Our World and Everything in It

Many of us had lovely ash trees in our yard once upon a time, and there are many parks around Michigan that have yet to clear out all of the ash trees that died from the ash borer, a simple bug.
Well, there are a lot more bugs to come and we can thank global warming for it.

Colorado is bearing the brunt of an increase in bark beetle bugs that have killed millions of acres of lodge pole pines. These pines are exactly what their name describes, tall, tall trees pine trees whose needled branches are disproportionately at the top third of the entire trunk, think Q-tip. The bottom portion of the trunk is a straight shot of wood, used to build log lodges.

An article on abcnews.com stated 1.5 million acres are already wiped out and all of the lodge pole pines may be gone in 3 to 5 years. It said the infestation was first noticed in 1996. What the heck takes so long for our agencies to act on anything? I lost my ash tree, and the whole time Bayer brand systemic spray would have worked. By time I applied anything to my tree, it was already too late. I know what I found for news before that. Our state officials said nothing worked against the ash borer…so people failed to act. State officials were wrong!

Colorado officials said, “the infestation was concentrated in five northern Colorado counties straddling the Continental Divide and has reached southern Wyoming.” The amount of trees taken by the beetles increased 1500 percent last year and “forest officials attributed the spread of the beetle to warm winters and drought. Susan Gray, group leader for forest health management with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, said only 20-below-zero temperatures for a sustained period can kill the beetles.” Keep an eye on your spruce trees! Spruce and aspen pines are susceptible to the beetle also.

To add insult to injury relative to our trees and forests, the Bush administration looks to weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule protects millions of acres of trees in Idaho against the oil, natural gas, timer, and mining industries. According to Earthjustice, Idaho contains more unspoiled wild forest than any state outside Alaska, providing the last intact forest habitat for countless fish, wildlife, and plant species. These areas are enjoyed by hunters, anglers, hikers, and all who treasure the backcountry. Earthjustice disclosed why Bush is pushing the Roadless Rule aside:

The administration’s proposal will open the door to logging millions of pristine acres, risk dangerous toxic contamination from mining, degrade clean fish-bearing streams and important wildlife habitat, and fail to live up to the public’s overwhelming desire to protect all of these areas for future generations.

This forest giveaway could lead to 545 million tons of phosphate being mined on nearly 8,000 unspoiled acres near Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Any increase in phosphate mining would worsen the already serious problem of selenium poisoning in local streams and aquifers. Selenium is an extremely dangerous contaminant known to cause birth defects, which bio-accumulates in the food web — persisting for centuries after entering the environment.

Read more about this and sign a petition to stop President Bush before he weakens the Roadless Rule even more. We’re already losing trees and a lot of our landscape from extreme weather, i.e., floods, fires, tornadoes, and now bugs. Does the Bush administration have a clue about conservation? Do they even care? Trees protect us from the sun, and take CO2 out of the air for Pete’s sake, and the powers that be want to give them away to big money.

About the pine beetle infestation:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=4133205

More about Bush sidestepping the Roadless Rule: http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/roadless_rule.html
Sign the petition to save our national forests: http://action.earthjustice.org/campaign/roadless_ID_0308
 

We’ll soon be seeing a new media blitz from the coal industry because people are catching on that coal is not clean. The industry is throwing $30 million dollars into an advertising and public relations campaign under the name of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). But the list that follows are all polluters like Billiton the largest mining company in the world, or CONSOL the largest producer of bituminous coal in America. They just don’t have motivation to cut into that kind power unless it’s from the kindness of their hearts.

AMEREN, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Arkansas Electric Coop, Associated Electric Coop, Association of American Railroads, Basin Electric Power Coop, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Group, CONSOL Energy, CSX, Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, Edison Electric Institute, First Energy Corp, Foundation Coal, Hoosier Energy, Massey Energy, National Mining Assoc., National Rural Electric Coop, Norfolk Southern, Peabody Energy, Southern Co., Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Coop.

This group is using other groups like America’s Power and Clean Coal USA to advertise across the country to make their coal look green. So be alert. There is nothing new. There is not a new kind of coal plant that generates electricity with lower CO2 emissions. There is coal that has very low sulfur content. And sulfur content and other particulates can be removed by what is termed “scrubbers.”  That’s not new technology, but it will help alleviate lung problems. Until something drastically changes coal users like the cheap dirty stuff because everything else costs money. This is a good article about it from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron-WSJ.htm

In 2001 President Bush committed to more advanced clean coal technologies. According to an article on DOE’s website: “The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President’s Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse emissions by boosting the efficiency by which coal plants convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.” Come on, 10 more years to just get sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants down? That’s lame. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/.

