Slashdot Mirror

But there are many areas where some minor federal intervention would be very useful.

The first thing the govt. should do is reevaluate the way it calculates fuel economy. The current system is grossly innaccurate, and doesn't give consumers a true picture of the gas mileage they can expect. Consumer Reports had an article about this and the auto industry rep. basically said that the auto companies know how the govt. tests, and optomizes their vehicles for the test (gear ratio tweaking, using prototype vehicles, etc.). Changing the test methods would give consumers more accurate information so they can make a more informed decision.

The second thing the govt. could do is raise the minimum required fuel economy and make light trucks subject to the gas guzzler tax. I work at a Dodge dealership and the fuel economy of new vehicles is attrocious. A new durango gets 14-18 mpg and pays no gas guzzler tax. A station wagon that got similar mileage would have a several thousand dollar tax associated with it. Treat SUVs like the cars that they are replacing and you will find that fewer people will buy one.

The third thing that the govt. and EPA could do to help is to standardize fuel grades. Under the current system, refiners have to produce something like 60-70 different blends to comply with various state enviromental regs. The govt. could reduce this clusterfuck by having perhaps 2 or 3 different blends; one blend for urban/enviromentally sensitive (pacific northwest, etc.) areas, and one blend for areas where pollution isn't as big of a problem. Current refineries in the US are running at or above full capacity, and this would help ease that situation, and allow oil companies to put current resources to better use.

In addition to the step above, I firmly believe that the govt. should raise minimum octane ratings for gasoline. If the US had higher octane ratings, we could use higher compression ratings, and turbochargers would be a lot more effective, allowing smaller displacement engines (like most japanese cars have) to produce the same horsepower as a larger naturally aspirated engine but with increased fuel economy.

Obviously, these aren't complete solutions to Americas oil addiction, but they are things that would help.

P.S. while writing this post, I came across an interesting ad that the sierra club ran in the new york times on Ford's 100th birthday. 100 years of "progress" indeed.

Check out the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Its goal appears to be to threaten and endanger species. It was initiated by Richard Pombo (R-Cal), who is well known for his support of miners and loggers as well as his fight against the spotted owl.

• Sierra Club
• Biological Diversity
• Plant Societies

Or, if you don't like the House version, how about Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act (S. 2110) in the Senate, initiated by Mike Crapo (R-ID). The Republicans definitely seem to be consistent.

• Biological Diversity

Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...

What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them:
It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.

Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:

Scientists and public health officials have expressed many serious concerns about the choice of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste disposal site for the nation. More than two hundred significant technical and scientific issues with the Yucca Mountain site remain, including how quickly the waste containers will leak deadly radioactive waste into the aquifer beneath Yucca, and the likelihood of earthquake activity around the mountain. Even more uncertainties surround the safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail or highway.

Despite all these unanswered questions and unresolved problems, the Bush administration pushed forward a recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site be chosen to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In so doing, he broke the 2000 campaign promise he made to the people of Nevada to base all decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste on "sound science."

Sierra Club, Deadly Nuclear Waste Coming to a Rail Line Near You? The Bush Administration's Broken Promise

Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement

Gov. Guinn Vetos Yucca Mountain

Fight moves to Congress, where lawmakers have 90 legislative days to override Nevada's governor

Declaring that "the battle is not over," Gov. Kenny Guinn departed Monday for Washington, D.C., to follow through on his historic veto of the president's decision to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault, "Yucca Mountain: Guinn vetoes Bush", Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9, 2002

The House overrode the Governor on May 6, 2002 in the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. The Senate's override came on July 9, 2002, in their Approval of Yucca Mountain Repository

Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:

The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Bill Clinton's veto of the nuclear waste storage bill on a 64 to 35 vote -- two votes short of the two-thirds needed.

The legislation provided for storing high-level spent fuel from commercial nuclear p

Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...

A long time ago Al Gore, after leading efforts to provide govt. funding for what was then known as "The Information Superhighway", wrote a best-selling book called "Earth In the Balance".

A lot of people read the book but ignored the message.

In 2000 people laughed at him as he ran for President. Laughed and laughed and laughed.

