Bush isolated as Russians at last ratify Kyoto 05 November 04

Nice to see some GOOD news coming out of the planet this week! Kudos and blessings to you, Vlad! Raspberries and prayers (for all of us!) to you, George! Oh, and you, too, Mr. Howard….

Thanks for the news, Mark! I’ve been kind of out of it the last few days, as I’m sure you understand….

For those in the U.S., as promised here is my letter to my senators (who voted against the Climate Stewardship Act). You can copy, paste, and modify it & send it to your reps. Better to send a letter than email. There is a similar bill coming out in the House soon. You can see how your reps voted at www.lcv.org (type in your zip, then click each rep). If they voted for it, then thank them and ask them to support Kyoto. You can also get info on GW impact on your state for your letter at: www.climatehotmap.org/impacts

---

Dear Honornable Senator:

Thank you for your gracious response to my email. As dangerous and scientifically certain as anthropogenic global warming has become, recent evidence of the much more threatening possibility of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING makes it all the more urgent that we act quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (by reducing energy & resource use), at least by taking the many cost-effective measures. Texas, in particular, faces many threats from global warming, including increased droughts, floods, crop harm, sea-level rise, super-hurricane and storm damage (see www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/texas.html). The ultimate costs in dollars & lives for these will be enormous, and are already costing us plenty.

RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING: Since I last wrote you data has come in from world monitoring stations of an unprecedented increase two years in a row of atmospheric CO2, unaccounted for by increases in human emissions. This means (1) the carbon sinks (the earth’s plant life) are maxing out and are no longer absorbing half our CO2 emissions; and/or (2) the warming has started releasing more CO2 from natural sources. This is the feared and predicted POSITIVE FEEDBACK loop, whereby warming leads to release of CO2 (& CH4, methane) into the atmosphere, causing further warming, thereby causing further CO2 & CH4 releases, and so on, spiraling out of control. If global warming increases 5-6° C by 2100, as some scientists predict, methane hydrates in the ocean could release massive “burps” of methane, and the world could face 95% extinction of life on earth, as happened 251 million years ago (see When Life Nearly Died, by Michael Benton, 2003). It is unclear at this point if it might be too late to stop this. But, of course, we must do all we can to stop it, even if hope and time are running out. An article, “Abrupt Climate Change,” in November’s Scientific American, states: “New evidence indicates that global warming should be more of a worry: it could actually be pushing the earth’s climate faster toward sudden shifts”(Richard Alley, 2004, p. 62). There is a wealth of information in respected scientific journals about global warming. I would say that 95%+ of scientists highly qualified to make statements about global warming consider anthropogenic global warming real and harmful. The media, of course, is funded by special interests, such as oil & cars (just look at the commercials), so it is no wonder that they grossly underreport this, and claim uncertainty.

HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY DO WE NEED? I believe the course we should take is not to wait while we study global warming further, but to stop this dangerous experiment by reducing our emissions, so that evidence and certainty about global warming decreases, instead of increases, until there is no evidence. Furthermore, the scientific certainty of global warming is something only the scientists need (and they reached .05 significance or 95% certainty in 1995, according to articles in scientific journals). Scientists need to protect their reputations, or no one will believe them in the future. They want to avoid the FALE POSITIVE – that is, claiming that global warming is happening when it is not happening. We as laypeople depending on the earth for survival should be following the MEDICAL MODEL, seeking to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE – that is, acting as if global warming is not happening (emitting greenhouse gases as usual, or increasing them), when it is actually happening. In other words, we do not need 95% or 75% or 50% certainty to start reducing emissions. Doctors don’t tell their patients that they are not going to remove the tumor, because there is only 94% certainty that it is cancerous, and they just need to wait and see for several years whether it gets to 95 or 99% certainty. As for RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING, there is not much certainty at this time, but the threat is so grave that if we wait for 95% certainty it will likely be too late to avert it. We cannot take any risk on this one, not even a 5% risk. Surely you will agree that the possibility of near extinction of all life on earth is not worth any risk at all.