Not much is new with coal except for trapping the gas, and where to put it. Our Michigan CO2 well should be about full this weekend. It didn’t hold nearly enough liquid CO2. It’s not a solution. How many more holes are we going to rip into the earth? We have over 500,000 mines in the U.S. Many are old and abandoned. We have over 500,000 oil wells, many are done, fini. That’s a lot of holes in the ground. Will the earth heal quickly from the millions of holes we’ve drilled?
 

There is a presentation at MCCC’s Meyer Auditorium tonight called “Coming Home. State of the Straits: Status and Trends of Key Indicators. This is an effort to present the results of compiled data on the ecosystems health in the Detroit River and Lake Erie. I wanted to go but I’m 40 minutes away from MCCC’s parking lot and don’t like the looks of the weather. What I did is find the results of the program and printed out about 30 pages that comprise the comprehensive and integrative assessment.

This presentation is based on information in “50 key trend data sets and indicators” according to the report itself. However, it also states that this comprehensive and integrative assessment is initial and heavily weighted on state information with “important data and knowledge gaps.” Nevertheless, it “lays the foundation for continuous improvement in the future.”

But I can’t tell from the report what we’re improving on. There are percentages of increase or decline of contaminants with no beginning measurements given. There are also very few quantitative targets. So we don’t know what aiming for.  The study is over a 35-year time span. In 1970, we were polluted. The Clean Air and Water Act improved everything initially in a huge way. So to tell me from 1970 until now there has been an overall improvement in our water, well no kidding. What I want to know is what transpired over the past 10 years? For instance, regarding contaminants in western Lake Erie sediments, there is a record in 1971, and another in 1995 for mercury and PCB’s. Two records, 24 years apart are telling us there is a 70% decline in mercury in sediment and a 50% decline in PCB’s and other organochlorine contaminants. I don’t think that is very thorough. The mercury is 70% lower from what amount? Does this constitute a good amount? Mercury may have been 85% lower in the 90’s with pollution levels going up some 15% since then and the overall reading from 1971 will still look good at 70% reduction in pollution even though it’s rising again and quickly. Many of these reports concerning water end in 2004 too, like amounts of mercury in walleye.

Reports from 1977-2004 show that mercury in walleye has seen a 60% decline between the late 70’s and early 80’s; levels have remained steady since. What? Nothing has changed in over 25 years? It may be because there is more fishing, and therefore more fish caught at an early stage. We’re told to eat the smaller fish, especially in the ocean, because they have had less time to ingest mercury. There is nothing in this report that shows the accumulative affects of mercury either like from sediment, to fish, to birds, to larger predators.

I had to consider the source and motivation of this report too when I saw the list of editors and funding. Two of the editors are from the USFWS, the controversial agency that currently aims to kill the wolves and buffalo out west without presenting a solid answer as to why.  And the funding sources include DTE, and the US EPA, another favorite controversial agency of mine. But like I said, I really wanted to hear this presentation. The presenters probably had really good slides of the wildlife that is thriving. Nothing is all bad news. If anyone attended please let me know about it.

I’ve included an article from the Toledo Blade about this presentation relative to receding shorelines and loss of water in the Great Lakes too.  http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS06/801070402.

These are the actual tables resulting from the compilation of data for the trends reported in the presentation. http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/sos/assessment.pdf.
 

I saw the Mileage Master on GMA last week. It’s an invention by 69-year old Fred Crane. Of course it didn’t go into any explanation how the gizmo works because the patent is still pending. But if you install a Mileage Master (when they are available), you will be able to flip a switch at 35 mph and cut off fuel to half your cylinders. Crane says he gets 42 mpg on his current car, but the one he had before got a whopping 60-mpg.

Crane is feisty. He won’t sell out to the oil companies. He thinks, “They would just throw it away.” He also says that if you get 20 mpg and spend $100 per month, you could lower that bill to $35.00 with his gizmo. This should be on the market sooner than the prototype electric car. Now if a 69 year old man come up with this tinkering around, we have to wonder don’t we?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4464201&page=1

Ian Wright is an entrepreneur that’s out to change the perception of electric cars, that they are slugs or as he called them in a GMA article “golf carts.” Well he’s built a $150,000 prototype that goes 170 mph, and is all electric. It looks like a little racecar. Sharp. But it won’t be a production car for 12 years. But this does go to show that electric cars may be a possibility after all. In everything I read I couldn’t find how they recharge these cars. The first link in the first paragraph also takes you to other prototypes like the T-Zero car.