Still, more Americans voted for him than voted for Bush (including Florida).

He won. But lost when the Republicans used their Supreme Court control to steal the election.

Our president-in-exile discussed global warming in this recent speech:

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/gorespeech/

So the Dep't of Agriculture is having a clearance sale on rubbish from the Dep't of Energy's nuclear energy/waste sites. Are they financing Superfund sites with bake sales, now that Bush has cut off its budget?

40+ million people in the USA are members of the AAA, the Automobile Association of America.

This organization routinely uses it's massive accumulated fortune to lobby against public transportation and pollution controls.

http://www.sierraclub.org/scoop/better_world.asp
http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/harpers200 2may.htm

Q: How do airport managers feel about establishing high-speed rail for California? Do you support the high-speed rail initiative?

A: The airport commission has come on record in support of high-speed rail. We think it would reduce the number of flights here, and we would see a 5 to 8 percent drop in passenger traffic if high-speed rail is introduced. The markets it would help us with -- markets like Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Diego -- are markets that are primarily served by smaller aircraft.

[From a previous question] In the month of January, we had passengers increase 12 percent and flights were down 4 percent. It's a remarkable statistic. It reflects that the airlines are using larger aircraft and they're getting more passengers on each plane. That's smart growth. We don't want to see a bunch of new regional aircraft or propeller jets serving SFO. We want to see 747, triple sevens. Larger aircraft.

So we might see an even bigger percentage reduction in the number of flights [with HSR]. At SFO, we would like to see a station right across the freeway from the international terminal and we would extend our AirTrain system to connect to the high-speed rail.

Also keep in mind that a SFO's peak capacity is 60 planes/hr * 200 people/plane = 12,000 people/hr (assuming SFO handles nothing but LA/San Diego traffic) With no ability to handle intermediate markets (too time and fuel intensive)

Compare that to an HSR train system: 20 trains/hr/track * 2 tracks * 500-1000 people/train = 20000 - 40000 people/hr. With much ability to handle intermediate markets ( a 6 minute time penalty per station stop, marginal energy effect.)

Each has a place. Trains 100-600 miles. Planes >600miles or across water. Mountain ranges are manageable - HSR can handle >3.5% slopes (All-wheel drive, lightweight and a running start) After all we are talking trains that can go > 186mph.

I used to think that NAFTA made a fair amount of sense until corporations started to use it as a way to avoid environmental regulations in order to make a quick buck.

The basic idea is that NAFTA allows corporations to sue foreign governments if the corporation can show that a foreign law is costing them profits, or the opportunity to make a profit. For instance, a Canadian mining firm sued the US because it wanted to strip mine a US park...even though there weren't enough minerals in the ground to break even!

The article contains many other examples, as does this one. (The second article is from 1999; this has been going on for a long time...)

As long as there is money to be made, I suspect we'll see abuses of this sort, whether they target the environment, privacy rights, IP laws, or whatever else people can think of.

I used to think that NAFTA made a fair amount of sense until corporations started to use it as a way to avoid environmental regulations in order to make a quick buck.

The basic idea is that NAFTA allows corporations to sue foreign governments if the corporation can show that a foreign law is costing them profits, or the opportunity to make a profit. For instance, a Canadian mining firm sued the US because it wanted to strip mine a US park...even though there weren't enough minerals in the ground to break even!

The article contains many other examples, as does this one. (The second article is from 1999; this has been going on for a long time...)

As long as there is money to be made, I suspect we'll see abuses of this sort, whether they target the environment, privacy rights, IP laws, or whatever else people can think of.

As for the other calculation:

The average American drives 8000 miles per year (I think car owners drive 17,000 mi/year, so this average includes non-drivers)
Let's say the average car gets 28 mpg
The US has 296M people.
Each barrel of oil yeilds about 20 gallons of fuel.
So we have 8,000 miles/year * (1/28) gallons/mile = 285 gallons used by each American per year, or 285/20 = 14.25 barrels per year.

14.25 * 256M = 3.648 billion barrels used by cars in the US per year.

Now the same calculation getting 29 mpg, we get 3.531 billion barrels used, saving us 117 million barrels of oil per year, or 320,500 barrels per day.