SOLUTIONS: Under this new threat, provisions of the KYOTO PROTOCOL and CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT fall short of the reductions we will need to make. However, they are the first tiny baby steps in the right direction we must make to “get the ball rolling.” The past 15 years since we have known about global warming threats have shown us that industries and households will NOT reduce their greenhouse emissions, even if they can do so cost-effectively, and even in the face of tremendous negative consequences to the world and their own future. The “rational man” of economic theory is not so rational, and not so well informed. You would be doing Texas and the world a tremendous service to vote for the Kyoto Protocol and the Climate Stewardship Act. We need to start ASAP, if not yesterday, down that “soft path” described by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins in Natural Capitalism; these engineers have experience with reducing energy needs of industries cost-effectively by 3/4, without lowering productivity, and sometimes even 9/10, with off-the-shelf technology. I plan to send you their book. I personally have reduced my own energy and water consumption by 1/3 to 1/2 cost-effectively, and am saving $hundreds every year, and will soon have saved enough to offset the additional cost of a hybrid car. We recently started buying 100% wind powered electricity from Greenmountain Energy, and because we greatly reduced our KWH, we only have to pay about $5 or so more each month. It would gladden my heart if you and your staff in Texas could also buy your power from the same (www.greenmountain.com), since it is available here in Texas, perhaps after becoming energy efficient & conservative so as to pay for the additional cost.

WIN-WIN-WIN: The other impetus to abate global warming – aside from reducing that problem & saving money & helping the economy become efficient & competitive – is that doing so by burning less fossil fuels (and reducing consumption of products and resources that entail burning fossil fuels, such as water) also reduces many other problems (in Texas & elsewhere):

§ Local air pollution; 60,000 Americans die each year just from small particulat matter (Pope, 1995) and it harms and kills fetuses and small children at a higher rate (Sram, 1999; Liu, 2003).

§ Acid rain from S2O from coal & NOx from cars, which not only destroys forests, lakes, & soil, but corrodes property & lungs – many deaths result each year (Luoma, 1988); costs are in the $billions, lives perhaps in the 100,000s.

§ Depletion of nonrenewable and other resources, such as potable water.

§ Dependence on foreign resources, and conflicts over these (plus related expenses & taxes).

§ Health problems from lack of exercise (some walking and bicycling is often good for the health; they also lower crime rates in those areas, and reduce road repairs and taxes for such).

I understand the fossil fuel industries in Texas are part (small and dimishing) of our economy, and I can understand your concern for these. However, they need to get on with it and diversify (which they will have do anyway, as resouces dwindle, so they might as well start now). Subsidies to fossil fuels need to be slowly withdrawn and reinvested in alternative energy (wind, solar), and energy efficiency and conservation measures. With higher energy costs, there should be no net increase in cost for the lower income bracket households (say, the poorest 25% of America); that is, they should be given more help in becoming energy and resource efficient and conservative (without subsidizing or paying for their energy bills). We need higher CAFE standards! As mentioned, the costs of not addressing global warming will be enormous, far exceeding any costs in abating the problem. Furthermore, households (which are not covered by the Climate Stewardship Act) can be rallied to participate on those cost-effective measures and conservation that will save them money without lower living standards. Reduced, more efficient household consumption of energy will greatly lower the pollution at the source, even if energy suppliers do nothing to become efficient or switch to alternative energy. The Climate Stewardship target of going back to 2000 emission levels by 2010 is such an extremely easy one to reach, it’s just too bad people refuse to do it without some prodding.

I know, with your help, we can address this problem. We need the rather small “sticks & carrots” of the Climate Stewardship Act and the Kyoto Protocols to get the ball rolling. I believe your sincere pro-life stance will help make the right decisions to protect Texas and the world from this threat that is much more grave than that of terrorism. Please, for the sake of the children, for the sake of Texas, for the sake of a more efficient and healthy economy, vote for Kyoto & Climate Stewardship, and higher CAFE standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Lynn Vincentnathan 2118 George St Edinburg, TX 78539 ph. 956 316-4706

P.S.: I am attaching statements of some churches on this extremely important moral issue.