Read about it and see it: http://www.wrightspeed.com/x1.html.
 

Last week on Good Morning America there was a guy who has been fueling his little diesel car with Chinese oil. What is Chinese oil? It’s the leftover oil from Chinese restaurants. He said the restaurant was only too happy to give the oil away. He put it in a plastic gas container and uses a funnel to put it in his car. He said he probably saved $3,000 last year by not buying gas. So if you have a little diesel car you drive to work, why not? The Welsh do it. The Welsh were using so much vegetable oil in their cars they had to come up with laws to stop it because the country wasn’t getting enough money from gas tax. The big clue? Everytime there was a new delivery of cooking oil to the supermarkets, the shelves were wiped out in hours. Now the Welsh police are allowed to stop a car and look at what it’s running in its tank. 

On that note, I ran across something good from an oil company. While I was researching oil company contributions to alternative energy, I read that Conoco Phillips is working with Tyson foods to use chicken fat for fuel.  Reuters.com has the entire article. The article stated: “Beef, pork and chicken fat from Tyson rendering plants will be processed at ConocoPhillips refineries to create transportation fuel.” They plan in the future to produce about 175 million gallons per year of this biodiesel. Conoco Phillips is already preparing some of their refineries for processing the animal fat. The first one is in Borger, Texas. ConocoPhillips is processing soybean oil as a biodiesel fuel already at its Whitegate refinery in Cork, Ireland. Tyson said “the fats will be processed with hydrocarbon feedstocks to produce a high-quality diesel fuel that meets all federal standards for ultra-low-sulfur diesel.” And unlike ethanol, this fuel can run through pipelines. 

This is good news. These two companies are making good use of leftover pollution, and there is a lot of it in the meatpacking industry. Since Conoco Phillips doesn’t stand to gain or lose from doing this, this is a very generous move.  I just hope finding a way to get rid of rendering material doesn’t cause a spike in eating more meat, or establishing more CAFO’s! There is a humane and ethical side to the treatment of animals that figures in here, not just the environment, or money. Industrialized farming is extremely horrific for animals, totally inhumane, and we end up with sickly meat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1629340720070416?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Salmonella was found in the tap water of residents in Alamosa, Colorado. Residents there get their water from 5 deep wells. No one knows exactly how the contamination happened. There is some speculation about groundwater. An article on CIDRAP or Center for Infectious Disease, Research & Policy stated: “Authorities have not said how they think the water became contaminated with Salmonella. Ken Carlson, an environmental engineering professor from Colorado State University, said Alamosa’s water comes from five deep wells and is untreated, the Denver Post reported on Mar 21. More than half of the US drinking water supply consists of untreated groundwater, he told the Post, adding that groundwater typically never comes in contact with possibly contaminated surface water before reaching consumers.

The Denver Post carried this story first and disclosed that the water comes from a well that is not chemically disinfected, (not chlorinated). This is kind of creepy. How many wells around the country serve us our tap water? What about all those trash dumps? What about groundwater runoff from CAFO’s?

Read the articles: http://www.denverpost.com/crush/ci_8679920

This CIDRAP article is two hours old: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/mar2408salmonella.html

Does anyone else think someone should check on Alaska more often? First there was a multi-million dollar bridge to an island with no sizeable amount of citizens. With a new governor Palin there is a new onslaught against wolves and even more maneuvering to block votes to sway results that would outlaw aerial hunting of wolves. Meanwhile Bush/Cheney are busy auctioning off drilling rights to the highest bidders in Alaska in prime polar bear habitat, while Bush stalls putting polar bears on the endangered list.

And now according to Defenders of Wildlife, “Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski — who have taken more than $618,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry,” as per the Center for Responsive Politics http://www.opensecrets.org/, launched yet another cynical ploy to line their pockets, introducing legislation that would sacrifice the Arctic Refuge to Big Oil’s drills.”

Geez, I thought the strategy to raise gas prices to $4.00 and $5.00 per gallon was enough motivation to get people to scream for more oil, and therefore new drilling. But, Canada’s CBC news showed Canada’s cash, along with gold, and oil dropping in price. Demand for oil is slightly down. So how does that transfer to higher prices at the pump? I think we’re being manipulated for no good reason, you know the same way we went to war, and the wolves are being attacked now. None of these things seem to be happening for the universal good of all. The push is on to drill in irreplaceable Alaskan habitat, while any movement toward alternatives and conservation appears to be stifled. You just read about the real contributions big oil claims to make for alternative resources. It’s laughable compared to their profit.
 