It sure will, at least until the chainsaw coming from other side reaches my abdomen.

some missing parts of this mail could be decrypted from this source

========== ...
How about these new car spew out 43 percent more
global-warming pollution and 47 percent more air
pollution than an average car. ...

And maybe you can construct them that they are
four times more likely than other cars to roll
over in an accident and three times more likely to
kill the occupants in a rollover. ...

They should cost the owner thousands more on
gasoline. ...

Now Bush will look for oil there also.

"A new report released by the Sierra Club, the United Steel Workers, UNITE/HERE, and SEIU shows that a clean energy policy would create 1.4 million new American jobs while saving consumers an average of $1,275 on their energy bills in 2025."

http://redefiningprogress.org/
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/

GWB isn't a billionaire - Kerry has married into CONSIDERABLY more money than GWB will ever have.

Check your facts -
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040823.html

Neither of them are billionaires. And as far as personal wealth goes, GWB's still got more bucks. A prenup agreement keeps his hands off of the Heinz money. What keeps GWB from big daddy's money, or his former business partners, the Bin Ladens? http://www.bushwatch.net/binladens.htm

#2 - GWB doesn't pretend that he understands the plight of the poor. He doesn't call himself an enviromentalist while driving an Exposition, either.

Are you kidding me? You'd judge a candidate's environemental record based on what he drives??? It takes a fleet of limos to accomodate GWB and his entourage every time he wants a latte from Starbucks!

How about judging their environmental record on, oh, let's say... their environmental record?

GWB's record - http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/

JK's record -
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/presidential_e ndorsement/factsheet_kerry.asp

GWB isn't a billionaire - Kerry has married into CONSIDERABLY more money than GWB will ever have.

Check your facts -
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040823.html

Neither of them are billionaires. And as far as personal wealth goes, GWB's still got more bucks. A prenup agreement keeps his hands off of the Heinz money. What keeps GWB from big daddy's money, or his former business partners, the Bin Ladens? http://www.bushwatch.net/binladens.htm

#2 - GWB doesn't pretend that he understands the plight of the poor. He doesn't call himself an enviromentalist while driving an Exposition, either.

Are you kidding me? You'd judge a candidate's environemental record based on what he drives??? It takes a fleet of limos to accomodate GWB and his entourage every time he wants a latte from Starbucks!

How about judging their environmental record on, oh, let's say... their environmental record?

GWB's record - http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/

JK's record -
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/presidential_e ndorsement/factsheet_kerry.asp

If something should happen to the Saudi Royal Family, and our access to oil is lost, America is going to be shit out of luck.

Unless, of course, we decide to exploit our own oil reserves. Of course, some people seem to prefer that we remain dependent on the mideast for our energy needs.

Well, locally, the Sierra Club chapter is actually accomplishing some things I support, but the national organization is a whole different enchilada. I see them as no more than a lobbying firm that harvests revenue and legitimacy from the local chapters, where the real work is getting done.

Hell, they almost lost the whole org to a board take over led by former leader of Greenpeace, Capt. Paul Watson.

However, it's too bad reasonable voices like these are being ignored. And organizations like Greenpeace, PETA, the Sierra Club are being taken over by crazies. The Sierra Club in particular used to be a club for hunters and outdoorsmen, but has turned into an eco-nazi propaganda organization.

How is this insightful? It's just namecalling which got modded up by sympathetic admins.

Worse than that, it's actually propaganda itself. PETA and Greenpeace were always full of "crazies" by most people's standards. :) Therein the propaganda: "If only they'd go back to the way they were", spoken as if this guy knew "how it used to be" and has good cause to believe that things have gotten worse. He doesn't.

And of course the Sierra Club still does plenty of "outdoorsman" stuff. Hell, it's half travel agency. But I guess if you're far enough to the right, everyone looks like a "left-wing nutcase".

Forgot URL

Note that you don't hear of the Sierra Club or NWF demanding more ethanol consumption...

You're acting like the Sierra Club is a mainstream environmentalist (oxymoron?) group. They are not. They blame SUVs. for Global Warming.