---

REFERENCES: *Alley, Richard B. 2004. “Abrupt Climate Change,” Scientific American 291(5):62-70. *Liu, Shiliang, et al. 2003. “Association between Gaseous Ambient Air Pollutants and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Vancouver, Canada.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111(14) *Luoma, Jon, R. 1988. “The Human Cost of Acid Rain.” Audubon 90(4):16-26. Pope III, C. Arden, et al. 1995. “Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality…” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151(3):669?674. *Sram, Radim J.n 1999. “Impact Of Air Pollution On Reproductive Health.” Environmental Health Perspectives 107(11)

For those in the U.S., as promised here is my letter to my senators (who voted against the Climate Stewardship Act). You can copy, paste, and modify it & send it to your reps. Better to send a letter than email. There is a similar bill coming out in the House soon. You can see how your reps voted at www.lcv.org (type in your zip, then click each rep). If they voted for it, then thank them and ask them to support Kyoto. You can also get info on GW impact on your state for your letter at: www.climatehotmap.org/impacts

---

Dear Honornable Senator:

Thank you for your gracious response to my email. As dangerous and scientifically certain as anthropogenic global warming has become, recent evidence of the much more threatening possibility of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING makes it all the more urgent that we act quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (by reducing energy & resource use), at least by taking the many cost-effective measures. Texas, in particular, faces many threats from global warming, including increased droughts, floods, crop harm, sea-level rise, super-hurricane and storm damage (see www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/texas.html). The ultimate costs in dollars & lives for these will be enormous, and are already costing us plenty.

RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING: Since I last wrote you data has come in from world monitoring stations of an unprecedented increase two years in a row of atmospheric CO2, unaccounted for by increases in human emissions. This means (1) the carbon sinks (the earth’s plant life) are maxing out and are no longer absorbing half our CO2 emissions; and/or (2) the warming has started releasing more CO2 from natural sources. This is the feared and predicted POSITIVE FEEDBACK loop, whereby warming leads to release of CO2 (& CH4, methane) into the atmosphere, causing further warming, thereby causing further CO2 & CH4 releases, and so on, spiraling out of control. If global warming increases 5-6° C by 2100, as some scientists predict, methane hydrates in the ocean could release massive “burps” of methane, and the world could face 95% extinction of life on earth, as happened 251 million years ago (see When Life Nearly Died, by Michael Benton, 2003). It is unclear at this point if it might be too late to stop this. But, of course, we must do all we can to stop it, even if hope and time are running out. An article, “Abrupt Climate Change,” in November’s Scientific American, states: “New evidence indicates that global warming should be more of a worry: it could actually be pushing the earth’s climate faster toward sudden shifts”(Richard Alley, 2004, p. 62). There is a wealth of information in respected scientific journals about global warming. I would say that 95%+ of scientists highly qualified to make statements about global warming consider anthropogenic global warming real and harmful. The media, of course, is funded by special interests, such as oil & cars (just look at the commercials), so it is no wonder that they grossly underreport this, and claim uncertainty.

HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY DO WE NEED? I believe the course we should take is not to wait while we study global warming further, but to stop this dangerous experiment by reducing our emissions, so that evidence and certainty about global warming decreases, instead of increases, until there is no evidence. Furthermore, the scientific certainty of global warming is something only the scientists need (and they reached .05 significance or 95% certainty in 1995, according to articles in scientific journals). Scientists need to protect their reputations, or no one will believe them in the future. They want to avoid the FALE POSITIVE – that is, claiming that global warming is happening when it is not happening. We as laypeople depending on the earth for survival should be following the MEDICAL MODEL, seeking to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE – that is, acting as if global warming is not happening (emitting greenhouse gases as usual, or increasing them), when it is actually happening. In other words, we do not need 95% or 75% or 50% certainty to start reducing emissions. Doctors don’t tell their patients that they are not going to remove the tumor, because there is only 94% certainty that it is cancerous, and they just need to wait and see for several years whether it gets to 95 or 99% certainty. As for RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING, there is not much certainty at this time, but the threat is so grave that if we wait for 95% certainty it will likely be too late to avert it. We cannot take any risk on this one, not even a 5% risk. Surely you will agree that the possibility of near extinction of all life on earth is not worth any risk at all.

SOLUTIONS: Under this new threat, provisions of the KYOTO PROTOCOL and CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT fall short of the reductions we will need to make. However, they are the first tiny baby steps in the right direction we must make to “get the ball rolling.” The past 15 years since we have known about global warming threats have shown us that industries and households will NOT reduce their greenhouse emissions, even if they can do so cost-effectively, and even in the face of tremendous negative consequences to the world and their own future. The “rational man” of economic theory is not so rational, and not so well informed. You would be doing Texas and the world a tremendous service to vote for the Kyoto Protocol and the Climate Stewardship Act. We need to start ASAP, if not yesterday, down that “soft path” described by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins in Natural Capitalism; these engineers have experience with reducing energy needs of industries cost-effectively by 3/4, without lowering productivity, and sometimes even 9/10, with off-the-shelf technology. I plan to send you their book. I personally have reduced my own energy and water consumption by 1/3 to 1/2 cost-effectively, and am saving $hundreds every year, and will soon have saved enough to offset the additional cost of a hybrid car. We recently started buying 100% wind powered electricity from Greenmountain Energy, and because we greatly reduced our KWH, we only have to pay about $5 or so more each month. It would gladden my heart if you and your staff in Texas could also buy your power from the same (www.greenmountain.com), since it is available here in Texas, perhaps after becoming energy efficient & conservative so as to pay for the additional cost.

