Sunday, March 11, 2007

Mandatory Limits on Carbon Dioxide are looking good to me.

 
Posted by Picasa


The USA is producing huge amounts of the toxic atmospheric gas. It has every intention to continue in that manner without limits on emissions. The future for the USA is freely emitting even higher levels of CO2. This has to end. Limits on carbon dioxide need to be manditory at the federal level and not the burden of the moral people of the Blue States.

Another Warning on Warming

 
Posted by Picasa


This infrared image of the Earth was taken on 5 March 2005 after Rosetta's closest approach to Earth by VIRTIS from a distance of 250 000 kilometres and with a resolution of 62 kilometres per pixel.

The image shows the distribution of CO2 bands in the Earth's atmosphere. In the green areas the CO2 concentration is enhanced.

Carbon Dioxide Bands in Earth's Troposphere (click on)


Published: March 11, 2007
If President Bush requires any more proof that he sits on the wrong side of the global warming debate, he should listen to his own scientists. An internal draft of a report the administration will soon forward to the United Nations shows that his program of voluntary reductions has done little to stop the rise in greenhouse gases generated in this country.

There is no sign that this report will alter Mr. Bush’s thinking; he contemptuously dismissed a similar report five years ago as bureaucratic boilerplate. But we are hopeful that it will add momentum to the bills circulating in Congress that would impose mandatory limits on these gases, a course Mr. Bush has opposed since renouncing his own 2000 campaign pledge to do just that.

The document — a distillation of expert views in various federal agencies — will show that Mr. Bush is making modest progress towards his goal of making sure that emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases grow at a slower rate than the economy. But it will also show that in absolute terms, emissions will grow nearly as fast in the next decade as they did in the last, when they increased by 11.6 percent. This is not much better than business as usual. And as national policy it is clearly unacceptable.

The carbon lodged in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has already taken a toll — disappearing glaciers, increasingly acidic oceans. The report predicts even graver consequences to come, including severe and persistent droughts in the Western United States. Essentially a scientific document, the report will not recommend new directions in policy. But its clear message is that stopping and then reversing these emissions is the only way to avert real trouble.

As Congress is beginning to realize, that will require a program of carbon controls at home and a good deal of persuasion and technological change abroad, especially in China, which will soon overtake the United States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases.

This page has long lamented that Mr. Bush seems perfectly happy bringing up the rear of a parade he ought to be leading. His lack of leadership is all the more noticeable now that so many prominent figures in government and business have joined in.

In January, 10 major corporations announced their support of a mandatory limit on emissions. Two regional agreements to cap greenhouse gases — agreements developed in part by Republican governors — are nearing completion. And Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, has urged the relevant House committees to produce a bill by the summer.

Mr. Bush changed his mind once on carbon emissions. He should change it again. The world will thank him for doing so.

The world's population is growing. Land use is a vital component to Earth's biotic health and sustainability

 
Posted by Picasa


The graphic is very good (It's source, click on). It shows the increase in Earth's temperature corresponding to carbon dioxide levels, fossil fuels and land use changes. As important, if not more so, is the use of land and the lack of sustainable carbon sinks. The Amazon Rainforest has been a huge carbon sink that cannot be sacrificed for the operations of automobiles in the USA.

Deforestation and tilled soil cause erosion

 
Posted by Picasa


Gluttonous use of fossil fuels achieved the strife the world's populations are facing now. The long term view of the USA has to be to eliminate carbon dioxide producing fuels from their landscape. That goal will never be attained if we don't first embark on that commitment.

If the USA is to be a global leader out of this entanglement of economies and fossil fuel/carbon dioxide producing dependancy it has to lead morally. Being lazy now in our diligence to find 'the solution' to liberate our nation from energy dependency and further insult to Earth is vital.


Proposed U.S.-Brazil ethanol alliance threatens Amazon rainforest (click on)


The Associated Press
March 6, 2007

A proposed ethanol alliance that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is expected to forge with U.S. President George W. Bush later this week poses both opportunities and risks for the environment, a top U.N. environmental official said Monday.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nation's Environment Program, said growing international demand for ethanol and other biofuels on the international market threaten the Amazon rain forest if safeguards are not put in place because the world's largest remaining tropical wilderness is a target area for agriculture.

Brazil's main biofuel is ethanol made from sugarcane. While sugarcane cultivation is minimal now in the Amazon, some environmentalists fear growing demand for the fuel could push cane growers into the Amazon.

"I think at the end of the day ... it's a question of whether the Amazon is sufficiently protected and whether the expansion of the ethanol production happens in the context of government policies that try and direct that growth potential in a sustainable base," Steiner told The Associated Press after meeting with Brazil's ministers of environment, energy and foreign relations in the capital of Brasilia.

Steiner was to meet Silva later in the day, and said he was eager to learn more about Brazil's biofuels program.
Brazil has in recent years established itself as the world's leader in the use of renewable energy sources with eight out of 10 new cars capable of running on ethanol.