At the time, OPEC produced just 17% of the US's oil consumption (and note that OPEC includes a number of non-Arab countries). And this shortfall could readily have been met by buying from non-Arab countries, or just buying from third-parties that had bought from OPEC. So yes, it was about oil prices.

The point here is that any nation-state would have done the same if it was in our shoes during the 70s -- or in the Japanese shoes in 1941 if you want to use that example.

Well, let's take Japan as an example again. They were faced by a far greater crisis than the US by the 1973-4 oil crisis, in that their dependence on petroleum was greater, and they had no domestic sources of oil at all. So what did they do? Reduce their dependence on oil, and diversify to other energy sources--and embark upon two decades of rapid economic growth. What did the US do? Draw up plans to invade foreign countries for refusing to sell their resources to them, continue to prop up dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East, like the Shah in Iran and then, when that blew up in their faces, their then good friend Saddam Hussein, and now Saudi Arabia, the home and ongoing breeding-ground of Al-Qaeda, while all the time increasing their consumption of and dependence on foreign oil (OPEC now makes up 28% of US imports).

So which is the better characterisation of the situation: the US as a cornered nation, forced to act in its own survival, as any other nation would do in the same circumstances? Or the US as an arrogant and short-sighted bully, ready to back brutal and repressive regimes, and if that fails invade foreign countries, in order to keep domestic petrol prices low, rather than adopt even the most basic of conservation measures?

At the time, OPEC produced just 17% of the US's oil consumption (and note that OPEC includes a number of non-Arab countries). And this shortfall could readily have been met by buying from non-Arab countries, or just buying from third-parties that had bought from OPEC. So yes, it was about oil prices.

The point here is that any nation-state would have done the same if it was in our shoes during the 70s -- or in the Japanese shoes in 1941 if you want to use that example.

Well, let's take Japan as an example again. They were faced by a far greater crisis than the US by the 1973-4 oil crisis, in that their dependence on petroleum was greater, and they had no domestic sources of oil at all. So what did they do? Reduce their dependence on oil, and diversify to other energy sources--and embark upon two decades of rapid economic growth. What did the US do? Draw up plans to invade foreign countries for refusing to sell their resources to them, continue to prop up dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East, like the Shah in Iran and then, when that blew up in their faces, their then good friend Saddam Hussein, and now Saudi Arabia, the home and ongoing breeding-ground of Al-Qaeda, while all the time increasing their consumption of and dependence on foreign oil (OPEC now makes up 28% of US imports).

So which is the better characterisation of the situation: the US as a cornered nation, forced to act in its own survival, as any other nation would do in the same circumstances? Or the US as an arrogant and short-sighted bully, ready to back brutal and repressive regimes, and if that fails invade foreign countries, in order to keep domestic petrol prices low, rather than adopt even the most basic of conservation measures?

I made a lot of money in 2003. I used it to buy just about anything I wanted and had time/space for; the same holds true for material desires down the road. Christmas drives me nuts, because it means that my friends and family will be wasting money buying me more stuff that will likely end up in a closet or at the salvation army. My only really memorable gift from xmas 2002 was a Barnes&Noble gift card, and I still haven't had time to read the damned books I bought with it!

So how about everyone just does me a favor and gives the money away? Following are my favourite charities:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Human Rights Campaign

The Sierra Club

Amnesty International

Greenpeace

I'm sure, in fact I know, that I have left a lot of worth organizations out. But seriously, my christmas wish is that people would stop wasting money buying cheap asian trinkets and spend it on something useful. Christmas doesn't have to be a load of crap. Make it worthwhile.

Unless, of course, you want to get me gift certificates at the Apple store.

The cover story of The Economist this week is about the development of alternative sources of energy, and how little the Bush administration is doing to encourage that development. Rather than implementing policies to decrease the demand for fossil fuels and increase the supply of alternatives, the government's policies, including the new Energy Bill, simply focus on increasing the supply of fossil fuels.

Sigh.

Traffic fines are lesser because everyone NEEDS to drive to work

I was just catching up on my early morning reading... I certainly wasn't going to respond to any of the comments in the article...

