Juan Enriquez: Why can't we grow new energy?

Juan Enriquez: Why can't we grow new energy?

"Juan Enriquez challenges our definition of bioenergy. Oil, coal, gas and other hydrocarbons are not chemical but biological products, based on plant matter -- and thus, growable. Our whole approach to fuel, he argues, needs to change."

"Juan Enriquez thinks and writes about the profound changes that genomics and other life sciences will cause in business, technology, politics and society. Full bio and more links"

TED: Ideas worth spreading

Is Climate Alarmism A Threat?

I've done a lengthy blog post on a report from the swedish think tank Timbro, about the climate debate as a potential environmental threat. If you know some swedish then you can read about it here.

If you are interested in knowing more about this report, then contact Timbro by going to their site.

The report from Holdstock and Poirier Martinsson does bring up a connection between the reports from a governmental institution working with environmental goals, and the swedish media.

H & PM show that the reports have become more centralised in favouring the climate goal, thus pushing the other environmental goals away from the agenda.

H & PM bring up a lot of interesting data and connections which makes me think that this is a real phenomenon. However, they only mention the possibility that media reports and their climate alarmism can be a threat to the environment. They do not really link anything substantial to this claim.

Nevertheless, this report is rather interesting since the results show that the media have been favouring certain kinds of reports rather than others.

Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus On "Global Warming Alarmism"

The Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who holds the European Union presidency at the moment, condems "global warming alarmism" in a recent speech.

The "alarmists" are not concerned about environmental micro management and they do not have an acceptable view concerning risks. They are infact misusing climate change information in their quest to expand the role of government.

In other words, they are using climate crisis as a scapegoat to expand profits and the role of government. This is a very negative attitude and citizens lose their sense of knowing which threats are worth fighting and which risks that should be taken seriously - both locally and globally.

We are allowed to doubt views that are taken for granted in the name of science. Doubt and skepticism is also science and should be taken seriously. If all views are allowed within a scientific community, then different views will in time, come to dissolve themselves. Stupid or unpredictable research or hypothetical frameworks, will over time, fall apart and shift towards a new paradigm. However, we have to allow theoretical and hypotetical frameworks that are against the current paradigm.

All scientific facts are always already packaged interpretations, which come from interpretation of scientific data and imagined models.

Swedish Toxicologist On Environmental Frenzy

Swedish toxicologist professor Robert Nilsson at Stockholm University had an article in today's DN about the environmental frenzy. His concern is directed towards the fact that swedish governmental insitutions lack the general insights as to what real threats against our environment are.

What is a real environmental threat anyway? Environmental extremism or fundamentalism can really cloud our judgements as to what is a real threat and we cannot really trust our governmental institutions in these matters.

If you want to know more about radiation, particles in the air and other toxic related stuff, then you have to gather information from several sources.

I for one do not really know if all the particles, data and transmissions in the air is hazardous or not. I have no way of knowing this without looking at scientific facts or trying to sense how I am feeling. I will not entirely trust any external sources in these matters nor will I force my beliefs onto someone else, but I cannot go and hide from all the dangerous stuff either; I will not avoid the debates and discussions concerning these matters.

The institutions rely on different kinds of labelling and categorization. The climate friendly, ecological and the environmental friendly have gone from being serious concepts, to becoming static clusters of non-meaning with economic and political connotations.

When I hear these concepts in the media or in politics they feel so dated and stagnated. I still buy a lot of ecological stuff when i buy food and I like to have that option, however, politicians use our awareness and our fear in order to change and manipulate us, as well as the politics and our society as a whole.

Even though there are real threats, politicians tend to make us believe that everything is a threat. There is a sort of notion in swedish politics that citizens are stupid and cannot know what is good for our society and our environment. The political situation is even worse when intellectuals and scientists are not allowed to have different opinions on these concepts and about the so called threats.

The politics as well the different opinions and 'facts' are shoved down our throats and we are not allowed to have different opinions because different opinions can be 'dangerous'. That is the worst possible climate for an intellectual debate and a serious perspective on science. This is proof of a poor insight as to what type of threats we have to address first.

We cannot shut down our socio-economical structures and industries when we are going to battle climate change. We have to embrace all possibilities, technologies as well as be highly progressive. One has to realize that the world's climate is changing over time and that we cannot blame everything on mankind. The earth has always had different time periods of climate change.

We cannot just neglect or reject all the research on our sun, the oceans as well as our air when we are looking into what is 'causing' this.

I presume that cause & effect in this matter is more complex than what politicians are willing to admit or even understand. The one thing that I am concerned about is that people are excluded from the general media as well as debates simply because they have different opinions from the given facts handed down by the European Parliament as well as the swedish government.

What about Nilsson then? What does he think? Well, he blames the ignorant and clueless politicians of course. He also points our that we have gotten worse products since the alarmism started and that these concepts have weakened our economy.