WIN-WIN-WIN: The other impetus to abate global warming – aside from reducing that problem & saving money & helping the economy become efficient & competitive – is that doing so by burning less fossil fuels (and reducing consumption of products and resources that entail burning fossil fuels, such as water) also reduces many other problems (in Texas & elsewhere):

§ Local air pollution; 60,000 Americans die each year just from small particulat matter (Pope, 1995) and it harms and kills fetuses and small children at a higher rate (Sram, 1999; Liu, 2003).

§ Acid rain from S2O from coal & NOx from cars, which not only destroys forests, lakes, & soil, but corrodes property & lungs – many deaths result each year (Luoma, 1988); costs are in the $billions, lives perhaps in the 100,000s.

§ Depletion of nonrenewable and other resources, such as potable water.

§ Dependence on foreign resources, and conflicts over these (plus related expenses & taxes).

§ Health problems from lack of exercise (some walking and bicycling is often good for the health; they also lower crime rates in those areas, and reduce road repairs and taxes for such).

I understand the fossil fuel industries in Texas are part (small and dimishing) of our economy, and I can understand your concern for these. However, they need to get on with it and diversify (which they will have do anyway, as resouces dwindle, so they might as well start now). Subsidies to fossil fuels need to be slowly withdrawn and reinvested in alternative energy (wind, solar), and energy efficiency and conservation measures. With higher energy costs, there should be no net increase in cost for the lower income bracket households (say, the poorest 25% of America); that is, they should be given more help in becoming energy and resource efficient and conservative (without subsidizing or paying for their energy bills). We need higher CAFE standards! As mentioned, the costs of not addressing global warming will be enormous, far exceeding any costs in abating the problem. Furthermore, households (which are not covered by the Climate Stewardship Act) can be rallied to participate on those cost-effective measures and conservation that will save them money without lower living standards. Reduced, more efficient household consumption of energy will greatly lower the pollution at the source, even if energy suppliers do nothing to become efficient or switch to alternative energy. The Climate Stewardship target of going back to 2000 emission levels by 2010 is such an extremely easy one to reach, it’s just too bad people refuse to do it without some prodding.

I know, with your help, we can address this problem. We need the rather small “sticks & carrots” of the Climate Stewardship Act and the Kyoto Protocols to get the ball rolling. I believe your sincere pro-life stance will help make the right decisions to protect Texas and the world from this threat that is much more grave than that of terrorism. Please, for the sake of the children, for the sake of Texas, for the sake of a more efficient and healthy economy, vote for Kyoto & Climate Stewardship, and higher CAFE standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

P.S.: I am attaching statements of some churches on this extremely important moral issue.

---

REFERENCES: *Alley, Richard B. 2004. “Abrupt Climate Change,” Scientific American 291(5):62-70. *Liu, Shiliang, et al. 2003. “Association between Gaseous Ambient Air Pollutants and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Vancouver, Canada.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111(14) *Luoma, Jon, R. 1988. “The Human Cost of Acid Rain.” Audubon 90(4):16-26. Pope III, C. Arden, et al. 1995. “Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality…” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151(3):669?674. *Sram, Radim J.n 1999. “Impact Of Air Pollution On Reproductive Health.” Environmental Health Perspectives 107(11)

Dear Lynn,

I will use your letter as a blueprint for my own letter. That may take me a while since I may attempt to provide other technical aspects and try to articulate them in a way that will register with a particular public official. I may post my letters also for input from our group here.

My own advice (which I need to follow myself) is to know our audience first and the issues most important to that particular public official and any other relevant factor that may be useful in obtaining influence on that public official.

For a public official that has a national security focus, I would relate the importance of developing our own renewable energy resources as a source of national security since we would rely less on foreign oil.