But, in case you never thought of this: Not everyone needs to drive to work! This may come as a shock to some. I mean, people use their cars for "trips" that are a couple of blocks round-trip. People build entire communities around their cars. Americans are also, by the way, over 61% obese and growing (pardon the pun). The two might just be related. Who knows...

What I do know is that attitudes such as "everyone NEEDS to drive to work or wherever" become a self-fulfilling prophecy and lead to more suburbs, increased air pollution, less respect from drivers towards those of us who choose alternatives and greater dependence on oil (which can lead to fattening the checking accounts of people who want to kill us)

Mod me off topic. But I had to reply.

The problem is your not living close enough to work, your City is being/has been designed poorly and you're local government isnt in touch. Have a look at this website on Sprawl

I ride to work because I live in an old part of town, in a 100yr+ old semi-detached brownstone. My employer is a few blocks away -- why? because I *chose* to live here to be near to work (smart eh?).

Over the last 30 years urban density has decreased by 30% WHILE N.America has become more urbanized AND population has increased; the end result is urban systems designed around the auto and not the individual. COMPLETELY BROKEN.

Besides the health and environmental benefits, slowing sprawl will help ease public spending. Sprawl is terribly expensive; sure its cheap for you to plant a cheap home on a former farm outside of town, but the province/municipality has to pay to service that property -- not the developer and not the buyer... so you end up having existing neighbourhoods paying to build someone else's fresh suburb... all in all a *bad* way to live.

My suggestion: move closer to work. And lobby the local government for better public transport, bike-ways and pedestrian space... and GET OUT OF YOUR CAR.

leave my lights on all the time.

Run my all the computers i own 24 hours a day (i already do...)

Keep all my old appliances and use them for pointless tasks. (wait, i do that too.)

Surround myself with energy inefficient fans...(i did that yesterday!)

Buy a fuel inefficient car. (my car gets 15 mpg.)
On second thought, i don't think my life would change at all :)

When I was a child, my parents were active in the Sierra Club's Hundred Peaks Section. (In fact, my father died on a Sierra Club hike in 1970.)

Almost all listed peaks have 'logbooks' at their tops that you sign when you 'bag' that peak. These logbooks are in ammo cans or tupperware containers or whatever -- obviously not natural, but I don't recall anynone ever considering them 'litter.'

I still like to hike (and sail and, recently, kayak) and explore wilderness areas. And I appreciate them in the best possible sense. I leave no trash and usually take some out with me. I do not own a GPS, since I am a competent 'old fashioned' navigator on both land and water and do not need one, but geocaching looks like fun, and if I was going to get involved in it I'd tend toward the wilderness variety.

Getting outdoors and enjoying it, whether in a city, a forest or a swamp, helps you appreciate your environment, whatever it is. I think parks ought to *encourage* geocaching, even host geocaching events, in order to build public support and as a way to encourage volunteerism.

- Robin

Of course, not all dams will inflict all types of damage. Still, indirect effects can be powerful. The unexpected rate of siltation behind Hoover led to the construction of another large dam (Glen Canyon)upriver, which had its own economic and environmental costs. Incidentally, simple ecosystems like deserts, tundra, etc turn out to be much more fragile than more complex ecosystems like rainforests (which have many more feedback loops to resist change). In general, the Colorado River is considered one of the worst ecological disasters in the country, though controlling the flow of water has made irrigation possible (bad for the environment, good for humans).

Of course, Three Gorges is far, far worse.

Here are links to photos of how the valley looked.

I bet the oil companies know how the Rockies keep the US dependant on heating oil and that is why they started this puppet organization.

One hour on a two-cycle engine snowmobile emits more air pollution than you would driving a car for an entire year. One personal watercraft like the Jet Ski can dump up to six gallons of raw fuel into the water in two hours. A two-cycle engine lawnmower pollutes as much in one hour as 40 new cars.

This would ensure that the ships are preserved as long as our country.

Or until someone finds oil underneath the national park.

The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.

