False Claims about Climate Change causes
(1) The Associated Press Says:
"North Sea water temperatures have climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and that has shifted currents, carrying a major food source, plankton, away from the cod, said scientist Chris Reid of the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans in Plymouth, England.
"The only way that these increases can be explained is by greenhouse gas emissions," Reid said. In their larval stage, the cod feed on the minute plants and animals known as plankton. Chances of survival without them are slim. North Sea cod that do survive today are smaller and less successful at mating and reproducing, Reid explained. In addition, warmer temperatures increase cod metabolism and the larvae's need for nutrition, he and other marine scientists noted in a 2003 research paper.
Sky Comments: Water temperature in the northern hemisphere always increases during interglacial periods. Temperatures: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit."
The Quote above was taken from: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science BasisSummary for Policymakers vContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Page 8 of 21
We must remember firstly that humans did not significantly add carbon to the atmosphere in the previous interglacial period and yet, as quoted above, temperatures in Greenland were higher than at present. There is no way to accurately separate out the natural glacial/interglacial 100,000 year cyclic rise in temperature from the human effects on the greenhouse gasses. Until we can accurately accomplish this, one must be careful with statements such as the above "The only way" implying certainty. There simply is no certainty. Orbital forcing data comparisons of 12,000 year ago and 112,000 years ago do not correlate and I don't believe there is a high degree of agreement among scientists as to the relative weighting to be given to the effects of obliquity, eccentricity and precesion on global temperature highs and lows. Surely this research must proceed with the highest intensity and priority if we are to choose the most effective strategy to counter the effect of increased carbon (methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide) emissions.
(2) The Associated Press says:
"Scientists say rising sea temperatures worldwide are causing more coral bleaching — the draining of color when the fragile animals that form reefs become stressed and spew out the algae that give coral its color and energy to build massive reef structures.
Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, increasing their acidity and eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons."
Sky Comments:
Afraid not:
"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean's surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep.
"This is the 'soda bottle on a warm day' effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature."
This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2."
The quote above taken from:
The Ocean Carbon Cycle http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
Occasions of invalid claims such as the one above are harmful because they add ammunition to the cause of those trying to deflect and defeat efforts to stem the increased flow of human caused greenhouse gasses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_sc/climate_species_impactThis report was written by AP correspondents Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Tesco Stifling Choice
21 March 2007
Tesco 'ruining towns and stifling choice'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent
"Tesco is descending like a black cloud over Britain's towns and cities, stifling choice and fostering a sense of alienation: those are just some of the claims made in a new book about Britain's biggest supermarket. Tescopoly, by Andrew Simms, an economist, charts the rise of Tesco's " pile it high, sell it cheap" approach and damns its ethos, methods and influence. Tesco is depicted as a megalomaniac company that mistreats suppliers and rivals, manipulates planners and helps create "clone towns". With annual profits of £43bn, Tesco takes almost one-third of food spending in the UK but its expansion is being opposed by a varied army of campaigners. A website, Tescopoly, founded by the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, the charity War on Want and other organisations, aims to co-ordinate local campaigns. In an independent book of the same name, Mr Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation and one of the site's founders, argues Tesco has a pernicious influence on society." Tesco in numbers
12 Countries with stores (Britain, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea)
979 Global stores in 2002
2,672 Global stores in 2006
20m British customers weekly
£43bn Sales in 2005/06
£2.2bn Profit in 2005/06
30% Share of UK grocery market
£3.9m pay for Sir Terry Leahy Read more Here
Tesco 'ruining towns and stifling choice'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent
"Tesco is descending like a black cloud over Britain's towns and cities, stifling choice and fostering a sense of alienation: those are just some of the claims made in a new book about Britain's biggest supermarket. Tescopoly, by Andrew Simms, an economist, charts the rise of Tesco's " pile it high, sell it cheap" approach and damns its ethos, methods and influence. Tesco is depicted as a megalomaniac company that mistreats suppliers and rivals, manipulates planners and helps create "clone towns". With annual profits of £43bn, Tesco takes almost one-third of food spending in the UK but its expansion is being opposed by a varied army of campaigners. A website, Tescopoly, founded by the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, the charity War on Want and other organisations, aims to co-ordinate local campaigns. In an independent book of the same name, Mr Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation and one of the site's founders, argues Tesco has a pernicious influence on society." Tesco in numbers
12 Countries with stores (Britain, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea)
979 Global stores in 2002
2,672 Global stores in 2006
20m British customers weekly
£43bn Sales in 2005/06
£2.2bn Profit in 2005/06
30% Share of UK grocery market
£3.9m pay for Sir Terry Leahy Read more Here
SALSA - Completely Unnecessary and costly
Helping the small producer? I don't think so.
After reading the Ecologist and a few other bits of disappointing news items, I reached a new low when I read about the new initiative designed by some of the most lofty free trade flag flyers to "help" the small producer.
One of the most depressing aspects of starting up a small business is the fact that most of the regulations and restrictions favour the large producer. From health and safety to compost making, only the large, already established can afford to meet the requirements. To add insult to injury one soon encounters the army of inspectors from embedded echelons of bureaucracy in both governmental and private but government supported sources. The most iniquitous are those that in the guise of "helping"- be it the consumer or the producer - obtain funding to provide jobs to "assure" often what the law already requires.
In Smallholders Online Newsletter 178 (28 November, 2006) I submitted the following quote from one of the Red Tractor derivitives:
"Operators of the assurance scheme which underpins the Red Tractor standards have called on livestock markets to apply before Christmas to join up or risk facing potentially damaging delays in attaining assured status. The impact on farmers could be severe if delays occur because, from 1 April 2007, any assured livestock sold through a market which has not joined the scheme will lose its assured status, Assured British Meat has warned."
I claimed that it was coercive to sell assurance to the producer and then take it away because their livestock market refused to pay. Now I fear that yet another expensive assurance scheme will assure that only the large and well established small businesses will be able to afford to access small retail outlets.
The perpetrators bill it as a "local food boost." What a joke. Below I comment on some quotes lifted from the SALSA news item.
"The Safe and Local Supplier Approval (SALSA) scheme removes many of the practical barriers preventing small producers from directly supplying local retailers and caterers."
Sky: If there are barriers, they have been constructed artificially and imposed on the producer by government supported organisations that have frightened retailers into agreeing that they should only buy from companies that carry an expensive label that certifies that they have conformed to what the law requires anyway.
"SALSA is a low cost, but highly rigorous, scheme which works with local producers to ensure they have robust food safety procedures in place. Membership of the SALSA scheme allows producers and processors to demonstrate their ability to meet the necessary legislative requirements."
