Virgin To Spend 3 Billion On Renewable Energy
Now if only every large company in the world did this.
from here
Out of an estimated $7.3 billion pledged to address issues such as poverty, disease, conflict and climate change at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) last week, nearly half of it will go toward renewable energy projects thanks to a $3 billion pledge by British business mogul Sir Richard Branson.
…
“If we can develop alternative fuels, if people can take risks on developing enzymes, if we can try to get cellulosic ethanol, then replace the dirty fuels that we are using at the moment. Then I think we have got a great future, I do,” said Branson at the CGI.
The 10-year, $3 billion commitment follows the launch of his newest company earlier this month, Virgin Fuels, which pledged to invest up to $400 million dollars in renewable energy initiatives over the next three years, starting with the California-based ethanol company, Cilion, Inc.
“What Richard Branson did here is truly wonderful. But you don’t have to have $3 billion to commit over ten years to replicate it. It will get a lot of press because of the staggering dollar amount and because he is brilliant and charismatic. …The most important thing Richard Branson has done is to remind us that yes, we need government changes. Yes, we need rule changes,” said President Clinton in his closing address last week at the CGI.
“But for those of us who aren’t in and can’t make those changes, except to vote for different policies when we get the chance in our respective countries, there is today a staggering set of economic opportunities that will yield good return on investment, to reduce the threat of global warming, create new jobs, start new businesses, promote greater equality, as well as a sustainable environment,” continued President Clinton. “That is the real lesson of the Branson commitment, and therefore, all of us can participate in that, going forward.”
The great part about all of this is that Virgin gets great press, the world gets much needed funds, and the human race (with the help of many other people) may just have a small chance at not going extinct. Now every other rich person in the world needs to drop a couple billion for renewable energy and we will on the right path.
Edit:
Thanks for Kieth for bringing to my attention that not everyone is as pleased as I am about Virgins actions.
From here
According to the government’s formula, each kilometre travelled by an airline passenger on a long-haul flight accounts for 0.11kg of carbon dioxide. The Guardian calculated that offsetting Virgin Atlantic’s entire annual flight operation would involve planting 59m trees.
Many environmentalists argue the booming market in cheap flights is a disaster for the climate and have called on politicians to legislate so that the truer environmental cost is reflected in ticket prices, driving down demand.
The environmentalist George Monbiot, a Guardian columnist, argued this week that there were no easy technological answers to curb carbon dioxide emissions by aircraft and that the situation would only be improved by cutting the number of planes.
I am somewhat disappointed that this money will mainly be going towards bio-fuels, which I see more as a band-aid and not so much a solution to the global warming problem. Its more of a crutch to wean us off of fossil fuels and then to bio-fuels, and then no fuel at all (electric cars powered by energy from wind and solar).
The Problem With Plastics
Keith has written another great article over at the Earth Blog. This time he tackles the problems with plastics.
Look around you, and what do you see? If you are in or around a modern building, vehicle or other man-made structure then the chances are that you will be able to see some plastic. I can see a printer, a scanner, some speakers, a desk tidy, CD cases, a clothes airer, some video cases, a moulded plug, a keyboard, mouse and monitor case. Can you imagine these things without plastic existing?
If we were to remove plastic from our world then modern society would, literally, fall apart. The use of oil, synthetic chemicals, plastics and high technology form a cluster of things around which we have built modern society, and which most of us could probably not imagine living without.
Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
Well they have finally gone and done it. Our president now has the right to declare anyone, anyplace, at anytime an enemy combatant (even U.S. Citizens in America) and detain them indefinitely without trial. I wonder if we will all get used to living in a dictatorship. Simply put our President is now able to do whatever the fuck he pleases and its legal legal legal, thanks to the stupid fuck wits that we call our representatives. Nothing like throwing away a couple hundred years of civil/legal/human rights so that you can fight your war on terror without any niggling legal battles.
THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU DID! They can just pick you up and you vanish.
from here
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
…
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
from here
The White House is further rewriting the torture and self-absolution legislation that is currently sailing through congress.
Now the real targets turn out to be you and me. The new version of the law would allow the CIA and the U.S. military:
indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, “has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States” or its military allies.
With a bit of phantasy, and this administration will come up with a lot of such, one can read quite some doings falling under this wording.
* A gift to Hizbullah to rebuild a hospital in south Lebanon? - Material support to hostilities …
* Donation of drugs to Iraqi hospitals under al-Sadr control? - Material support to hostilities …
* Writing a book arguing against the Worldbank? - Material support to hostilities …
* Commenting in a blog against the Saudi regime? - Material support to hostilities …Also notice how the tense of the laws wording reaches into the past.