That used to be the case, however Bush and Cheney are both from the oil industry. Cheney had secret meetings with energy company exectives when drafting the administration's energy policy. Bush/Cheney have resisted raising the CAFE MPG limits, closing the light truck loophole, and have downplayed the importance of fuel efficiency, instead concentrating on oil drilling. They have even gone so far as to push for extensive drilling on public lands, include wildlife refuges -- a giveaway that would allow oil companies to take oil from public lands and then sell it on the world market to the highest bidder. (There is no requirement that the oil be sold in the U.S. or that it be discounted for the benefit of U.S. consumers.)

I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive.

It is *NOT* in U.S. interests to keep petroleum prices down. Having prices that are so low is why we have people commuting alone to work in 11MPG SUVs. It's why soccer moms are driving Chevy Suburbans rather than station wagons. The best thing that could happen would be for gasoline (and diesel) prices to rise to about $3/gallon over the next few years. We need something to make U.S. consumers pay attention to fuel economy when selecting a vehicle. I'm tired of the U.S. kissing Saudi Arabian ass while the Saudis fund anti-American terrorists. I'm sick of pretending the Iran is our friend and of defending the ungrateful bastards in Kuwait. Drilling in Alaska is no answer -- we will see no significant production from such an effort for about a decade and, even under the most optimistic estimates, it will cut oil imports by only a tiny percentage.

Low prices = higher consumption = reliance on foreign oil = depletion of world oil reserves.

The fact that you lump the Sierra Club (SC) together with Greenpeace shows you know nothing about its actual mission. Greenpeace is a fringe group with perhaps good intentions, but horrible execution and little results. SC is mainstream, moderate environmental organization dedicated to conservation. Yes, SC (non-profit, but not a charity) does spend money on lawyers and lobbyists, but it is a grassroots group run by volunteers at the local level. Buying land may be a nice idea but frequently not an option.

To give an example, there is a very unique area in California called the "Gaviota Coast" (north of Santa Barbara). Most of the land is currently owned by ranchers and farmers. Financial pressure from Orange county/LA developers and taxes have led some owners to sell. Value of the whole area is roughly half a billion dollars! Millions of $$$ have already been spent protecting bits and pieces but there are not enough resources for everything. Therefore, lawyers are needed to ensure development restrictions are properly followed. Lobbyists try to convince state reps and senators the coast is worth protecting. SC works within the system and its members are passionate not "beligerent".

While many of the above comments are interesting the query was for favorable charitable organizations.

The Sierra Club is the most effective Conservation Group politically. This is the first group I joined when W became President. Note that they will call you every month to squeeze more $$$ out of you. You can ask to be taken off their call list and still contribute annually which is what I do.

The Nature Conservancy is another particularly effective outfit whose tact is to purchase land outright ensuring that it is permanently set aside for conservation.

The World Wildlife Fund is another conservation group worthy of your time and money.

Finally for balance I support the Blue Ribbon Coalition as they keep trails open that might be closed by my other contributions.

Another poster made a great point that Green Peace's brand of violent activism is not worthy of support.

Cheers,

Bill

Nuclear waste is as much a problem as air pollution. And with more Nuclear Power Plants in operation it will continue to be a problem. Radioactive byproducts are not something that can be easily overlooked. Ask the people of Nevada about the Yukka Mtn Project.

The key is to conserve energy and to invest in NEW technologies. Learn to use our sources of energy more efficiently with less pollution. The dangers inherent in nuclear energy plus the radiocative waste breeder plants produce make Nuclear Power repellent.

info on
nuclear waste and the Yukka Mountain NWD

What about the thousands of murders on the part of capitalist nations overseas?

Afghani civilians meeting US bombs, anyone?

Or how about the children being killed by cancer that they pick up from this shit that capitalist organisations dump in the air and water?

Capitalism kills too, just more subtly.

"...By the late 1970s, Exxon, Mobil, Arco, and other oil companies had bought out many patents for the photovoltaic cells that collect sunlight and convert it to electricity, prompting consumer watchdogs like Ralph Nader to sound the alarm that companies with vested interests in "hard" energy were in position to smother "soft" innovations. An investigation by the Center for Renewable Resources, an environmental advocacy group, found no evidence of a systematic oil industry effort to suppress solar power, but those involved in the alternative energy movement knew the energy industry was worried about the sun's potential..."

http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA00/solar . tml

Tell me that Big Oil wasn't trying to stifle anything...

