the team concluded that smell was probably the dominant factor leading the babies home.

"Every reef gives off its own unique chemical signature, a rich mixture of the proteins and amino acids emitted by corals, all the plankton and mucus from its life," said Kingsford. "We think baby fish can pick this up and distinguish it from other reefs.

"We think some fishes then choose currents that smell like 'home' and swim up them. The ones that cannot do this perish. The ones that get home preserve the unique 'ethnic' make-up of their tribe - and so continue the process of evolving into separate new species."

How the fish learn the unique smell of home remains a mystery. In their paper, published last week in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers theorise that the smell is imprinted on a baby fish either when it is an unfertilised egg inside its mother, a fertilised egg on the bottom, or a newly-hatched fry.

"An egg, even a fry, hasn't a fully developed sense of smell, but it may have a way of absorbing the local molecules and then recognising their signature as 'home' when it grows up a bit and is ready to settle," said Kingsford. "This evidence that individual coral reefs play such a key role in the emergence of new species is a fresh reason to take even greater care in how we look after them."

with James Cook University

NOAA: Nutrient Pollution Increasing Along the New England, Mid-Atlantic Coasts

Not that this isn't already pretty common knowledge to researchers in the area, but now that a government agency is actually admitting it, thats a big step in the right direction!

Underwatertimes.com News Service

Washington, D.C. (Jan 5, 2007 16:25 EST) A NOAA research project shows nutrient pollution in estuaries, bays and harbors from the mid-Atlantic to New England is on the rise, showing excess nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus are a threat to coastal water quality nationwide. The study's findings are compiled in a report, "Improving Methods and Indicators for Evaluating Coastal Water Eutrophication: A Pilot Study in the Gulf of Maine."

"Nutrient pollution is a pervasive problem that impacts ecosystems and human activities, particularly in highly developed areas," says co-author Suzanne Bricker, physical scientist at the NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. "Our study found that the problem is greater in the mid-Atlantic region, which has a higher population density and more intensive watershed development than coastal New England."

New England, however, has similar problems that are likely to get worse. The study's results indicated that nutrient pollution in the Gulf of Maine is higher than it was early 1990s, and conditions are expected to worsen as the coastal population in that region is expected to increase in the future.

"By including the socioeconomic impacts of pollution in coastal watersheds, we not only prove the value of applying integrated coastal and ocean observing technology in coastal management issues, but also in promoting a coastal stewardship that more fully evaluates the environmental impacts of development and other human activity," said John H. Dunnigan, director of the NOAA Ocean Service.

In many coastal ecosystems, future nutrient load increases of 10 percent to 25 percent are expected. These increases, in addition to the natural processing of nutrients once the loads reach estuarine waters, are important factors related to "eutrophication," the process by which excess nutrients—whether from storm water runoff, sewage treatment plants, septic systems, airborne dust or agriculture—fuel excessive algal blooms that lead to low oxygen conditions. Severe eutrophication causes a number of impacts to ecosystems, ultimately leading to the death of marine organisms, including important commercial fish species.

"Evaluating the extent of eutrophication, and how it affects different parts of the ecosystem, is the first, critical step toward developing strategies to address it," said Dwight Trueblood, NOAA co-director for the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology, which co-sponsored the study. CICEET is a partnership between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire.

NOAA scientists developed a "human use indicator" that examined the impact of nutrient pollution on recreational fish catches, making the study distinctive by including human activity as part of the ecosystem, improving traditional methods to assess eutrophication.

"Coastal managers and the public need a way to understand how low oxygen conditions impact the fisheries that are major economic drivers for their regions," said Bricker. "We've developed an indicator that, once tested and expanded, can be used to predict the loss of fish that will potentially occur when dissolved oxygen concentrations drop to a specific, low level."

The assessment methods were originally developed in the 1990s and were modified through this study. They will serve as the basis for an update of the NOAA National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment that will be released in 2007.

Keys fear disaster if Cuba taps nearby oil

Does anyone else find it convenient that for years the United States has wanted nothing to do with Cuba except impose strict embargos? There was no cry from the public or the government to extend helping hands to Cuba, no talks of opening trade or free travel without having to visit other foreign countries first, except for a few of us who would then be labeled liberals or communists? Even when Hurrican Katrina hit and Castro offered to send aid the United States turned it down. Early in 2006 large stores of oil were discovered in Cuban waters. All of a sudden, the United States wants to open the door to Cuba, sending delegations to try to usher a new era between the two nations. If this does not show you that the US is controlled by money hungry big oil and military industrial complexes, then you need to wake up... Its not about Cuba being communist, China, our largest trade partner is communist... It was always about Cuba having nothing to offer... Now, Cuba's pristine waters will be destroyed by big oil which may also create major environmental problems for the United States, and we will all just sit here and do nothing.

By Mike Williams

Palm Beach Post-Cox News Service

Monday, January 01, 2007

KEY LARGO — The pelicans gather each afternoon, cute, gawky and hungry. They flap and flop awkwardly among the mangrove roots as Juan Leon, a worker at the Florida Keys Wild Bird Center, tosses them fish to supplement their natural diet.