How about people who have acted in support of North Vietnam? Jane Fonda, welcome to Gitmo!
We further learn:
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant.
So this will apply to every human being. And, of course, no complaining will be allowed:
Under a separate provision, those held by the CIA or the U.S. military as an unlawful enemy combatant would be barred from challenging their detention or the conditions of their treatment in U.S. courts unless they were first tried, convicted and appealed their conviction.
The White House frames this into the “terrorism” junk:
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “We are satisfied with the definition because it will allow us to prosecute the terrorists, and it also has important limitations that say a terrorist must have purposefully and materially supported terrorism.”
But that is not what the law says. The law is about “hostilities against the United States and it military allies”, not about “terrorism”.
With this, the legal fishing net just got a lot larger and the meshes became smaller. Even us small fish may be caught in it.
(Bonus bullshit quote:
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) defended the provision, saying alien enemy combatants are not “entitled to rights under the United States Constitution similar to those accorded to a defendant in a criminal lawsuit.”
Mr. Cornyn, maybe not to similar rights, but doesn´t this still apply: We hold these Truths to be self-evident …)
from here
Yesterday I explained that the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” (UEC) in the latest draft of the detainee bill was so ridiculously broad and open-ended that it could not possibly be intended to establish the authority of the Executive to militarily detain all persons so defined.
But it appears I underestimated the gall and recklessness of the Administration and Congress, because there seems to be a fairly widespread understanding that the definition would do just that. Even Human Rights First seems to agree that “unlawful enemy combatants” would be subject to indefinite detention.
Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any “person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces).” And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how “materially supported hostilities” is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).
from here
BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.
This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops “during an armed conflict,” it also allows him to seize anybody who has “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.
Not to worry though our government would never actually detain and torture people…that’s just silly.
Never Forget
California Goes Head To Head With Big Six Car Companies
In more California news, it seem the state of California is going to take the big six auto makers to court because they have done such a good job of fucking up the environment. Specifically the fact that they have contributed so much to global warming.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles’ emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.
“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing,” said Lockyer. “Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.”
Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit. Lockyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California.
The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a “public nuisance” is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.
As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint.
“Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens,” the complaint alleges. “California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future.” Dealing with global warming’s harmful effects, the complaint adds, “will almost certainly cost millions more.”
Today’s filing comes as Lockyer fights the auto industry’s attempt to invalidate California’s landmark global warming regulations curbing tailpipe emissions. In their federal-court lawsuit, the automakers claim the regulations, adopted in 2005 through legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, are pre-empted by federal law. Lockyer is defending the rules against the industry’s legal challenge.
Lockyer noted the Bush Administration’s inaction on global warming has forced California and other states to take action on their own. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit filed by Lockyer, 11 other Attorneys General, two cities and major environmental groups challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous parties have submitted amicus briefs supporting the states, including climate scientists, three former EPA Administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and environmental and religious groups.
In addition, Lockyer, along with nine other state Attorneys General, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the Bush Administration’s new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. That complaint alleges the rules fail to address the effects on the environment and global warming.
California is particularly vulnerable to global warming impacts. According to a report recently submitted by the Climate Action Team to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the consequences of climate change in California will be “severe.”
“We are seeing the harmful impacts of global warming today, and if we continue with ‘business as usual,’ we can expect to see more and larger impacts in the future,” said Lockyer. “As a coastal state, an agricultural state, and a state that relies on its Sierra snow pack, California has an enormous stake in acting now to combat global warming.”
Read the public nuisance complaint here (pdf)
Read the expert take on global warming on car emissions here (pdf)
read the Gaurdians take on it here
America’s most populous state, California, opened a new front in its struggle with climate change yesterday when it announced that it was suing the six largest carmakers in the US for allegedly contributing to global warming.
In the unprecedented lawsuit, the state accused Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a “public nuisance” and costing it millions of dollars. Environmental campaigners hailed the lawsuit as a landmark event in the effort to deal with global warming.
The Governator Strikes Again
Just when you though you had seen everything Arnold is up to some good for a change. This guy is so hard to read, he goes left when you think he is gonna go right, zig’s when you think he is gonna zag. Today he signed into law the nations strictest global warming reduction laws. Some might think he was forced to do so because of his dismal ratings…but the point it it got done. And as we all know where California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. (via)
SAN FRANCISCO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed into law the nation’s strictest greenhouse-gas emission cuts, aiming to reduce the global-warming pollution by a quarter by 2020.