Has anyone noticed how quiet all environmentalists became after the recent economic recession?

Poetry

I have not yet found any interesting thing to write about during '09, however, I am sure that I will have something to write about soon. I have been writing more for one of my other blogs and I have been neglecting Eco & Ethics.

I just posted a text in swedish about forests and assemblages on my other blog, but I thought that I could post parts of it here as well. This is a poem by Wendell Berry on the topic of planting trees:

Planting trees av Wendell Berry

In the mating of trees,
the pollen grain entering invisible
the domed room of the winds, survives
the ghost of the old forest
that stood here when we came. The ground
invites it, and it will not be gone.
I become the familiar of that ghost
and its ally, carrying in a bucket
twenty trees smaller than weeds,
and I plant them along the way
of the departure of the ancient host.
I return to the ground its original music.
It will rise out of the horizon
of the grass, and over the heads
of the weeds, and it will rise over
the horizon of men’s heads. As I age
in the world it will rise and spread,
and be for this place horizon
and orison, the voice of the winds.
I have made myself a dream to dream
of its rising, that has gentled my nights.
Let me desire and wish well the life
these trees may live when I
no longer rise in the mornings
to be pleased by the green of them
shining, and their shadows on the ground,
and the sound of the wind in them.

European Parliament seals climate change package

Now I can understand why the 20 swedish researchers in various fields have had a hard time publishing their article today.

The European Parliament are as of today backing EU's new climate change package which is meant to enable that the EU will live up to its climate targets by 2020:

"a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix."

Looks good on paper but, isn't this rather unrealistic?

A majority of the parliament voted for this package, however, some swedish politicians are critical concerning the fact that the percentage of the greenhouse gas emission reductions are going to be greater "outside" the European Union, than "inside".

Bear in mind that a lot of the economic heavyweights within the European Union are responsible for a lot of industrial emissions. Backing a package like this should mean that the restrictions and regressive actions should concern the European Union and solely members of this political and economical construct.

The parliament are thereby favouring a proposition that means that other countries outside the European Union will be affected more than countries within the European Union itself. This means that poorly developed countries are threatened to reduce their emissions, leading to industrial regression rather than economical progression.

The package also includes new restrictions for automobile emissions. However, these restrictions are less restricting than the guidelines prior to the climate package. They are actually backing something that is more fair than before. We might see an increase of emissions caused by automobile industry due to this package! It is not that unlikely.

Politicians are saying something, but in reality they are doing something completely foreign as to what they are telling us.

An Unpublished Article On The Climate

20 swedish researchers in various fields have had a hard time getting published recently. Why? you may ask.

Well, they have written about the research on the climate crisis and climate change as something that, generally speaking, has been ignoring all other possible explanations on what causes the "global warming".

There is a general consensus favouring of the carbon emissions thesis. Let me remind you that it is the thesis that has its own fabricated market with carbon "offsets". Moreover, it seems as if the computer generated models of the calculated effects of carbon emissions is a bigger problem than what the IPCC wants to admit or acknowledge.

Perhaps the research community has to go back reading their Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend, because if the general consensus is out to silence parts of a scientific community, then it's simply bad for science and the truth.

If you are a scrutinizing researcher, then you know that it is dangerous to let a single consensus cloud your judgement.

These professors have spent a lifetime researching about geography, mathematics, communications theory, geo science, physics, chemistry, oceanography etc. and the media does not want to publish a perfectly reasonable article demanding science to look in all directions for answers. That gives us an idea how easily ideas can be told, spread and upheld in our society.

A question that arises in my head is: what if peak-oil is a myth as well? The leading governments are treating is as a myth, for if they were to be serious about this then a lot more restrictions on production and the automobile industry would be enforced. The leading politicians are saying something about having to cut back on production and progression, but if they are serious they would be doing a lot more about it, such as legislating cut backs.

The Kyoto Protocol And The Fabricated Market In Carbon

Dominic Lawson: Kyoto is worthless (and you don't have to be a sceptic to believe that now)

"The truth, however, is that Kyoto, as a means to reduce carbon emissions, has been like Monty Python's parrot, long dead, despite all the protestations to the contrary by its salesmen."

"This fabricated market in carbon has at its heart the UN's Clean Development Mechanism. This is how the EU, which had an obligation under Kyoto to reduce its emissions by two per cent by 2012, has managed to claim success while actually increasing its emissions by 13 per cent. By purchasing so called "offsets" from countries such as China, Britain, for example, proclaims itself a "leader in the fight against climate change"."

A New Industrial Revolution?

The American biologist Craig Venter, who's been trying to create the first artificial living creature, have started researching on small organisms. I read it in a post on The Economist's "The World in 2009" blog.