For a public official concerned about jobs, I would relate the effect of the increased benefit of economic activity spurred by reshaping our energy infrastructure.

For a public official concerned about the rise in energy prices, I would relate the benefits of increased energy efficiency in reducing the impact of high prices and the benefit of more fuel available discouraging fuel supply shortages.

And for the corrupt public official who is in bed with particular special interest groups, I would find a way to relate The Climate Stewardship Act to that particular special interest group in order to gain their attention.

The more homework we do on the people we wish to influence, the greater chances for success!

I do like your idea of sending a letter instead of using email. Email does get ignored. However, letters can also be ignored.

I have an alternative idea on letter delivery that may get more attention and that is to fax the letter. In my experience, I have often noticed that a fax receives the most attention!

Finally, it may be more effective to design many different types of letters each faxed by a different individual and touching on a particular benefit of the Climate Stewardship Act.

The ultimate goal here is success! And, concerning climate change, I repeat the mantra from one of my favorite movies, Apollo 13.

Failure is Not an Option!

And for you Lynn, you are courageous and true and it is an honor and privilege to know you on this website.

You are my heroine and you always set an example worthy of emulating. Lynn, it is because of people like you that keeps my faith alive and inspires me to do my very best.

Thanks!

Many I am sure on this website have heard of the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow. It shows in dramatic fashion abrupt climate change with New York underwater.

I wondered why this movie failed to get the attention of the American public and this morning I discovered the answer to my question.

The answer is that it is misleading about a future event. The movie offers no hope and plants the seed that we cannot prevent climate change from happening and that it is inevitable.

I say this because I am hearing quite often when I bring up climate change issues that climate change is inevitable so let us not worry and continue on with life as we always have.

So, therefore, we need the film makers of the planet to design a new movie entitled The Day Before Tomorrow or something with a more catchy phase than this.

This new movie would be based not on the failure of humanity but on its success and therefore provide hope and inspire the masses to action.

The heroes and heroines of this movie would be people like Mark and people like Lynn and all of us who must go through the difficult process of convincing a reluctant world to care.

Just a thought to share for the moment as I am obsessed with seeing us succeed! What a marvelous obsession!

However, I do need to push myself away from this computer and ride my bicycle and enjoy this wonderful day as I need to get some exercise!

After I wrote the blog entitled Natural Gas Burn Off, I started thinking about the greenhouse gas methane. Methane is the common fossil fuel we call Natural Gas. Methane is both created by nature and by the activities of humans. I read that methane is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas molecule for molecule. I have also read blogs on this website in which there is a potential of more methane releases by nature triggered by our current increases in global warming. I have read a little bit of Kyoto and the main focus seems to be simply carbon dioxide.

All these facts started an inner dialogue of which I am sharing in primitive form with the community on this website. I do not know if this discussion has merit but I would like any feedback from those who may know more than I.

Our current natural gas supply is mostly acquired from deep underground wells from plants which died millions of years ago. These natural gas deposits would simply remain dormant yet we drill to reach them. As I shared in a previous blog, methane gas is wastefully burned off by oil companies creating immense carbon dioxide emissions without the benefit of using it as a fuel. However, we have other sources of methane to use as a fuel which can come from decaying organic matter.

Now, if some of the methane emissions from both nature and human agricultural activities were captured and used as a fuel, then it may have a net reduction in global warming. There would be a 96% reduction in global warming potential from the original methane molecule not being released. Hence, if our methane fuel came from these organic sources rather than deep well deposits then we may have the benefit of reducing greenhouse emissions at a rate of 25 times the equivalent carbon reductions from not burning methane from a deep well.

I hope you follow this logic closely and see the potential of what I am articulating not quite knowing precisely how methane interacts with atmospheric chemistry. I just know what I read and enough to do some simple arithmetic. I also do not know precisely how much viable potential there is in this idea in terms of how much methane is available or the technology required for harvesting it. I do not know the potential reductions and how significant they are in the total scheme of reducing global warming. I do not know how far we can take it either and if this can be easily or accurately modeled by climate computer models. I do believe intuitively that this is a good idea at some level. I present this thought and hope it will spark some interest and debate among the good folks on this site.