"We feed them because the natural fish population isn't what it should be," said Bruce Horn, who heads the center, which helps rescue injured and sick birds. "Our environment here is very fragile."

That's why Horn and other residents of this vacation paradise are worried about news that the Cuban government has struck oil just a few dozen miles from this environmentally sensitive string of islands.

"That's absolutely scary," Horn says. "The Keys don't have sandy beaches, and you couldn't just scoop up oil if there was a spill. If it got into the mangrove roots, it would be disastrous."

Experts say the size of Cuba's offshore oil deposits is still in question, but the potential is impressive. A U.S. Geological Survey study estimates that a curving belt of ocean floor north of Cuba may contain at least 4.5 billion barrels of oil and nearly 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In contrast, an area in U.S. waters about 200 miles west of Tampa that Congress just approved for drilling is believed to hold about 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The United States uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day.

For impoverished Cuba, the oil prospects are dazzling, and Fidel Castro's government has wasted no time in pushing to develop the fields. The region has been divided into 59 exploration blocks, and Cuba has signed deals with foreign oil firms to begin drilling in earnest.

One well that the Spanish oil company Repsol-YPF sank already has found oil, but not in commercially viable quantities.

"But it was enough that Norway's Norsk Hydro acquired a 30 percent stake," said Jorge Pinon, a former oil company executive who is now a research associate at the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies.

"Norsk Hydro wouldn't go to Cuba for political purposes," Pinon said. "They are one of the best deepwater drilling companies in the world, and if they are going in, it is likely this will be viable."

Cuba has signed other oil deals with firms from Venezuela, India, China and Canada, a clear sign that a Cuban oil boom is brewing. But Pinon says it will be several years before the offshore Cuban operations crank into high gear because of soaring demand around the world for the limited number of deepwater rigs.

The activity has piqued the interest of U.S. lawmakers. Competing bills were introduced in Congress this year, with supporters of the U.S. embargo against Cuba proposing to deny visas to foreign oil workers headed to Cuba. Their opponents introduced a bill that would exempt U.S. firms from the embargo and allow them to participate in the Cuban oil rush.

"At risk are the Florida Keys and the state's tourism economy, not to mention the $8 billion that Congress is investing to restore the Everglades," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., one of the sponsors of the bill aiming to limit the Cuban drilling.

Neither bill passed, but the issue seems certain to come up again.

Embargo opponents hope that the new Congress, which Democrats will run for the first time in more than a decade, will ease the trade and travel restrictions and allow U.S. participation. The Cuban government has sought bids from American oil firms.

"This is a product the U.S. needs," said Kirby Jones, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association, a group seeking to break the embargo. "If we maintain the embargo, it says we don't need that oil and it's OK for India, Canada, Spain and these other countries to take it."

With some of the Cuban exploration blocks just 50 miles from Key West, many Keys residents would prefer no drilling at all. Short of that, they would rather have American companies involved.

"My concern is that these other companies may not have the safety precautions that U.S. companies follow," said Joe Angelo, manager of Ocean Divers, a scuba diving outfit in Key Largo. "A spill would wipe us out."

The Cuban exploration is tied to a 1977 treaty that the United States and Cuba signed setting the offshore boundary between the countries. The line runs roughly down the center of the Florida Straits, a channel that is about 100 miles wide and separates Cuba from the Florida Keys.

The Keys are home to a huge coral reef, an underwater formation rich in marine life. State and federal parks and reserves already protect much of the reef, and it has spawned a thriving tourism industry catering to scuba divers, fishermen and offshore sightseers.

But the Keys are not the only Florida area at risk.

Ocean currents that run like rivers in the sea carry water from the Gulf of Mexico through the Florida Straits and up Florida's east coast.

"Any spill in the eastern gulf can wind up putting materials into the current and then onto the east coast of Florida," said Robert Weisberg, an oceanographer and ocean current expert at the University of South Florida. "The current is always there, and the risk is real."

But even without a major spill, Keys environmentalists say, oil drilling and fragile reefs shouldn't mix.

"Routine operations can be devastating because of the chronic daily discharge of drilling mud that carries heavy metals and other toxic materials," said DeeVon Quirolo, founder of Reef Relief, one of the Keys' oldest environmental groups. "It poses a grave threat not only to Florida's reefs but also to the reefs along the Cuban coast."

Although Cuba has benefited lately from a deal in which Venezuela is providing oil and gas at a discounted price, it seems clear that the communist island will continue the drive to secure its own offshore oil supplies.

Keys residents, already threatened by hurricanes and rapid development that is degrading water quality, figure the Cuban oil rush will be one more risk they must face.

"The reefs are the only way people have to make money here," said Jessica Dombrowski, who works at Key Largo Watersports, where tourists rent boats and water scooters. "This is the scuba diving capital of the U.S. If they kill the reef, they kill the Keys."