Brazil is the world's second-biggest producer of ethanol after the United States and is the biggest exporter. The country has also taken the lead in producing soybean-based biodiesel.

But environmentalists fear growing demand for biofuel could put renewed pressure on the Amazon which in recent years has been losing forest to make way for agriculture.

Steiner praised Brazil for reducing Amazon deforestation by 11 percent last year and said he was hopeful the government would develop sufficient safeguards to protect the wilderness.

But many environmentalists say much of the reduction in deforestation was due to an overvalued currency and stagnant prices for soy beans on the international market, which made it far less lucrative to cut down remote forest plots to grow soy beans.

In the near term, soybean growers likely will continue to expand into the Amazon as farmland in the Brazil's south and central regions moved to sugarcane, which requires greater infrastructure.

"While the whole process of alcohol fuel is less damaging to the climate than fuel from gasoline or oil, what can be positive for the environment can turn negative depending on the extension of the plantations," said Paulo Adario, director of the Greenpeace's Amazon Campaign.

The Amazon region, which covers nearly 60 percent of Brazil, has lost 20 percent of its forest — 1.6 million square miles (4.1 million square kilometers) — to development, logging and farming.

Ethanol as Fuel: Energy, Carbon Dioxide Balances, and Ecological Footprint

 
Posted by Picasa


Page 601

Conclusion

The use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline proved to be neither a sustainable nor an environmentally friendly option, considering ecological footprint values, and both net energy and CO2 offset consideration seemed relatively unimportant compared to the ecological footprint. As revealed by the ecological footprint approach, the direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this alternative energy resource on a large scale.

In the Brazilian case, for carbon sequestration, it seems to be more effective to reduce the rate of deforestation than to plant sugarcane. According to Fearnside and colleagues (2001), the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere because of forest burning in the Amazon is about 187 Mg per ha. The current Brazilian energy scenario contrasts with that of the 1970s. Currently, Brazil produces 90% of the oil it consumes, and so the national security argument for substituting ethanol no longer applies. Furthermore, the argument for electricity cogeneration is meaningless, since the energy surplus is minimal.

IN the US Case, the use of ethanol would require enormous areas of corn agriculture, and the accompanying environmental impacts outweigh it's benefits. Ethanol cannot alleviate the United States dependence on petroleum.

However, the ethanol option should not be wholly disregarded. The use of a fuel that emits lower levels of pollutants when burned can be important in regions or cities with critical pollution problems. Also, in agricultural situations where biomass residues would otherwise be burned to prepare for the next planting cycle, there would be some advantage in using the residues for alcohol production. However, further research should be done to improve the conversion process. Considering that, eventually, petroleum may no longer be available in the amounts currently consumed, one must conclude that substitution of alternatives to fossil fuel cannot be done using one option alone. It will prove more prudent to have numerous options (e.g., ethanol, fuel cells, solar energy), each participating with fractional contributions to the overall national and global need for fuel energy. Finally, it is important to notice that no option comes free from significant environmental problems.

Bush will use so many trees in the National Forests of the USA, generations of Americans will think trees are three feet tall

 
Posted by Picasa

The year, 2012, President of the USA Jeb Bush declares war on Brazil...

 
Posted by Picasa


...following intelligence leads that the primary supplier of sugarcane to the nations' biofuel dependancy is building weapons of mass destruction...
 


It's Sunday Morning

"Welcome to my crib."
Posted by Picasa

"Stop in the Name of Love" by the Supremes

Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart

Baby, baby
I'm aware of where you go
Each time you leave my door
I watch you walk down the street
Knowing your other love you'll meet
But this time before you run to her
Leaving me alone and hurt
(think it over) after I've been good to you ?
(think it over) after I've been sweet to you ?

Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart
Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart
Think it over
Think it over

I've known of your
Your secluded nights
I've even seen her
Maybe once or twice
But is her sweet expression
Worth more than my love and affection ?
But this time before you leave my arms
And rush of to her charms
(think it over) haven't I been good to you ?
(think it over) haven't I been sweet to you ?

Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart
Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart
Think it over
Think it over

I've tried so hard, hard to be patient
Hoping you'd stop this infatuation
But each time you are together
I'm so afraid Ill be losing you forever

Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart
Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart
Stop! in the name of love
Before you break my heart

Baby, think it over
Think it over, baby
Ooh, think it over baby...

Good Morning...

...the Rooster actually crowed at sunrise, not on Daylight Savings Time.

The Republican Zoodoo in the USA didn't work. They made Daylight Savings Time three weeks earlier as an act of congress. I guess they expected the rotations and alignment of Earth and Sol to change.

The planets maintained their alignment regardless of the Zoodoo Act of Congress by the Republicans. I guess they aren't god or any facisimile.

How about that?