Defenders said, “Since Tuesday, more than 31,000 Defenders supporters from across the country have urged their Senators to pass the Arctic Wilderness Protection Act, legislation to permanently protect the Arctic Refuge. We’re not stopping now.” There is world protest over this also. On the CBS website an article stated that Senator Barbara Boxer argued Tuesday night that “The United States could save more oil than the refuge will produce “by just getting the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as autos.” No one really knows how much oil is there either. Without assurances, the article said “Major oil companies, in fact, have begun to lose interest in the refuge.”

Please contact your senators to vote the ARCTIC WILDERNESS PROTECTION ACT into law as quickly as possible to stop the destruction of our last pristine areas of earth without knowing how much oil is really there or without fully exploring all other possibilities. We haven’t practiced conservation across the country yet!

Contact info for all senators at:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/12/politics/main543691.shtml

Since it’s usually bad news about animals anymore, this was an uplifing story that stuns wildlife experts. Conservationists allowed back into the Sudan after decades of war there are thrilled to report that wildlife is thriving. Even what was thought to be an extinct species, has been spotted. This just goes to show that while people are busy killing each other, they leave the animals alone, and the animals thrive. It really does point a finger at man for being the worst predator. I’m wondering now that the media has noted this increase there might be increased poaching because poaching is up worldwide. Also, the Chinese have an increased desire for fur these days. Not a good thing when they number in the billions and have money to spend.

The Sudanese government is thrilled and hopes for a huge increase in eco-tourism, which is a big money maker. Animals are protected from poaching more effectively in areas funded by tourism. It costs plenty for a two-week trip to witness massive wildlife events like the “Great Migration” in the Serengeti. There are horseback riding trips, walking trips, and vehicle trips through the plains to watch the animals, along with lodging. Money from tourism helps fund the preservation of that area. I’m going to see that before I die. It’s on the list with Australia and New Zealand.

The article goes on to say the biggest threat to the new wildlife is from French and Chinese oil operations, in other words, man. The Sudanese government believes in the preservation of wildlife over oil exploration though. Sudan has been war torn for so long; their economy could use a jumpstart. Sudan is a wreck but protects its wildlife. What’s wrong with this picture compared to us? Perhaps they know the feeling of being hunted and don’t want to pass it along.

Read the article: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/Story?id=4484405&page=1

I’m back on about wolves because I see 56 wolves were recently aerial hunted and killed in Alaska where there is an all out onslaught against them by Governor Sarah Palin. It’s not just the wolves she’s attacking. Defenders of Wildlife revealed that Palin:

· Introduced legislation that could deny more than 50,000 Alaskans the right to vote on aerial killing of wolves and bears.
· Has condoned a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign to convince Alaskans to support the state’s shooting of wolves and bears from airplanes — even though wildlife biologists from around the world say that it is scientifically unfounded.
· Nominated her high school basketball coach a man with no wildlife management experience to sit on the state’s powerful Board of Game.
· Proposed a $150 bounty to spur wolf killing in specified management zones.

Palin’s high school basketball coach? The frightening thing is her name has come up as a possible pick for McCain’s vice president. Obstructing democracy in America is especially bad. Using state funds to sway citizens doesn’t sound right either. Alaskans voted down wolf hunting two times already. I found this website with an interesting video about the sport hunting going on in Alaska:
http://current.com/items/88811075_end_aerial_wolf_hunting.

The wolf reduction program in Alaska relies on the premise that wolf numbers must be kept down because wolves are rivals for food, and there are people in Alaska who hunt for food. Considering the wolves in Idaho and Wyoming haven’t made a dent on elk and deer populations there, I can’t imagine that wolves threaten the vast Alaskan bounty. According to current.com, “sport and trophy hunters take up to 73% of prey in areas where aerial wolf hunting has taken place.” And what about oil drilling? It threatens wildlife far worse, yet the $4 per gallon gasoline threat we’re hearing about will propel the oil industry to drill in Alaska. Due to oil drilling there will be loss of habitat for the food animals that sustain the subsistence hunters everyone is worried about and are therefore killing wolves. This is a contrived program. If Gov. Palin is so concerned for the citizens that need to hunt for food, why is she ignoring the majority of citizens that voted wolf hunting down?