Sky: At £450, SALSA is not low cost. What is "highly rigorous" about a check sheet that simply follows what DEFRA has already made perfectly clear in booklet after booklet that explains the law and the legal requirements? Farmers are in despair over the reams of paperwork, ear tags, passports and a plethora of other checks to see that they obey the law. The scheme "allows" producers to demonstrate that they meet legal requirements. You see, the fundamental flaw here, as in all inspection schemes, (SALSA calls them "audits") is the mistaken inference that an inspection threat or act will make people honest on the next and subsequent days following the inspection. If a person wants to cheat, they will find a way. Just last week the RSPCA "assurance" scheme received stark criticism:
"The footage gathered by workers at the Hillside Animal Sanctuary, in Frettenham, and passed on to the Evening News shows:· A duck being punched and others being treated roughly and violently grabbed round the neck before being thrown onto the back of a vehicle to be taken for slaughter.· Ducks, some of them obviously injured, being kept in cramped conditions, while dead birds lay beside them on the floor.· The floor of an industrial turkey shed littered with injured and dying birds and one dead bird which is being eaten away by flies.· Squalid conditions at a pig farm near Norwich, where two of the animals appear to be lame and left in pain.All of the farms supply food to leading stores and have been sanctioned by the RSPCA farm animal welfare scheme, Freedom Foods, which is designed to make sure firms rearing animals for food are meeting stringent welfare standards.Farms approved by the RSPCA are allowed to put the "Freedom Foods" logo on their products and demand higher prices."
From Smallholders Online Newsletter Number 191 19 March, 2007. www.smallholders.org
A few years ago I was speaking to an organic certification inspector who told me that not a day goes by that someone doesn't telephone head office to report someone cheating. Yet, the inspection system propaganda continues to treat people as dishonest by telling them that they cannot be trusted. Of course, elementary psychology has shown us that people are much more likely to be trustworthy when they are trusted to begin with. This is especially evident in the behaviour of children. Passing an inspection does NOT demonstrate honesty.
"British Retail Consortium, (BRC) Director General Kevin Hawkins said: 'SALSA is about making it easier for stores to supply local people with goods produced by local suppliers. '"
Sky:
"National buyers, traditionally geared up to source food and drink in quantities suitable for national distribution, require an assurance that the locally sourced food which they are buying meets fundamental legal, food safety and due diligence requirements. SALSA has been developed to meet this need."http://www.salsafood.co.uk/pages/about-us/why-is-salsa-needed.php
Who says they "require" assurance? What about our tax money which funds DEFRA who will enter your property without permission and kill your animals if your paperwork is no in order? If that's not policing the regulations, what are you looking for, the Army?And then there is the Food Standards Agency, FSA.
"[ Enforcement:"The Food Standards Agency oversees local authority enforcement activities for food law. It sets and monitors standards and audits local authorities’ activities to ensure enforcement arrangements are proportionate, consistent and transparent. Powers to enable the Agency to monitor and audit local authorities are contained in the Food Standards Act 1999. The Agency also supports local authorities by funding training, providing grants and making other resources available.]"The FSA is huge and has a lethal bite. And then what about each county's Trading Standards. "[Trading Standards OfficerThe workTrading standards officers (TSOs) protect consumers by making sure that goods and services are bought and sold in a safe and fair trading environment. They advise consumers and businesses, check that businesses keep to the law, investigate complaints and prosecute any traders that break consumer laws. TSOs are employed by local authorities, and their duties may include:
*taking samples of food and goods for testing
*checking that traders’ scalevisiting local traders and businesses to carry out routine checks or investigate complaints
*weights and measures are accurate
*making sure that labelling is correct and advertising is not misleading
*advising consumers and traders about the law
*investigating suspected offences – this may include undercover or surveillance work
*preparing evidence and going to court in prosecution cases
*giving talks to schools and community groups
writing reports and keeping records.]
"East Sussex Trading Standards advise businesses about and enforce numerous pieces of food standard legislation, including regulations on food labelling. http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/foodsafety/default.htm#subtitle2"These people will close you down if you don't uphold the law.How about the Health and Safety Executive?
"[Health and Safety ExecutiveLegislation The aim of this site is to raise awareness of the range of health and safety legislation that applies to workplaces in Great Britain. It has been designed to:
*help users discover specific legislation that applies to their industry
*explain how to trace and obtain Acts and regulations
*provide links to organisations that can offer advice and guidance on legislation ]"
And then there is each county's Health and Safety department. The following is an example from my own district council.
"[Workplace Health Connect is a new service launched in February this year. It provides free, confidential and impartial advice on creating a safer and more healthy workplace for smaller businesses in England and Wales. http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6736]"
All the above are funded by taxpayer money and in place to assist businesses to protect the consumer. So why this expensive "assurance?" Of course, with my sales hat, I can easily imagine talking a retailer into going along with my contention that they "need" my services. I will promise to save them a couple of telephone calls checking up on a supplier. I might be able to persuade them that my inspection (auditing, sorry) will protect them from cheaters. I can ask them to help my organisation take in more fees and get bigger so it can "help" more producers. Following that, I can warn the retailer that in the future the government might force them to accept only SALSA approved product. And, of course the clincher is that the retailer pays absolutely nothing for this convenience. No, the producer pays. So, many retailers might shrug and figure it costs them nothing, so why not? SALSA provides services for "due diligence requirements"? What can this mean? Well, of many definitions, most having to do with legal issues, I came up with this one:
"Due DiligenceThe process of systematically evaluating information, to identify risks and issues relating to a proposed transaction. http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insof-sdf.nsf/en/so03149e.html"This is what it boils down to: Verify that information is what it is proposed to be. A retailer can do this with a telephone call or check with their local council.The SALSA website claims that the scheme is:
"self funding and founded on not-for-profit principles; it has received start up funding and support from DEFRA, Highland and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. Standards pdf (pg 3)"
How can a scheme be self-funding when it has received start-up public money and charges the small producer £450? Founded in not-for-profit principles? Is it a not for profit company? Their website says " non-profit making" Is it a corporation limited by guarantee? I don't think so.My fear is that the powerful backers of SALSA will achieve what the BRC has achieved with large retailers. I can't find out the total cost of the BRC but the following from their website will reveal just how large, powerful and expensive they have become since 1998. If they charge £230 for just a copy of their standards document, just imagine what the total package must be worth. Perhaps they have saturated the large retailer market and see expansion downward as the only way to grow.
"British Retail ConsortiumWhy do we need BRC Certification? Who needs BRC Certification?(a) Most large UK retailers will only consider business with suppliers who have gained certification to the appropriate BRC Global Standard.Most manufacturers are required to show that they are certificated to the BRC Standards and continuously comply with the legal and quality requirements of its retail customers.This is because they have a legal responsibility for the products under the Food safety act of 1990 for their own retailer label. Brand owners also have a legal responsibility for their brand under this act.British Retail Consortiumhttp://www.brc.org.uk/standards/default.asp?mainsection_id=10&subsection_id=35
PLEASE NOTE: If you represent a food, packaging or consumer product manufacturer and have been asked by a retailer that you need BRC in order to be a supplier, your company needs certification against the appropriate a BRC Standard. Full details of the certification process can be found on the BRC Global Standards website: http://www.brcglobalstandards.com. andhttp://www.brc.org.uk/ContactUs04.aspFood and Packaging Standards plus Guidelines (Print Version) Standard and Guideline Pack English £230.00http://www.brc.org.uk/standards/default.asp?mainsection_id=2&subsection_id=2"
Above, I have submitted considerable detail in an attempt to establish that SALSA is:
(1) Completely unnecessary to either the producer or the retailer.