So, how can we harness the energy of decaying organic matter exposed on the planet’s surface to be used as a fuel source rather then deriving natural gas from drilling dormant deposits of this gas? Maybe this idea can both serve to reduce methane emissions and at the same time provide a valuable fuel already widely used in our current infrastructure. Can we even harvest the methane deposits mentioned on this site in the runaway scenario as a fuel source instead? I am at the moment excited about this idea having merit.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, What about MethaneIn general, I also hope by this presentation that we realize that sometimes we think we know the answers and want to be right and convince others. However, I say, are we asking the right questions? Only by asking the right questions objectively can we find the ideas that lead to the breakthroughs required to insure our survival and prevent climate change.

I only hope I am asking the right questions. I would like to hear from this website community about reducing methane emissions by harvesting organic methane sources of fuel. What are your thoughts?

I also hope by this presentation that I share my belief in the infinite possibilities of good we all possess within our hearts and minds. We have enough bad news to dampen our spirits. I want us all to be on the side of hope instead of despair. Only the positive emotions can motivate us in the right direction. I have never noticed when negative pessimistic thoughts ever created success. We all can get disappointed but at the end of the day it never does us much good.

I think we have a good community here and part of our mission is to provide hope and leadership. I am glad I have a place to go on this website to share my thoughts. It is the good people here that inspire and motivate me and if I can return the favor then you can truly see my honorable intentions.

Also, I adore the UK. Long ago when Nazi Germany wanted to take over the world, it was your people who stopped it on your shores. Later America woke up and came to lend a helping hand. So it is today with respect to climate change. You have decided to be leaders to prevent climate change from happening. And, I say to you, that eventually America will wake up and lend a helping hand. So, as Mark said, keep your links alive with me and other Americans on this site because we need your leadership, your ideas, and your support. For me, it simply fuels my deepest desires. All of the good people on this site motivate and inspire me to do my very best.

I’ve read about some landfills and sewage facilities that burn the methane to generate energy for powering at least their own facilities (I think landfills that do so even sell it). When I contacted the sewage plant in my old town, they said they were already doing that; they said it supplied part of their power needs, and did so cost-effectively. The added operation paid for itself in savings within a certain period of time, and is going on the save them (& rate payers) money. So, they generate power, transforming their methane emissions into CO2 emissions, but offset CO2 emissions that would have been made to supply them outside energy, AND save money for themselve & us. That’s another WIN-WIN example.

In India there are a few villages that bring all their cow & human dung & other waste to a central biogas facility, and generate enough energy for most of their needs (1 tubelight & 1 fan per hut, and some cooking gas).

I haven’t contacted the sewage plant or landfill my current area, but you’ve inspired me to do so.

I haven’t sent the letter in yet, but plan to add “Failure is not an option,” plus some success stories about industries struggling to comply with new environmental laws, ending up saving more money & earning more profit than they would have if they had continued business as usual.

My husband and I are nearing retirement age, and I would like for us to devote more time to this issue in the future. Because my husband came from a poor background he has always insisted in maintaining our living standard while we reduce our GH gases, and this has turned out for the better, since we can assure people that they won’t lose anything, but only gain savings, by doing the right thing.

Ditto Lynn!

When is the deadline for sending our letters promoting the Climate Stewardship Act?

I want to have plenty of time to develop an effective approach in writing my own letters.

At the same time, I do not want to miss the opportunity to fax my letters in time for consideration by these politicians.

I have not read and absorbed the wealth of information available on this website and that includes many things you have articulated. I have so much to follow up on!

I wonder where we will be in the future as we look back at this special time when all we had to work with was our own desires for a better world.

Your own personal journey as I have read so far on this website provides solid evidence of the potential we all have within us. Your own personal persistence driven by your faith is just one admirable character trait I wish to emulate.

I believe somewhere in the Bible it is said:

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

I usually receive emails when an environmental bill is up for a vote, but sometimes they push it really fast so we only about a week or a few days notice before the vote.

My guess is that it won’t come up until early 2005.

However, it is important to write much sooner, like within the next week or so, if possible, so it can sink in. Also reps do respond after a few weeks with all their excuses, so you will need to write again addressing each excuse.

I’ll inform this blog page as soon as I hear it is coming up for a vote (I think the vote was 55 to 43 last time – closer than most environmentalists expected). At that point then we need to call them up & get everyone else to do so….Or visit them in person, if you live close enough. They are usually pretty gracious & hospitable to constituents.

Helpful thoughts. Thanks for the input. I was right about your persistence.

I live in the Washington DC area. I have no excuse not to see them in person so that idea remains a viable option for me to consider.