AB 32’s signing marks the start of “a bold new era of environmental protection here in California that will change the course of history,” the governor told politicians, business leaders and environmental advocates at the signing ceremony under leaden skies on Treasure Island’s breezy shoreline. “This is something we owe our children and that we owe our grandchildren.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, linked live via satellite, said Schwarzenegger and lawmakers have shown “brilliant leadership that will excite and inspire a lot of people worldwide.”
“You guys have set yourself a really bold target but I think that’s right, that’s important,” Blair said, adding that Great Britain set and met its emissions-reduction standards while growing its economy. He said he hopes California’s action will prod the United States, China, India and other nations to join the international community for a more binding global pact after the Kyoto Protocols expire in 2012.
AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to develop and implement regulations and market mechanisms to cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990’s levels by 2020 — a 25 percent cut — and then 80 percent more by 2050. Mandatory caps will begin in 2012 for significant sources and then ratchet down to meet the 2020 goal.
New York Gov. George Pataki was at the signing ceremony, and said that although New York and California are a continent apart, “on issues such as this we share a common vision.” New York was the launching pad for a seven-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative compact signed earlier this year which created a cap-and-trade system limiting power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.
“We cannot wait and follow others — we have to lead ourselves,” Pataki said, adding more must be done to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil exported by “unfriendly regimes like Hugo Chavez” of Venezuela.
Pataki’s words seemed to underscore the event’s political context: self-styled moderate Republican governors breaking from the Bush administration’s inaction to embrace an environmental issue near and dear to many Democrats’ and independents’ hearts.
Democratic gubernatorial contender Phil Angelides and some environmental activists have noted that Schwarzenegger tried to gut this bill by putting a board of his own political appointees in charge of its enforcement and granting that panel power to ease the deadlines if compliance would be “detrimental to the California economy.”
Schwarzenegger was “dragged kicking and screaming” to this agreement, Angelides said last week in San Francisco, and is signing it only as an effort to “greenwash” his record as he seeks re-election. On Wednesday, protesters sat atop a row of Hummer vehicles near the signing site, bearing signs that read, “Gas Guzzlers for Arnold.”
But Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, beamed as he shook the governor’s hand Wednesday and thanked him “for demonstrating leadership, for demonstrating courage.” Nunez co-authored AB 32 with Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills.
Beautiful
Original post by Scytle
Monday Confessional
Another Monday brings another adventure. I have purchased a new computer, and can now type this at any speed. No longer will I have to wait for each letter to show up on the screen. Hurrah! In other fun news the members learned how to rescue stranded dolphins today. I loved it the first time, and found it no less fascinating this time. They are now all trained in the mystery of the dolphin. (and seals too!) You can see how I put my dolphin stranding training to good use in the positive change section of The Sietch.
We had a bit of a ruff start today, seeing as how we were over one hour EARLY. Seems that someone (me) had dropped the ball a little. Oh well, at least everyone else had messed up the same way. We dropped the ball as a team, and that’s what is important.
I had a wonderful weekend. I got to spend a lot of time with Tess, which was super fun. I also learned that she is a much better runner than I am, and that the course that I have been running which I thought was 2 miles is actually three. Go me! Got to get ready for my small portion of the upcoming marathon. We are so not going to win, but I still want to do my best.
I am reading a new book “the fabric of the cosmos” by Brian Green (the guy who wrote The Elegant Universe) its good so far. Right now he is exploring the fabric of space, time and space-time. I love this sort of stuff, forcing your mind to try and learn new things, or trying to understand stuff you already know better, or from a new perspective. I have not had a chance to get into a good book over the last couple of weeks so its nice that things have calmed down a little.
I am going to have to go to bed early so I can get up and do all this over again. The members are finally starting to show signs of sleep deprivation which has caused the late late nights to slow down. This is good as my room seems to be in the one spot in the house that can hear ANY noise. I hear the flushing, the showering, the talking, the walking, the TV, the microwave, all of it. I have never been a good sleeper, and this is not helping. I think I may have started to adapt to it, or the members have just been so tired that they are not up to making loud noises. Either way its good.
Yar And Avast Me Hardies!
It be talk like a Pirate day YAR!!!! So in the interest of fun here be several pirate jokes I know…yar!
Why are pirate ships made of wood?
Because they yARRR!
Did you see the new pirate movie?
It’s rated yARRRR!
This be all, return to your blubberin!
Swab the poop deck, and scuttle me yard arm!!!
500th Post!!!
Yes that’s right, this little blog has had half a thousand posts in the year and change that it has been around. I would like to thank everyone who has helped out, added their ideas and inspiration, and look forward to the next 500!
RSS XML Feed