(2) An unecessary burden of cost on the small and local producer.
(3) Completely unhelpful to the small and local business.
I can only hope that small retailers will be fully informed as to the cost and adverse effects this scheme will have on their small suppliers before they turn down product from those who simply cannot afford this expensive and unnecessary scheme.
Thursday, 15 March 2007
What is and what is not organic?
14 March 2007
ORGANIC GRAIN SHORTAGES A WORRY FOR POULTRY FARMERS
JOE WATSON
"Huge shortfalls in the supply of organic grain needed to feed the nation's rapidly growing poultry flock will remain for at least another two years."The (grain and feed) trade tells me that most of them will squeeze through this year with supplies and that most will manage, but that they will not have the carryover over of grain that they would like to take into next year. Increasingly they are having to go farther afield for supplies."
Sky's Comment: Where is the crisis here? So the carryover is not large enough to ensure the lowest prices and so the price has gone up.
"That was the warning in Edinburgh yesterday at Scotland's first conference for organic egg producers.
The European Commission is currently considering proposals to temporarily alleviate the problem, which exists across the EU, by doubling to 60% the amount of grain that can be used in organic feeds from farms that are in the process of converting.
Sky's Comment: So here we go again, the old story. Let me ask, In the eyes of the European Commission, [this is the institution that is demanding the destruction of organic by formulating acceptance of 0.9% contamination of grain with GMOs]what drives organic regulation policy? Is it quality of animal life? Ensurence of food devoid of harmful chemicals?
No, not at all, it is clearly a form of price protection, some call it pragmatism. In what kind of regulatory system does the harmfulness of chemicals vary with the slight shortage of grain? Atrazine is harmful and remains harmful regardless of the price of grain. It has taken organisations such as Garden Organic (HDRA) and the Soil Association years and years to build public confidence in organic now to see it undermined by the administrative body of the EU.
("The endocrine-disrupting effects of atrazine are not restricted to frogs. Atrazine reduced olfactory-mediated endocrine functions in salmon at levels commonly observed in polluted water. And it was found to inhibit testosterone production in prepubertal rats." [1])
"Yesterday's conference was organised by John Retson, of Blairgowrie-based poultry supplier JSR Services. He decided to host the event after ditching the firm's stand at the Royal Highland Show. He hoped it would stimulate debate in the organic poultry sector and give producers access to some of the country's biggest packers - Deans, Glenrath Eggs and Strichen-based Farmlay, which is run by the Chapman family."
The whole story is Here
ORGANIC GRAIN SHORTAGES A WORRY FOR POULTRY FARMERS
JOE WATSON
"Huge shortfalls in the supply of organic grain needed to feed the nation's rapidly growing poultry flock will remain for at least another two years."The (grain and feed) trade tells me that most of them will squeeze through this year with supplies and that most will manage, but that they will not have the carryover over of grain that they would like to take into next year. Increasingly they are having to go farther afield for supplies."
Sky's Comment: Where is the crisis here? So the carryover is not large enough to ensure the lowest prices and so the price has gone up.
"That was the warning in Edinburgh yesterday at Scotland's first conference for organic egg producers.
The European Commission is currently considering proposals to temporarily alleviate the problem, which exists across the EU, by doubling to 60% the amount of grain that can be used in organic feeds from farms that are in the process of converting.
Sky's Comment: So here we go again, the old story. Let me ask, In the eyes of the European Commission, [this is the institution that is demanding the destruction of organic by formulating acceptance of 0.9% contamination of grain with GMOs]what drives organic regulation policy? Is it quality of animal life? Ensurence of food devoid of harmful chemicals?
No, not at all, it is clearly a form of price protection, some call it pragmatism. In what kind of regulatory system does the harmfulness of chemicals vary with the slight shortage of grain? Atrazine is harmful and remains harmful regardless of the price of grain. It has taken organisations such as Garden Organic (HDRA) and the Soil Association years and years to build public confidence in organic now to see it undermined by the administrative body of the EU.
("The endocrine-disrupting effects of atrazine are not restricted to frogs. Atrazine reduced olfactory-mediated endocrine functions in salmon at levels commonly observed in polluted water. And it was found to inhibit testosterone production in prepubertal rats." [1])
"Yesterday's conference was organised by John Retson, of Blairgowrie-based poultry supplier JSR Services. He decided to host the event after ditching the firm's stand at the Royal Highland Show. He hoped it would stimulate debate in the organic poultry sector and give producers access to some of the country's biggest packers - Deans, Glenrath Eggs and Strichen-based Farmlay, which is run by the Chapman family."
The whole story is Here
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Supermarket Exploitation
8 March, 2007
Shopped! How supermarkets rip you off
By JOANNA BLYTHMAN
The Daily Mail Supermarkets use clever tricks to push up their profits
"Think you're making a saving by shopping at a superstore? Joanna Blythman reveals the devious tricks the big supermarkets use to make rip-offs look like bargains. Fall for one con - get another one FREE: Every little helps! The very best for less! Everyday low prices! Quality food attractively priced! Listen to our supermarkets' slogans and you might be persuaded that they all compete madly to give price conscious shoppers the very best deal. But do they? Earlier this week, it was revealed that Tesco's 'half-price' fruit and veg promotion in the New Year was not all that it seemed. The price of the produce was doubled for one week, making it twice as expensive as normal, before being cut back to its usual price, thus enabling the supermarket to claim that it was offering a 50 per cent discount. So what other marketing gimmicks and sly pricing strategies do the supermarkets use to fool the customer? Here, Joanna Blythman - a leading food campaigner and author of Bad Food Britain: How A Nation Ruined Its Appetite - explains how its done." Editor's Comments: Doubling the price of sale goods just before the sale is not a new trick. Joanna continues with an explanation of:
THE DAZZLE FACTOR - These are loss leaders, not a new trick either.
FRESH FOOD GOLDMINE - "that's because in these key fresh food categories, supermarkets are nearly always pricier than traditional High Street shops."
THE VITAL ECO IMAGE - organic and Fairtrade products are targeted for high profuit margins because we expect to pay more (at least 36%)
SQUEEZING - two for one, the supermarket is not paying for this, guess who? "In order to be an approved supplier to a supermarket, farmers and food producers are expected to underwrite the cost of any special promotions themselves." "......But if they don't jump to the supermarkets' tune and agree to fund these special offers, the farmer or supplier risks being axed altogether."
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! - "A staggering 40 per cent of all food bought in the UK is thrown out uneaten. Good news for the supermarket, not good news for their customers' bank accounts." Why, because we are encouraged by the huge display of variety and abundance to buy more than we need.