From the same article:

"Even after the oil crisis, most federal research targeted nonrenewable energy sources. According to a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service, 77 cents of every energy research dollar from 1973 to 1997 went to nuclear and fossil fuels. Only 14 cents went to alternative energy, and the remaining 9 cents supported energy conservation."

Another article states:

"Despite being relegated to the back burner by both government and industry, small-scale technologies are viable and continue to develop."

Read more...

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/ 04/mm0492_07.html.

"Although many congressional leaders are now calling for immediate action to reduce gasoline prices, they have blocked efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce oil consumption. In the last two years, Congress has significantly under-funded the Administration's proposals to:

• Fund research for energy conservation, solar and renewable energy, by 20% less than requested in FY 2000,or $273 million for FY' '99 and 2000;
• Provide tax efficient vehicles and other products, the use of renewable energy, and clean renewable electricity production, by 98% less than requested in FY 2000, and by 100% less than in FY '99, when Congress provided no funding. Those decreases represent $7.1 billion for the two years, and;

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/arctic/crudebe havior.asp

I could supply more but I don't want to do anymore research for you.

We'd better hurry up and find those 4 additional Earths, so there can be enough natural resources for everyone to be able to get online!

Actually, they're pretty sure it does.

This sort of abridgment of freedom and individual liberties has become the hallmark of modern trade agreements. Corporations making big campaign contributions have taken control of the process, and have pushed the US Trade Representative to introduce all sorts of undemocratic and unethical provisions to trade agreements in secret negotiating sessions totally closed to public scrutiny or accountability. This is why there have been massive protests in Seattle, Quebec, and so many other places around the world.

The DMCA provisions are just one of the latest dirty little provisions added into these things. They also have provisions to gut environmental and safety standards, undermine workers rights, and prevent people from having a say over what goes into their food. US clean air laws and endangered species laws have already been overturned by international trade agreements, and now Mexico and the Bush administration are going after tractor trailer safety standards. If that doesn't seem crazy enough, consider this: the state of California is being sued under NAFTA for $900 million by a Canadian company for banning a cancer causing gasoline additive that was getting into their drinking water. Under NAFTA, as with most trade agreements, the case will be settled by a faceless dispute resolution body in a foreign country that has no accountability to the public, and conducts its operations in secret.

There is one big thing we can do right now. George W. Bush is trying to push legislation through Congress to give him the power to negotiate these agreements without any input or review from the Congress. Fast Track negotiating authority lets the president negotiate the FTAA and other trade agreements in secret, and then send it to Congress, which has 60 days to vote it up or down with no ammendmnets. 60 days is a very short period of time to sift through the details of thousands of pages of a trade agreement. The Congress has 100 legislative days (which translates into 4 or 5 months) to review executive orders that are generally much shorter and less complicated than trade agreements. Fast track is just plain wrong.

This is going to be a tight vote that will be won or lost in the House of Representatives, so any and all calls and letters to your Congressperson make a difference. You can look up who your congress person is at http://www.house.gov/writerep/

You can find more info on fast track at the followign sites:

• Sierra Club Responsible Trade Campaign
• Public Citizen Global Trade Watch
• AFLCIO Make the global economy work for families page

Are there any fusion protest groups yet?

Against the National Ignition Facility

"Friends of the Earth" Europe say: "The commercial use of nuclear fusion is pure fantasy. Already 25 years ago the same people had predicted that in 50 years fusion would be a viable energy resource, but it seems like we are always 50 years away from fusion becoming economic. The European Council has to stop this waste of millions of taxpayers money."

Green groups say Fusion is a Scam

"Friends" of the Earth wants to "Terminate existing tokamak reactors, cancel construction of the similar spherical torus reactor, and adhere to a withdrawal from the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program."

Sierra Club The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants, and their high costs lead the Sierra Club to believe that the development of fusion reactors to generate electricity should not be pursued at this time.