Now, I need to rake a yardful of leaves before the sun goes down and wonder if they could be turned into useful methane. Take Care

Hi from New York – A fresh try in the belly of the beast….excerpt from today’s Village Voice on climate change. We WILL turn our despair into rage and action.

“But nothing’s more disturbing than the pre-election burial of the gravest issue of our time: global warming. Though neither Michigan-mesmerized Democrats nor the SUV-subsidized media noticed, the president’s closest international ally, Tony Blair, has been sounding a warming alarm for months, egged on at the end of October by none other than Queen Elizabeth. .... While there is much to mourn about Tuesday’s loss, America can survive most of the inevitably callous choices of the next Bush term, even internationally. What the world can’t survive is an America that is irreversibly poisoning the planet at a record pace, and refuses to hear the pro-life voice of undisputed science. “

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0445/barrett.php

I walked to the bank and then to the coffee shop and engaged people (when I can) in political discussion and discussion in general. I shared my views on Iraq, the lessons from Vietnam, and other lessons from history, and always my views on Climate Change (almost wrote GW).

A man sipping his coffee talked about not participating in political polling. And another man joined in. There was a concern about privacy issues. I mentioned how important polls are in terms of politicians making decisions from them to get our vote and keep their jobs. On this, one man said flatly that he just did not care. I said to him that this is very sad to his minor annoyance.

I shared my information about compact fluorescent light bulbs and received back information that some bulbs are failing prematurely undermining the manufacturer’s claims.

So, part of my work (unpaid work at the moment) is now to find who the better manufacturers are and report back. One company does a better job in reducing the mercury content. I will let you know more in a later blog.

So, I do like to record my thoughts here and share the wealth.

I think that we do much good with our everyday conversations to the people we meet along the way. And, the more people understand climate change when they answer a poll, then the more chance that message will reach an important decision maker.

This message has to do with sharing your thoughts with other people to help them know better your views and what they may be able to do to help mitigate climate change.

Even this little bit of proactively can eventually become accounted for in the polling process. So, do not always be silent if the opportunity arises to share your knowledge with others.

Do not worry too much about what others think. Just respectfully speak your truth.

And if they are annoyed, be thankful, since that means they did listen to what you had to say and they might think more about what you said after you part. Is that not also the truth about all of us?

Take Care

Below is the resource list about methane recovery from landfills from our US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In particular I took note of the Landfill Methane Outreach Program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Protection Partnerships Division. Here is the resource list I found on the web.

Landfill Gas (Methane) Recovery and Utilization: Reading and Resource List Recovery and use of methane created in municipal solid waste landfills has local and global environmental and economic benefits. There are nearly 300 operating landfill gas recovery for energy facilities in the United States, with many more under development or under consideration. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there are hundreds of other landfills that could install economically viable landfill gas recovery systems.

The following publications and organizations provide information on recovering and utilizing methane from municipal solid waste landfills. To find the publications listed, contact the source or publisher as indicated, your local public library, or a bookstore. Libraries may be able to obtain books and reports through their interlibrary loan system, and bookstores may be able to order books for you. This list does not cover all available information on this subject nor is the mention of any publication, product, service, or organization to be considered a recommendation or endorsement.

A publication is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS; see Source List below) if a NTIS Order number is listed. Also, some of the following publications are available in Adobe Acrobat PDF, Download Acrobat Reader.

Articles, Books, Conference Proceedings, Reports Analysis of Factors Affecting Methane Gas Recovery from Six Landfills, D. Campbell et al., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. 298 pp. NTIS Order No. PB-92101351.

“Are You a Member of the Methane Generation?,” C. Dunson, World Wastes, (40:2), pp. 24-29, February 1997.

“Biostabilization of Landfill Waste,” D. Hansen, Waste Age, (26:6) pp. 109-18, June 1995.

“Collecting and Using Landfill Gas as a Boiler Fuel,” J. Epich and J. Cosulich, Solid Waste Technologies, (7:4) pp. 27-34, July/August 1993.

Comparative Analysis of Landfill Gas Utilization Technologies (PDF 147 KB), Northeast Regional Biomass Energy Program, CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc., 1997. 65 pp.

Comparison of Models for Predicting Landfill Methane Recovery, Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), 1998. 100 pp. Available from SWANA (see Source List below).

“Compressed LFG is Future Fuel Source,” B. Siuru, World Wastes, (39:7), p. 14, July 1996.