A NUMBERS GAME - "But there are lots of traps for the unwary. For example, that eyecatching 'Half-price' or '£1 off' banner might relate to the price-per-kilo, rather than the price-per-pack, meaning that on relatively light items, such as spinach, the heavily-promoted reduction is, in fact, utterly insignificant."".........Equally, when you rush to buy those two-for-the-price-of-one punnets of blueberries, you may not notice that the pack size has been reduced from normal - leaving you paying the same price by weight as before, while thinking you've got a bargain." "...........Incidentally, while greengrocers, butchers and fishmongers tend to advertise their prices in kilos, supermarkets specialise in arbitrary pack sizes, like 225 grams.This makes it far harder for customers to work out how much they are paying for what quantity."
CHANGING PRICES - "Supermarkets are allowed to use 'dynamic pricing' - varying prices to take account of different markets.In practice, some supermarkets use this to charge more where they can get away with it - for example, in a more affluent area. Even within one town, a supermarket chain's prices can vary, so a box of cornflakes in one of their city centre convenience stores may well cost you more than if you bought it in their superstore nearby."
THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR - Sales to help the local school? Think again. "For example, last month the Mail revealed how in order to qualify for a 'free' trampoline worth £3,000 from Tesco, parents would have to spend the equivalent of £1 million at the supermarket tills."
THE SHOPPING 'SNOOP' - "Ever wondered why the person at the check-out is so keen to scan your 'customer loyalty card'? It's not because they're desperate for you to collect as many loyalty points as possible. No, it's so the chain can collate information about your shopping habits - where you shop, what you buy, how often and so on. When linked with the personal details you gave them when you signed up for the scheme, this enables them to target you with promotions by post that are tailored around your shopping habits."
This is only for starters.
If you feel inclined to learn how some supermarkets treat their suppliers and the farmer, then have a look at Felicity Lawrence's book "Not on the Label"
I thought I knew all the tricks but this one was a real shocker. Then their is Tesco's vast real estate, Walmart with ASDA Phew.
JOANNA BLYTHMAN is author of Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets.
Shopped! How supermarkets rip you off
By JOANNA BLYTHMAN
The Daily Mail Supermarkets use clever tricks to push up their profits
"Think you're making a saving by shopping at a superstore? Joanna Blythman reveals the devious tricks the big supermarkets use to make rip-offs look like bargains. Fall for one con - get another one FREE: Every little helps! The very best for less! Everyday low prices! Quality food attractively priced! Listen to our supermarkets' slogans and you might be persuaded that they all compete madly to give price conscious shoppers the very best deal. But do they? Earlier this week, it was revealed that Tesco's 'half-price' fruit and veg promotion in the New Year was not all that it seemed. The price of the produce was doubled for one week, making it twice as expensive as normal, before being cut back to its usual price, thus enabling the supermarket to claim that it was offering a 50 per cent discount. So what other marketing gimmicks and sly pricing strategies do the supermarkets use to fool the customer? Here, Joanna Blythman - a leading food campaigner and author of Bad Food Britain: How A Nation Ruined Its Appetite - explains how its done." Editor's Comments: Doubling the price of sale goods just before the sale is not a new trick. Joanna continues with an explanation of:
THE DAZZLE FACTOR - These are loss leaders, not a new trick either.
FRESH FOOD GOLDMINE - "that's because in these key fresh food categories, supermarkets are nearly always pricier than traditional High Street shops."
THE VITAL ECO IMAGE - organic and Fairtrade products are targeted for high profuit margins because we expect to pay more (at least 36%)
SQUEEZING - two for one, the supermarket is not paying for this, guess who? "In order to be an approved supplier to a supermarket, farmers and food producers are expected to underwrite the cost of any special promotions themselves." "......But if they don't jump to the supermarkets' tune and agree to fund these special offers, the farmer or supplier risks being axed altogether."
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! - "A staggering 40 per cent of all food bought in the UK is thrown out uneaten. Good news for the supermarket, not good news for their customers' bank accounts." Why, because we are encouraged by the huge display of variety and abundance to buy more than we need.
A NUMBERS GAME - "But there are lots of traps for the unwary. For example, that eyecatching 'Half-price' or '£1 off' banner might relate to the price-per-kilo, rather than the price-per-pack, meaning that on relatively light items, such as spinach, the heavily-promoted reduction is, in fact, utterly insignificant."".........Equally, when you rush to buy those two-for-the-price-of-one punnets of blueberries, you may not notice that the pack size has been reduced from normal - leaving you paying the same price by weight as before, while thinking you've got a bargain." "...........Incidentally, while greengrocers, butchers and fishmongers tend to advertise their prices in kilos, supermarkets specialise in arbitrary pack sizes, like 225 grams.This makes it far harder for customers to work out how much they are paying for what quantity."
CHANGING PRICES - "Supermarkets are allowed to use 'dynamic pricing' - varying prices to take account of different markets.In practice, some supermarkets use this to charge more where they can get away with it - for example, in a more affluent area. Even within one town, a supermarket chain's prices can vary, so a box of cornflakes in one of their city centre convenience stores may well cost you more than if you bought it in their superstore nearby."
THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR - Sales to help the local school? Think again. "For example, last month the Mail revealed how in order to qualify for a 'free' trampoline worth £3,000 from Tesco, parents would have to spend the equivalent of £1 million at the supermarket tills."
THE SHOPPING 'SNOOP' - "Ever wondered why the person at the check-out is so keen to scan your 'customer loyalty card'? It's not because they're desperate for you to collect as many loyalty points as possible. No, it's so the chain can collate information about your shopping habits - where you shop, what you buy, how often and so on. When linked with the personal details you gave them when you signed up for the scheme, this enables them to target you with promotions by post that are tailored around your shopping habits."
This is only for starters.
If you feel inclined to learn how some supermarkets treat their suppliers and the farmer, then have a look at Felicity Lawrence's book "Not on the Label"
I thought I knew all the tricks but this one was a real shocker. Then their is Tesco's vast real estate, Walmart with ASDA Phew.
JOANNA BLYTHMAN is author of Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets.
What does Beyond Organic mean?
8 March, 2007
Can Ecology and Commerce Coexist?
By Jay Walljasper, Ode.
from Alternet
"Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association, a U.S.-based network of 850,000 socially responsible shoppers, notes, "The good news is that organic foods are growing so fast that no one can keep up with the demand." But he urges consumers and businesses to expand the scope of what it means for a product to be called organic or sustainable. "Fair-trade products are growing even faster than organic in Western nations," Cummins adds. "And another trend that is very big now is to buy local. There's real synergy now with these ideas and the organic movement. We have a perfect storm of massive marketplace interest in new ideas."".....One further idea that now inspires many socially conscious shoppers is supporting small-scale family growers instead of the factory farms that produce an increasingly large share of organic products. Jim Slama -- founder of FamilyFarmed.org -- is about to introduce a new label that will identify food as not only organic but grown by small farmers. "The bottom line is that organic consumers are driven by core values and want companies with those same values," he says. 'Corporate organic doesn't do it for many of them.'"
