More reason to look to magnetics, you don't burn them!?!

One of my favorites




These are just a few good ones, I cant wait to get my shop going.




RE: Secret Report: biofuel caused food crisis -The World Bank

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Invisibles
Date: Jul 15, 2008 11:02 AM


We're with MFKS and OC, pass this fucking thing on will ya.



By the way, check out Moving Forward, Keeping Stills profile and the Cd he produced with all profits donated to charity - and all the other not for profit stuff (there';s some poof on there for you you suspicious types like us) Even fucking Marv bought a copy and for him to buy anything that isn't related to X2 and fighting all that Cock is very unusual.



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: moving forward, keeping still
Date: Jul 15, 2008 3:46 PM


peace to: Only Chan
Date: Jul 15, 2008 10:40 AM

I'm constantly amazed that people are not aware of the "controversy" surround the seeming sounding "environmentally friendly" "biofuels" or the impact that the production of may be having not just in "poor" countries but across the world.





The following brief article from the UKs respected "Guardian" newspaper may help to clarify. This is NOT a conspiracy theory and I would appreciate it if people would repost this - should have the energy. This is a growing problem with world wide implications, yet seems to be one virtually ignored.







Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive

* Aditya Chakrabortty
* The Guardian,
* Friday July 4, 2008

http://www.


guardian. co. uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.



renewableenergy

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.





The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.





The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.





Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.





"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.





The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.





It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released.





"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat.



"

Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".





President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases.



"

Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.





Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.





"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.





It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.




Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply.





The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact.





Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants.





"It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change.



"

America sold down the river

RE: EPA Scaled Back Rules on Wetlands

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Man Common
Date: Jul 6, 2007 4:21 PM


EPA Scaled Back Rules on Wetlands

By John M. Broder
The New York Times

Go to Original

Washington - After a concerted lobbying effort by property developers, mine owners and farm groups, the Bush administration scaled back proposed guidelines for enforcing a key Supreme Court ruling governing protected wetlands and streams.

The administration last fall prepared broad new rules for interpreting the decision, handed down by a divided Supreme Court in June 2006, that could have brought thousands of small streams and wetlands under the protection of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The draft guidelines, for example, would allow the government to protect marsh lands and temporary ponds that form during heavy rains if they could potentially affect water quality in a nearby navigable waterway.

But just before the new guidelines were to be issued last September, they were pulled back in the face of objections from lobbyists and lawyers for groups concerned that the rules could lead to federal protection of isolated and insignificant swamps, potholes and ditches.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, finally issued new guidelines last month, which environmental and recreational groups complained were much more narrowly drawn. These groups argue that the final guidelines will leave thousands of sensitive wetlands and streams unprotected.

The changes in wording between the September and June versions of the guidelines were subtle, hinging on broad scientific questions raised by the Supreme Court ruling over the nature of wetlands and natural drainage systems.

The most nettlesome of these issues was whether regulators need to show that a wetland is directly connected to a navigable body of water in deciding if they have jurisdiction to require permits under the Clean Water Act. The alternate reading, favored by environmental groups, is that it is enough to prove that a wetland or stream is part of a large watershed that drains into such waters.

Environmental advocates said the policy adopted in the June guidance reflected the concerns of developers and polluters and could have a profound effect on how federal water laws are applied.

"There are definitely waters that will not be protected because of this latest guidance," said Navis Bermudez, a water policy analyst at the Sierra Club. "The final guidance is clearly weaker than what we saw in the September guidance."

The guidelines are the government's first attempt to interpret the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, in which the court left a muddled definition of what constituted a protected waterway.

The court divided into two four-member blocs, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion controlling the outcome but leaving government lawyers and outsiders puzzled as to how to carry out the ruling.

Administration officials involved in drafting the guidelines said that the rules went through a routine interagency review and that industry lawyers and lobbyists did not exert improper influence.

The E.P.A. official responsible for enforcing clean water rules declined to comment on how the rules evolved. That official, Benjamin H. Grumbles, the agency's assistant administrator for water, said that the agency "participated in routine discussions with stakeholders, including environmental groups and members of industry," in drafting the rules.

Draft guidelines were completed in September and officials at E.P.A. and the Corps of Engineers prepared a press release outlining the new rules. But at that point the process halted and the guidelines moved to the White House, where the Council on Environmental Quality began a review. Officials at the council described this as a routine part of the rule-making process.

The draft guidelines, leaked to environmental groups by someone within the government, allowed officials to look at the impact of dredging or discharge of pollutants on a wide region or watershed, potentially putting millions of acres of land adjacent to streams and wetlands off limits to industry, agriculture and development. Lobbyists for these groups immediately raised objections.

Virginia S. Albrecht, a prominent Washington lawyer representing developers, wrote to the White House in September to express concerns about the breadth of the proposed rules. Among her chief objections was that the rules as written would allow the government to regulate development over a wide region even if the impact on a stream or swamp of a proposed project was highly localized. She also said that projects should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to see if they meet the tests set out by the Rapanos decision.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Alliance Coal, one of the nation's largest coal producers, also weighed in on the proposed guidelines, expressing concern that the new rules would affect temporary drainage ditches and "ephemeral" streams that appear only after heavy rain.

The Sierra Club, Earth Justice and other environmental groups concerned about the new rules obtained their communications with the White House under the Freedom of Information Act.

Ms. Albrecht and Alliance Coal declined to comment. Jeffrey Eisenberg, a Washington lobbyist for the beef association, said that his concern was that the new rules be clear enough for farmers and ranchers to be able to predict what lands and waters would be covered.

A White House official involved in the process said that trying to interpret Justice Kennedy's language was frustrating because his decision was open to differing interpretations. He said the process took months because of the complexity and the large number of agencies and interests involved. He also said there was no significant intervention by Vice President Cheney or any Cabinet officer.

"We hashed it out and I think we ended up with a pretty effective policy," said the official, who spoke about internal administration discussions only on condition of anonymity. "I don't think anybody claimed victory publicly, and I don't think anybody thinks we're done with this issue either."