“Extraction, Collection, Compression are Keys to Landfill Gas Project,” Editors, Power, (141:2), pp. 93-95, March/April 1997.

“Horizontal Collection Systems: Correcting the Image,” T. Kraemer, E. Henderson and S. Roudebush, Solid Waste Technologies, (9:4) pp. 14-18, July/August 1995.

“How to Sell LFG in a Changing Market,” F. Greenberg, World Wastes, (40:5), pp. 78-79, May 1997.

Implementation Guide for Landfill Gas Recovery Projects in the Northeast—State of the Landfill Gas Recovery Industry (PDF 166 KB), Northeast Regional Biomass Energy Program, CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc., 1994. 100 pp.

Landfill Gas Energy Utilization Experience: Discussion of Technical and Non-technical Issues, Solutions, and Trends, M. Doom, et al., D. Pehan and Associates, 1995. 295 pp. NTIS Order No. PB-95188108INZ.

Landfill Gas Energy Utilization: Technology Options and Case Studies, D. Augenstein, D. and J. Pacey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. 190 pp. NTIS Order No. PB-92203116INZ.

“Landfill Gas Powers Southeastern Plants,” D. Mahin, World Wastes, (34:9), pp. 52-53, September 1991.

“Making Landfill Gas into a Clean Vehicle Fuel,” E. Wheless, S. Thalenburg, M. Wong, Solid Waste Technologies, (7:6) pp. 32-38, November/December 1993.

“Marketing Landfill Gas for Industrial Users,” J. Walsh and C. Forbes, Solid Waste Technologies, (11:2) pp. 38-47, March/April 1997.

Methane Recovery from Landfills Yearbook, Directory, and Guide ‘99-2000, with 2001 Update, Governmental Advisory Associates, 2001.

“New Reciprocating Engine Energizes LFG Production,” Editors, World Wastes, (39:5), pp. 12-14, May 1996.

Opportunities With Landfill Gas (Corporate Guide to Green Power Markets) (PDF 421 KB), S. Atcha and V. Van Son, World Resources Institute (WRI), 2002. 16 pp.

“Reducing Greenhouse Gases at Landfills,” D. Block, Biocycle, (41:4) pp. 40-46, April 2000.

“Regs Ignite Methane Market,” C. Dunson, World Wastes, (40:4), pp. 35-38, April 1997.

“Researchers Test Fuel Cells to Recover LFG,” W. Siuru, World Wastes, (38:4), pp. 8, April 1995.

“Resourceful Power Producers Turn to Landfill Gas for Fuel,” C. Giovondo and C. Jones, Power (142:4), pp. 76-82, July/August 1998.

SWANA 25th Annual International Landfill Gas Symposium Proceedings, Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), 2002. Available from SWANA (see Source List below). Previous conference proceedings are also available.

“Trash Is Your Friend. Using Landfill Gas as a Vehicle Fuel,” E. Wheless et al., Natural Gas Fuels, (5:5), pp. 31-36, May 1996.

“20 Years of Converting ‘Garbage Gas’ to Energy,” and “Methane and Microturbines Create Power for Wisconsin County,” T. and S. Grenager, BioCycle, (43:10) pp. 52-55, October 2002.

Periodicals BioCycle: Journal of Composting and Recycling, The J.G. Press, Inc.

Power, McGraw-Hill/Platts.

Resource Recovery Report, Frank McManus, Editor and Publisher.

Solid Waste Report, Business Publishers Inc.

Waste Age, Primedia Publishing.

Source List American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Email: infocentral@asme.org ASME sponsors the annual National Waste Processing Conference; proceedings are available.

Environmental Industries Association This association is an umbrella organization for the National Solid Waste Management Association, the Hazardous Waste Management Association, and the Waste Equipment Management Association.

Landfill Methane Outreach Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Protection Partnerships Division Through this program, EPA is working with municipal solid waste landfill owners and operators, states, tribes, utilities, and other Federal agencies to promote the use of landfill gas as an energy resource. A variety of publications and guidebooks are available, many of which can be viewed/downloaded from the EPA’s Web site.

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Email: orders@ntis.gov NTIS adds charges for shipping and handling. Check document availability and price before ordering.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Information Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste (OS-305) The RCRA Information Center is a source of information regarding landfill design, permitting, and operation.

Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Email: info@swana.org

---

This reading and resource list was reviewed for accuracy in March 2003.

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.