Now this is all fine and dandy at first glance. But, what has happened is that a few key phrases in the organic regulations, size limitations when it comes to grants, and DEFRA (UK) regulations, to list a few, the bases are loaded against the smallholder. Western governments are playing huge import/export games with food. Cheap meat and vegetables flood the wholesale market such that even though small retailers say they welcome local food, they will not pay more than they have to pay for the cheap imports. DEFRA has been telling farmers for the last few years: Get big or get out. Another example, you are a small shop and you want to buy in organic produce from one of the leading suppliers - it was, the last time I checked, a £25 delivery charge. When you are a small store, this cuts you out. So, only the large can compete. I suggest that the term beyond organic is misused. There is often very little difference in factory organic and factory non-organic farming when it comes to marketing, labour, retailing and distribution. Fair trade, social welfare, cash crops with heart are not aspects of Beyond Organic. Beyond organic stands for a whole-life emphasis on the health of the soil and health of the plants essential for both humans and the animals we eat. The measure of how organic a plant is consists in whether it has been introduced to and enabled to take up the vitamins, minerals and trace elements absolutely essential to human and animal health. Avoiding chemical fertilisers and pesticides is not enough if the soil is not in a fit state to support a plant loaded with the essential nutrients. The Good Gardeners Association, for instance, are working on an inexpensive, hand-held measuring tool which could be used by the consumer to immediately test and access the nutrient content of a vegetable and vital life signs. Common sense tells us that there must be a health difference in a freshly picked apple and an apple that has been stored for months in nitrous oxide. A statement that there is no scientific evidence for this begs the scientific method, not our intuitive sense of what is healthy. This is what it means to go beyond organic.
Can Ecology and Commerce Coexist?
By Jay Walljasper, Ode.
from Alternet
"Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association, a U.S.-based network of 850,000 socially responsible shoppers, notes, "The good news is that organic foods are growing so fast that no one can keep up with the demand." But he urges consumers and businesses to expand the scope of what it means for a product to be called organic or sustainable. "Fair-trade products are growing even faster than organic in Western nations," Cummins adds. "And another trend that is very big now is to buy local. There's real synergy now with these ideas and the organic movement. We have a perfect storm of massive marketplace interest in new ideas."".....One further idea that now inspires many socially conscious shoppers is supporting small-scale family growers instead of the factory farms that produce an increasingly large share of organic products. Jim Slama -- founder of FamilyFarmed.org -- is about to introduce a new label that will identify food as not only organic but grown by small farmers. "The bottom line is that organic consumers are driven by core values and want companies with those same values," he says. 'Corporate organic doesn't do it for many of them.'"
Now this is all fine and dandy at first glance. But, what has happened is that a few key phrases in the organic regulations, size limitations when it comes to grants, and DEFRA (UK) regulations, to list a few, the bases are loaded against the smallholder. Western governments are playing huge import/export games with food. Cheap meat and vegetables flood the wholesale market such that even though small retailers say they welcome local food, they will not pay more than they have to pay for the cheap imports. DEFRA has been telling farmers for the last few years: Get big or get out. Another example, you are a small shop and you want to buy in organic produce from one of the leading suppliers - it was, the last time I checked, a £25 delivery charge. When you are a small store, this cuts you out. So, only the large can compete. I suggest that the term beyond organic is misused. There is often very little difference in factory organic and factory non-organic farming when it comes to marketing, labour, retailing and distribution. Fair trade, social welfare, cash crops with heart are not aspects of Beyond Organic. Beyond organic stands for a whole-life emphasis on the health of the soil and health of the plants essential for both humans and the animals we eat. The measure of how organic a plant is consists in whether it has been introduced to and enabled to take up the vitamins, minerals and trace elements absolutely essential to human and animal health. Avoiding chemical fertilisers and pesticides is not enough if the soil is not in a fit state to support a plant loaded with the essential nutrients. The Good Gardeners Association, for instance, are working on an inexpensive, hand-held measuring tool which could be used by the consumer to immediately test and access the nutrient content of a vegetable and vital life signs. Common sense tells us that there must be a health difference in a freshly picked apple and an apple that has been stored for months in nitrous oxide. A statement that there is no scientific evidence for this begs the scientific method, not our intuitive sense of what is healthy. This is what it means to go beyond organic.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Contaminated rice with human saliva
http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=440302&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
The rice with human genesBy SEAN POULTER - More by this author » Last updated at 08:57am on 6th March 2007
"The first GM food crop containing human genes is set to be approved for commercial production.
The laboratory-created rice produces some of the human proteins found in breast milk and saliva.
Its U.S. developers say they could be used to treat children with diarrhoea, a major killer in the Third World.
The rice is a major step in so-called Frankenstein Foods, the first mingling of human-origin genes and those from plants. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already signalled it plans to allow commercial cultivation.
The rice's producers, California-based Ventria Bioscience, have been given preliminary approval to grow it on more than 3,000 acres in Kansas. The company plans to harvest the proteins and use them in drinks, desserts, yoghurts and muesli bars.
The news provoked horror among GM critics and consumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic.
GeneWatch UK, which monitors new GM foods, described it as "very disturbing". Researcher Becky Price warned: "'There are huge, huge health risks and people should rightly be concerned about this.'"
Such mild words for such a strong and inherently dangerous act by the USDA. Those of us who have always (for 7 years now) opposed GMOs will not oppose this for much the same reason. This is just a farcical, dangerous farcical backdoor effort to gain acceptance for GM. Do we have to suffer all this activity, these various sales efforts before one of them ends in horrible deaths. Now they want to feed it to children who do not have the awareness to oppose it. How do we know that debiliting effects might be postponed for a generation or two? How do they propose to prevent the substance from mutating.Now, I am not going on and on here repeating what is terribly well documented by Mae-Wan Ho and I-SIS. She has done the research, done the homework, teamed up with several giants in the genetic field and advises against it. See her website and organisation:The Institute of Science In Society www.i-sis.org.uk/
I must go on. GM companies have claimed for years that they are doing nothing new; just following age-old techniques. Are you kidding me? Human saliva in rice!This is where they have been heading all along and they have been stringing us along as if we were ignorant. Good science they say. Those of us who oppose are following "bad" science. Those scientists who oppose them are following "Bad" science.
We want our food left alone as Nature has fashioned it safely thru the ages. It has passed the test of time (yes the grains are bigger thru selective breeding, but selective breeding is not this) and is not likely to turn nasty on us or our children.There are natural remedies and drugs if desired to help with child suffering.
LEAVE OUR FOOD ALONE
Sky McCain
The rice with human genesBy SEAN POULTER - More by this author » Last updated at 08:57am on 6th March 2007
"The first GM food crop containing human genes is set to be approved for commercial production.
The laboratory-created rice produces some of the human proteins found in breast milk and saliva.
Its U.S. developers say they could be used to treat children with diarrhoea, a major killer in the Third World.
The rice is a major step in so-called Frankenstein Foods, the first mingling of human-origin genes and those from plants. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already signalled it plans to allow commercial cultivation.
The rice's producers, California-based Ventria Bioscience, have been given preliminary approval to grow it on more than 3,000 acres in Kansas. The company plans to harvest the proteins and use them in drinks, desserts, yoghurts and muesli bars.
The news provoked horror among GM critics and consumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic.