It gets worse. Alaska is the model for Idaho and Wyoming. Over 200,000 people in the U.S. petitioned against Bush’s plan to take wolves off the endangered list. Now Bush attempts to strip wolves of federal protection. Secy. of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, whose department oversees the action against wolves, was formerly Governor of Idaho where he pushed to get state control over wolves. And now Butch Otter, another wolf-hater is governor there. Interesting how that works isn’t it? Kempthorne goes from Idaho to head a Federal Agency and now there is a greater and growing interest in killing   wolves. When Kempthorne moved up, did he bring his agenda, or did he move up because of his agenda?

This is the worst. According to NRDC in the March/April issue of “Nature’s Voice,” the federal government spent “taxpayer dollars to purchase two planes for the express purpose of gunning down wolves and other animals from the air in Wyoming.” Seventy five percent of Wyoming residents objected to Wyoming’s wolf hunting plan

It’s pretty clear that the maneuvering against wolves began quite a while ago and is just now coming to fruition. The wolves are innocent. I can’t believe the current onslaught taking place against all types of animals. It’s really noticeable. If we simply sit back and wait until this administration is out of office, it will be too late for too many species. So far Defenders of Wildlife, NRDC, Earthjustice, and many more organizations have been avidly defending wolves in court, in ads, and in education.  Support this fight by contacting your rep. The slaughter is totally unnecessary, we’re being lied to again, and our money is being used in support of it. Tell your rep that.

This was  fairly easy information to find as far as the big 3 American oil companies. I did the math for percentages. BP is on the list because they bought Amoco. Shell is on it because Royal Dutch Shell has an American operation, and holds leases in Alaska under heavy protest against drilling in delicate habitat.

Here’s how it looks below. The results are what I expected, a pretty dismal picture. But I ended up reading many of the oil company websites, and what their opponents wrote as well. It comes down to the fact that they are, after all, oil companies and intend to stay that way.  They are pretty much throwing some money at alternatives to look good while others really seem in earnest and are investing for the environment. It’s Conoco-Phillips. I’m going to do a blog on them and a really big move they are making with Tyson Foods.  I am impressed. All of these oil companies are at the upper echelon of earnings worldwide! They can afford to invest.

Exxon Mobil, one of the biggest oil companies in the world had net profit earnings in 2007 of $40.6 billion. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/international/bc.apfn.eu.fin.com.britain.bp.ap/

“Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, dismisses renewable energy and puts its record profits into shareholder dividends” http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/12/bp_alternative_energy_unit.php

Chevron had a net profit in 2007 of $18.7 billion. http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2008-02-01
Chevron invested $300 million per year for alternative energy sources, which is .016% or 16 thousandths of their profit.

Conoco-Phillips had a net profit in 2007 of $11.9 billion. It fell from $15.5 billion last year. http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1331478. Conoco-Phillips said that investments in alternative energy would be around $150 million. That’s .012% or 12 thousandths of their profit. http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/10/news/companies/pluggedin_gunther_conocophillips.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007041109

BP had net profit income in 2007 of $20.8 billion.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/international/bc.apfn.eu.fin.com.britain.bp.ap/  BP “may invest up to $8 billion over 10 years that’s 800 million per year, and very generous for an oil company. But the article went on to say:  Meanwhile, their budget for conventional oil and gas projects is almost $15 billion per year.” http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/12/bp_alternative_energy_unit.php. Eight hundred million dollars per year is a lot, but it’s only .038% or thirty eight thousandths of their profit income. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021952&contentId=7040761

Dutch Royal Shell had net profits in 2007 of $27.5 billion.             
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511387&in_page_id=1770. John Hofmeister, president of Shell answered when asked how much Shell was investing in alternatives fuels: “I’d say about $1 billion over the last five years. We’ll continue to spend at that level.    That’s $200 million per year and only .007% or 7 thousandths of their net profits. http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC3=/us-en/html/iwgen/energy_security/faq/faq.html#4.

A quick summary gives us a total of over $119 billion dollars ($119,500,000,000.00) in net profits among all oil companies listed. Their investment for alternative energy is almost $1½ billion dollars ($1,450,000,000.00) annually. That’s .012% or 12 thousandths of their combined income-not a heck of a lot, but hey, we’ll take it. And the next time somebody tries to tell you how much the oil industry is investing in alternative energy, you won’t be naive.
 
Here is a pretty good website that gives a snapshot of the top oil companies also:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/money_guzzlers.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/11/oil.bp