Now let's get back to what I wrote, A request to ALF and ELF. I believe if you read this you will find that the Saharra (did you mean the Sierra club?) Club was never mentioned. My request was to two of the worst ecoterrorist organizations. These groups are no more interested in ecology and the environment than the NOW is in promoting eqaulity amongst the sexes. Since you didn't pay attention to what I wrote I'll quote myself so that you can catch this again "If you want change, work for healthy balanced change that stands a chance with the majority". Did I ever say anything about other organizations going away?

Learn how politics works before spouting off next time. As a person whose family has very deep roots in social activism I find your commentary amusing at best. Certainly here on the Internet, not knowing anything about me you are qualified to make statements as to my education and political background. Make sure you shout your entire retort clairvoyant.

I've always like the idea of making bumper stickers that say "SUVs waste more energy than leaving your refrigerator open for 6 years"[1] and going to the mall parking lot and applying them to SUVs.

[1]:http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/suvr ep ort/
--

Being an avid supporter of environmental causes as well as a geek, I have plenty of reasons to both vote, and to vote for Gore/Liebermann. I do not like the anti-Hollywood/anti-'Net stance Gore and, in particular, Liebermann sometimes take. I am find Mr Liebermann's criticism of the Walt Disney Company particularly distasteful. However, I find no evidence that Bush/Cheney are any better on these points.

While Bush says he can be trusted and will "get things done", clearly the former is an untestable claim and the latter could be achieved in the narrow sense by passing a lot of bad legislation. I also find Carl Pope and Paul Rauber's argument that with Bush, Republicans could have a lock on three houses of government to be a compelling reason to work for some "diversity" in the branches.

As for folks who feel the process is compromised beyond participation, I believe the quote from Norman Mailer ( The Deer Park ) is appropriate to our national situation:

There was that law of life, so cruel and so just, that one must grow or else pay more for remaining the same.

Being an avid supporter of environmental causes as well as a geek, I have plenty of reasons to both vote, and to vote for Gore/Liebermann. I do not like the anti-Hollywood/anti-'Net stance Gore and, in particular, Liebermann sometimes take. I am find Mr Liebermann's criticism of the Walt Disney Company particularly distasteful. However, I find no evidence that Bush/Cheney are any better on these points.

While Bush says he can be trusted and will "get things done", clearly the former is an untestable claim and the latter could be achieved in the narrow sense by passing a lot of bad legislation. I also find Carl Pope and Paul Rauber's argument that with Bush, Republicans could have a lock on three houses of government to be a compelling reason to work for some "diversity" in the branches.

As for folks who feel the process is compromised beyond participation, I believe the quote from Norman Mailer ( The Deer Park ) is appropriate to our national situation:

There was that law of life, so cruel and so just, that one must grow or else pay more for remaining the same.

let's take France for example

Yes, let's. It's as good as any to display the fallacy inherent in your claim.

last presidential elections, there were more than a dozen parties running, ranging from comunists, socialists, greens, republicans...all the way to extreme right wing party...those are just a few of the most important ones

For what appears to be a complete enumeration of French political parties please see this wonderful list.

so you see, to someone used to seeing a great variety of political parties, the choice between republicans and democrats is really irrelevant, since they will pretty much do the same thing with just a few minor differences.

Now we get to the heart of the fallacy. You conclude that since we only use two names for our parties that we only have two factions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our political process is actually at least as diverse as any other industrialized nation and probably more so.

The two parties are both so fractured into warring factions that an election doesn't pass without some pithy political pundit publically pondering the possibility that the Log Cabin Republicans will finally force the Christian Coalition to disperse itself into a new political entity. And while it's difficult to find public discussion of the infighting among the Democratic factions one simply needs to compare the agenda of the AFL-CIO, with it's heavy focus on keeping high-polluting manufacturing jobs domestic, and the Sierra Club's focus on the environment above all else to see that the party is as fundamentally fractured as the GOP.

The net result is that our government is effectively run by a coalition of factions, just as in other western nations. While we don't explicitly name the factions, no one doubts that they exist. John McCain's agenda was markedly different from George Bush's which is markedly different from Pat Robertson's. Al Gore and Bill Bradley were representing completely different interests and constituencies than Jesse Jackson.

See past the simplistic media presentation to what's really there.

daniel