GeneWatch UK, which monitors new GM foods, described it as "very disturbing". Researcher Becky Price warned: "'There are huge, huge health risks and people should rightly be concerned about this.'"
Such mild words for such a strong and inherently dangerous act by the USDA. Those of us who have always (for 7 years now) opposed GMOs will not oppose this for much the same reason. This is just a farcical, dangerous farcical backdoor effort to gain acceptance for GM. Do we have to suffer all this activity, these various sales efforts before one of them ends in horrible deaths. Now they want to feed it to children who do not have the awareness to oppose it. How do we know that debiliting effects might be postponed for a generation or two? How do they propose to prevent the substance from mutating.Now, I am not going on and on here repeating what is terribly well documented by Mae-Wan Ho and I-SIS. She has done the research, done the homework, teamed up with several giants in the genetic field and advises against it. See her website and organisation:The Institute of Science In Society www.i-sis.org.uk/
I must go on. GM companies have claimed for years that they are doing nothing new; just following age-old techniques. Are you kidding me? Human saliva in rice!This is where they have been heading all along and they have been stringing us along as if we were ignorant. Good science they say. Those of us who oppose are following "bad" science. Those scientists who oppose them are following "Bad" science.
We want our food left alone as Nature has fashioned it safely thru the ages. It has passed the test of time (yes the grains are bigger thru selective breeding, but selective breeding is not this) and is not likely to turn nasty on us or our children.There are natural remedies and drugs if desired to help with child suffering.
LEAVE OUR FOOD ALONE
Sky McCain
Friday, 2 March 2007
Global Warming Un Foundation Report
Science Panel Outlines Roadmap for Reducing Risks from Climate Change
UN Foundation
February 27, 2007
It staggers my imagination to read such an incredibly weak and ineffective report summary. When has so much money been spent to tell the public very little more than what they already know? The most profound lack is the complete blindness to what we all know and most will not face and that is that we must radically and quickly change our whole way of life. Huge economic sacrifices must be borne and industrial expansion, must be halted immediately. These radical changes must occur in all walks of life; especially: transportation, transnational shipments of unseasonal food, sweatshop labour of industrial goods for a free trade economy, rainforest destruction, millions of cattle for unnecessary meat protein that emit tons of methane, (each kg of methane warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.) and a minimum-dig, organic fertiliser farming system which eliminates leaving exposed farmland contaminated with tons of ammonium nitrate chemical fertiliser. (per unit of weight, nitrous oxide has 296 times the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) for producing global warming) And this is just for starters.
Please find below a summary of measures recommended and my comments:
• The technology exists to seize significant opportunities around the globe to reduce emissions and provide other economic, environmental and social benefits, including meeting the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. To do so, policy makers must immediately act by:
• Improving efficiency in the transportation sector through measures such as vehicle efficiency standards, fuel taxes, and registration fees/rebates that favor purchase of efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
*********This is entirely too weak and virtually useless. We are looking at plans for road expansion. Is this preparation for fewer vehicles? Fee rebates? Just consider how many years it will take to make a significant impact with fee rebates. And what about air travel? "One short haul flight produces roughly the same amount of the global warming gas as three months worth of driving a 1.4 litre car."
"Record demand for cheap flights has resulted in 21 (mostly regional) airports publishing expansion plans in the last 5 years. They have been spurred on to do so by the Government’s plans to raise plane passenger numbers from 200 million in 2003 to 500 million by 2030." 28 February, The Ecologist. What political party is going to cancel this? ************• Improving design and efficiency of commercial and residential buildings through building codes, standards for equipment and appliances, incentives for property developers and landlords to build and manage properties efficiently, and financing for energy-efficiency investments.
******This implies business as usual with energy savings. We need drastic measures, not slow adaptation. ("The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.") China is building coal-fired generators by the hundreds and is dedicated to unlimited industrial expansion. Neither they nor the Us signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is just one example and one country. Has the United States pledged to halt expansion of energy use? ********************
• Expanding the use of biofuels through energy portfolio standards and incentives to growers and consumers.
*******The Ecologist has published a wonderfully thorough examination of biofuels. Please find below an edited partial version:
19 February, 2007
Is Biofuel a solution or an even bigger problem?
Biofuels - facts and fiction
The Ecologist
Claim 1: You get more out than you put in
For more than 15 years, David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University in New York, and his colleague, Professor Tad Patzek at Berkeley, have published peer-reviewed research showing that biofuels give out less energy when burnt than was used in their manufacture.
By using a ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach – measuring all the energy inputs to the production of ethanol from the production of nitrogen fertiliser, through to the energy required to clean up the waste from bio-refineries – they have shown that while it takes 6,597 kilocalories of nonrenewable energy to produce a litre of ethanol from corn, that same litre contains only 5,130 kilocalories of energy – a 22 per cent loss.(1) (1) (Pimentel, D & Patzek, T, 2005, ‘Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower’, Natural Resources Research, 14:1.)
Claim 2: It makes economic sense
In 2006, the American government handed out between $5.1 and $6.8 billion in ethanol subsidies. These include payments made to farmers, tax breaks given to refiners and payments made under carbon reduction programmes.(12) But instead of these subsidies finding their way into farmers’ pockets, they are instead swelling the accounts of several large biofuel manufacturers.(13) (Pimentel & Patzek, 2005:67.)
One company, Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM, one of the world’s largest agribusiness companies), accounted for nearly 28 per cent of the US ethanol industry in 2006.(14) According to attorney Arnold Reitze, Professor of Environmental Law and Director of the Environmental Life Programme at George Washington University Law School, every dollar of ADM’s profit has cost US taxpayers $30. To ensure the continuation of ethanol subsidies, the Renewable Fuels Association (of which ADM is a member) had reportedly contributed $772,000 to Republican coffers between 1991 and 1992.
Claim 3: It is the solution to our energy problems
Recent figures show that if high-yield bio-energy crops were grown on all the farmland on earth, the resulting fuel would account for only 20 per cent of our current demand.(19)(http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=380) The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published research which shows that more than 70 per cent of Europe’s farmland would be required for biofuel crops to account for even 10 per cent of road transport fuel.
But there are more basic reasons why biofuels cannot be the answer to our energy problems. A normal petrol engine cannot run on more than a 15 per cent ethanol blend, and it is considered too expensive to modify a car after manufacture.(20,21) Given that the average life expectancy of a vehicle is 14 years,(22)9Asia Times Online, Beware the Ethanol Hype, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH01Dj01.html)
it would take approximately this long to replace the current petrol fleet. By 2021, however, it could already be too late to make a difference to serious global warming.(23)(23) Monbiot, 'Heat')
Claim 4: It's clean and safe
The biofuels ethanol and biodiesel are often referred to as ‘clean-burning’ fuels, and much has been made of their lower emissions of carbon monoxide. However, analyses of exhaust emissions from cars burning ethanol show an increase in nitrogen oxides, acetaldehyde and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate.(30)(Patzek, 2004:63.)
Likewise, cars burning biodiesel have been shown to emit higher levels of nitrogen oxides than those burning mineral diesel. Nitrous oxides are powerful greenhouse gases and can lead to the depletion of atmospheric ozone. At low levels they can react with VOCs and create low-level ozone, which can give rise to urban smog and respiratory problems.
When ethanol is blended with gasoline it makes the entire fuel more volatile. This means that it is more likely to evaporate, especially in the summer, through rubber and plastic parts of the fuel system. A study by the California Air Quality Board in 2004 found that blending ethanol with petrol increased fuel evaporation by 14 to 18 per cent.(31)(Hancock, 2005, cited by Patzek, 2004:63.) This means a higher quantity of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions, as the fuel dissipates from vehicle tanks.
Mark Anslow is a reporter for The Ecologist
Biofuels is just NOT the answer************************
• Beginning immediately, designing and deploying only coal power-plant types that can be affordably retrofitted to capture and sequester CO2.
********I have no criticism of this possibility except two questions. Who decides what is affordable? At what cost is it not worth it?*****************
We need active timetables for a quick decrease in our standard of energy consumption NOW.
We need also to concentrate our research on what is causing the increased warming and not what is causing the increased carbon dioxide, especially when you consider that melting of the permafrost will release tons of methane, the ozone layer continues to be wrecked and most importantly, the 4th IPCC report contained the following paragraph that got absolutely no press coverage: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit." So my question is: We know that we have destroyed significantly Gaia's land carbon dioxide absorption capabilities by wiping out trees. How much more global warming will occur as a result of non- anthropogenic, cyclic combination of planetary tilt, wobble and orbit? In other words what more interglacial warming will the orbital forcing (Milankovich cycles) cause? I don't believe we know and suggest we find out pronto. (plenty fast!)
Best wishes to all,
Sky McCain
2 March, 2007
UN Foundation
February 27, 2007
It staggers my imagination to read such an incredibly weak and ineffective report summary. When has so much money been spent to tell the public very little more than what they already know? The most profound lack is the complete blindness to what we all know and most will not face and that is that we must radically and quickly change our whole way of life. Huge economic sacrifices must be borne and industrial expansion, must be halted immediately. These radical changes must occur in all walks of life; especially: transportation, transnational shipments of unseasonal food, sweatshop labour of industrial goods for a free trade economy, rainforest destruction, millions of cattle for unnecessary meat protein that emit tons of methane, (each kg of methane warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2.) and a minimum-dig, organic fertiliser farming system which eliminates leaving exposed farmland contaminated with tons of ammonium nitrate chemical fertiliser. (per unit of weight, nitrous oxide has 296 times the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) for producing global warming) And this is just for starters.
Please find below a summary of measures recommended and my comments:
• The technology exists to seize significant opportunities around the globe to reduce emissions and provide other economic, environmental and social benefits, including meeting the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. To do so, policy makers must immediately act by:
• Improving efficiency in the transportation sector through measures such as vehicle efficiency standards, fuel taxes, and registration fees/rebates that favor purchase of efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
*********This is entirely too weak and virtually useless. We are looking at plans for road expansion. Is this preparation for fewer vehicles? Fee rebates? Just consider how many years it will take to make a significant impact with fee rebates. And what about air travel? "One short haul flight produces roughly the same amount of the global warming gas as three months worth of driving a 1.4 litre car."
"Record demand for cheap flights has resulted in 21 (mostly regional) airports publishing expansion plans in the last 5 years. They have been spurred on to do so by the Government’s plans to raise plane passenger numbers from 200 million in 2003 to 500 million by 2030." 28 February, The Ecologist. What political party is going to cancel this? ************• Improving design and efficiency of commercial and residential buildings through building codes, standards for equipment and appliances, incentives for property developers and landlords to build and manage properties efficiently, and financing for energy-efficiency investments.
******This implies business as usual with energy savings. We need drastic measures, not slow adaptation. ("The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.") China is building coal-fired generators by the hundreds and is dedicated to unlimited industrial expansion. Neither they nor the Us signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is just one example and one country. Has the United States pledged to halt expansion of energy use? ********************
• Expanding the use of biofuels through energy portfolio standards and incentives to growers and consumers.
*******The Ecologist has published a wonderfully thorough examination of biofuels. Please find below an edited partial version:
19 February, 2007
Is Biofuel a solution or an even bigger problem?
Biofuels - facts and fiction
The Ecologist
Claim 1: You get more out than you put in
For more than 15 years, David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agriculture at Cornell University in New York, and his colleague, Professor Tad Patzek at Berkeley, have published peer-reviewed research showing that biofuels give out less energy when burnt than was used in their manufacture.
By using a ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach – measuring all the energy inputs to the production of ethanol from the production of nitrogen fertiliser, through to the energy required to clean up the waste from bio-refineries – they have shown that while it takes 6,597 kilocalories of nonrenewable energy to produce a litre of ethanol from corn, that same litre contains only 5,130 kilocalories of energy – a 22 per cent loss.(1) (1) (Pimentel, D & Patzek, T, 2005, ‘Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower’, Natural Resources Research, 14:1.)
Claim 2: It makes economic sense
In 2006, the American government handed out between $5.1 and $6.8 billion in ethanol subsidies. These include payments made to farmers, tax breaks given to refiners and payments made under carbon reduction programmes.(12) But instead of these subsidies finding their way into farmers’ pockets, they are instead swelling the accounts of several large biofuel manufacturers.(13) (Pimentel & Patzek, 2005:67.)
One company, Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM, one of the world’s largest agribusiness companies), accounted for nearly 28 per cent of the US ethanol industry in 2006.(14) According to attorney Arnold Reitze, Professor of Environmental Law and Director of the Environmental Life Programme at George Washington University Law School, every dollar of ADM’s profit has cost US taxpayers $30. To ensure the continuation of ethanol subsidies, the Renewable Fuels Association (of which ADM is a member) had reportedly contributed $772,000 to Republican coffers between 1991 and 1992.
Claim 3: It is the solution to our energy problems
Recent figures show that if high-yield bio-energy crops were grown on all the farmland on earth, the resulting fuel would account for only 20 per cent of our current demand.(19)(http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=380) The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published research which shows that more than 70 per cent of Europe’s farmland would be required for biofuel crops to account for even 10 per cent of road transport fuel.
But there are more basic reasons why biofuels cannot be the answer to our energy problems. A normal petrol engine cannot run on more than a 15 per cent ethanol blend, and it is considered too expensive to modify a car after manufacture.(20,21) Given that the average life expectancy of a vehicle is 14 years,(22)9Asia Times Online, Beware the Ethanol Hype, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH01Dj01.html)
it would take approximately this long to replace the current petrol fleet. By 2021, however, it could already be too late to make a difference to serious global warming.(23)(23) Monbiot, 'Heat')
Claim 4: It's clean and safe
The biofuels ethanol and biodiesel are often referred to as ‘clean-burning’ fuels, and much has been made of their lower emissions of carbon monoxide. However, analyses of exhaust emissions from cars burning ethanol show an increase in nitrogen oxides, acetaldehyde and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate.(30)(Patzek, 2004:63.)
Likewise, cars burning biodiesel have been shown to emit higher levels of nitrogen oxides than those burning mineral diesel. Nitrous oxides are powerful greenhouse gases and can lead to the depletion of atmospheric ozone. At low levels they can react with VOCs and create low-level ozone, which can give rise to urban smog and respiratory problems.
When ethanol is blended with gasoline it makes the entire fuel more volatile. This means that it is more likely to evaporate, especially in the summer, through rubber and plastic parts of the fuel system. A study by the California Air Quality Board in 2004 found that blending ethanol with petrol increased fuel evaporation by 14 to 18 per cent.(31)(Hancock, 2005, cited by Patzek, 2004:63.) This means a higher quantity of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions, as the fuel dissipates from vehicle tanks.
Mark Anslow is a reporter for The Ecologist
Biofuels is just NOT the answer************************
• Beginning immediately, designing and deploying only coal power-plant types that can be affordably retrofitted to capture and sequester CO2.
********I have no criticism of this possibility except two questions. Who decides what is affordable? At what cost is it not worth it?*****************
We need active timetables for a quick decrease in our standard of energy consumption NOW.
We need also to concentrate our research on what is causing the increased warming and not what is causing the increased carbon dioxide, especially when you consider that melting of the permafrost will release tons of methane, the ozone layer continues to be wrecked and most importantly, the 4th IPCC report contained the following paragraph that got absolutely no press coverage: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit." So my question is: We know that we have destroyed significantly Gaia's land carbon dioxide absorption capabilities by wiping out trees. How much more global warming will occur as a result of non- anthropogenic, cyclic combination of planetary tilt, wobble and orbit? In other words what more interglacial warming will the orbital forcing (Milankovich cycles) cause? I don't believe we know and suggest we find out pronto. (plenty fast!)
Best wishes to all,
Sky McCain
2 March, 2007
Ethanol
26 February, 2007
Factories Around the World Consider Halting Production of Biofuels as Price SoarsLess than a month after George Bush used his State of the Union address to announce that the US would use biofuels to achieve energy independence, companies across the globe are threatening to stop production because of rising prices.
"Corn prices reached a 10-year high yesterday for the second successive day when they touched $4.31 a bushel, up five cents. This increase, at the same time when oil prices are at the same level they were a year ago confirms doubts raised by biofuels critics.
But the doubling of the price of corn, a main feedstock for US ethanol producers, over the past year at a time when oil prices are at the same level they were 12 months ago has raised questions over the viability of the biofuels industry without heavy government support."
".......High grain prices create problems for biofuels companies which produce ethanol from wheat and barley. Other biofuels companies make biodiesel from oil-bearing crops such as soya, peanuts, palm oil and rapeseed. The prices for most of these commodities have also risen sharply, reflecting the competition between demand for these crops as food and demand for them to produce fuel."
".....Brazil is the world's biggest producer of ethanol, and its industry will be unaffected by high grain prices because its producers use sugar cane rather than wheat.
Brazilian companies have been repeatedly accused of illegally clearing rainforest to plant crops for biofuel production."
This month's issue of the Ecologist, available in newsagents now, features a 19-page special report on biofuels.
http://www.theecologist.org:80/archive_detail.asp?content_id=770
Sky's Comment: What ethanol producers really want is a government subsidy so that the taxpayers will fund their growth. The major middle-people such as Cargill and ADM have been soaking the public through farming subsidies for years. The irony here is huge. Not a week goes by that I am not reminded as to my obligation to help feed the poverty stricken and starving millions. Now we have millions of acres which have been in the past used for food production switched over to meet the ethanol demand. This ethanol demand is fueled by the utterly mindless 3 car garages filled with an SUV for holidays, a junker for shopping and a swish sedan for the wage earner to drive to work. It is also fueled by transportation costs of shipping grain from recently chopped rainforest. (the soil is carbon deficient allowing only a year or two of crops. Then comes the super with its shippng cost, nitrate runoff and nitrous oxide, the most harmful greenhouse gas. So, as a double irony, you have the primary sink for carbon dioxide on the land chopped down to make room for grain to produce ethanol to save on emissions causing excess carbon dioxide. If this is our response to global warming, then we will certainly see the social and economic devastation which will result from excessive grenhouse gases. What comes to mind is the talk of humans as co-creators of the Earth's destiny and also the vision of humans colonising other planets. Oh please, let it not be true. We have sent up cannisters into space with indications of what earth creatures and humans are like. Let there be a warning to all to keep us away.
Factories Around the World Consider Halting Production of Biofuels as Price SoarsLess than a month after George Bush used his State of the Union address to announce that the US would use biofuels to achieve energy independence, companies across the globe are threatening to stop production because of rising prices.
"Corn prices reached a 10-year high yesterday for the second successive day when they touched $4.31 a bushel, up five cents. This increase, at the same time when oil prices are at the same level they were a year ago confirms doubts raised by biofuels critics.
But the doubling of the price of corn, a main feedstock for US ethanol producers, over the past year at a time when oil prices are at the same level they were 12 months ago has raised questions over the viability of the biofuels industry without heavy government support."
".......High grain prices create problems for biofuels companies which produce ethanol from wheat and barley. Other biofuels companies make biodiesel from oil-bearing crops such as soya, peanuts, palm oil and rapeseed. The prices for most of these commodities have also risen sharply, reflecting the competition between demand for these crops as food and demand for them to produce fuel."
".....Brazil is the world's biggest producer of ethanol, and its industry will be unaffected by high grain prices because its producers use sugar cane rather than wheat.
Brazilian companies have been repeatedly accused of illegally clearing rainforest to plant crops for biofuel production."
This month's issue of the Ecologist, available in newsagents now, features a 19-page special report on biofuels.
http://www.theecologist.org:80/archive_detail.asp?content_id=770
Sky's Comment: What ethanol producers really want is a government subsidy so that the taxpayers will fund their growth. The major middle-people such as Cargill and ADM have been soaking the public through farming subsidies for years. The irony here is huge. Not a week goes by that I am not reminded as to my obligation to help feed the poverty stricken and starving millions. Now we have millions of acres which have been in the past used for food production switched over to meet the ethanol demand. This ethanol demand is fueled by the utterly mindless 3 car garages filled with an SUV for holidays, a junker for shopping and a swish sedan for the wage earner to drive to work. It is also fueled by transportation costs of shipping grain from recently chopped rainforest. (the soil is carbon deficient allowing only a year or two of crops. Then comes the super with its shippng cost, nitrate runoff and nitrous oxide, the most harmful greenhouse gas. So, as a double irony, you have the primary sink for carbon dioxide on the land chopped down to make room for grain to produce ethanol to save on emissions causing excess carbon dioxide. If this is our response to global warming, then we will certainly see the social and economic devastation which will result from excessive grenhouse gases. What comes to mind is the talk of humans as co-creators of the Earth's destiny and also the vision of humans colonising other planets. Oh please, let it not be true. We have sent up cannisters into space with indications of what earth creatures and humans are like. Let there be a warning to all to keep us away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)