He has been working with a bacterium called mycoplasma laboratorium and will apparently be a bacterium stiched together in a lab and contained by a natural bacterium. According to Venter himself, he thinks that he will succeed during 2009. Venter also claims in an interview, that it could be the start of "a new industrial revolution". Is this evidence of a forthcoming shift from chemistry to biology driven industries?

For instance, biology might be the future when it comes to creation of new fuel sources. Moreover, Venter has made a bold statement that his research team has discovered some sort of components that are "far better than any science-fiction scenario that anybody could imagine."

I will try and let you know if I see anything more in this matter. As for now, be sure to have a look at the wiki article on Craig Venter as well as the wiki on mycoplasma laboratorium.

Preservatives & Additives

In a recent article in DN, Marie-Louise Danielsson-Tham declared that we ought to keep certain additives and preservatives in our provisions. Her arguments are that people simply don't understand why certain additives and preservatives are used and that if we were to remove some of these substances, then there would be an increased risk of dying from eating sausages and other meats.

The debate ought to be more transparent, instead of complaining about the consumer's ignorance, nutritionists need to educate us on what these foreign substances do to our provisions, how they effect us and what would happen if we were to remove certain substances. Thus acknowledging the chemical "grey zones" and teach us about different perspectives on substances and provisions.

Perhaps we ought to eat less meat, or no meat at all? And how do we really now whether or not a substance makes us addicted or not? Danielsson-Tham's condescending manner is not something that other so called experts ought to apply when debating. Her tone and rehtoric do not impress me at all.

WWF Report On Biofuel

The WWF has published a new report on biofuel. You can find it here. [SWE]

The general consensus is that biofuels cannot replace oil in the long term. The production of biofuel will, if increased, threaten nature and increase the possibility of explotation in countries which have the right type of environment.

There are good and negative aspects when considering the production of biofuels. We cannot simply use biofuels per se as a means of lowering the need for oil as well as reducing the climate gases.

The risks will increase alongside the increase of production. And the lesser nations will essentially be exploited by the more influential nations and corporations. When the market turns lucrative (I'm not critiquing the market itself), the production will affect food prices, cause more illegal forest explotation, destroy rainforests, damage soil from using fertilizers etc. People and local farmers will be driven away due to the expansion of the big corporations wanting to seige market and land as their own. How will the increased production affect the water? It will most likely become more polluted unless someone starts to financially support the need for improved water treatment plants.

The report also raises the question about how important certifications are. They are important, but they also require restrictions and a lot of money. Certifications will mostly benefit the ones who have the funds to maintain them. Certifications are not in themselves enough to make a difference.

The discussion about biofuels have been another binary affair. Those who are against it only seem to discuss the negative aspects and those who are for biofuels only see the pros. Why not flip these views in favour of a dialectic affair? Let the supporting forces disccuss the cons and the ones who are negative about it can discuss the pros. What a totally unrealistic suggestion, but still, it would benefit the general debate.

Lasse Svärd @ DN recognizes that, even though the WWF are biased, that the report is somewhat balanced.

The report also features recommendations on what different countries, corporations and governmental structures (such as the European Union) ought to do in this matter.

Key words:

Certifications
Biofuels
Threats
Recommendation
Forests
Corporations
Investments

Another Post From HAX Concerning Climate & Technology

The blogger HAX has posted yet another thoughtful and provoking post about the myth-like claim that our societies should start dismantling our industries in order to save our environment.

HAX raises some very good points here. Why should we dismantle our very means that enable technological breakthroughs? The same breakthroughs will help us either solve the problem (if we really are doomed unless we act) or enhance things like: energy conservation, environmental friendly products and recycling- and cleaning management.

It is hard to think outside of the box, but the breakthroughs will come to those that dare to do it.

Greenpeace Tagged City Hall In Stockholm

Greenpeace tagged City Hall in Stockholm earlier today with a political statement against GMO. With the help of a projector (or some other digital device), their 'throwup' covered (what I think was) the tower's west wall, thus made the building their canvas and the city became a serene and dynamic backdrop to their message. Their message was white and said "Keep our food safe - Stop GMOs" signed with the Greenpeace logo.

Perhaps they should have written "Keep mankind safe" instead.

Sweden's government ought to look into GMO and really sit down and contemplate about this (along with a lot of problems on the agenda). I've come to realize that our government (politicians I mean) have made some terrible decisions recently, decisions that will lead to consequences; consequences which will radically alter our society over time and reshape the foundations of our society as we know it.

I feel that politicians have been lobotomized (kopimi) to vote for or against certain legislations due to fierce lobbying. The larger corporations have the economical means, manpower, lawyers and cunning to silence concerned people and to trick politicians into choosing sides with the economic heavy weights. More recently people in Sweden have been really concerned about laws such as "FRA", as well as another directive our government wants to implement: namely IPRED. The government and our democratically elected politicians have more or less ignored large parts of the swedish people in these issues. Will they neglect information about GMO as well?

Activism come in many forms, however, guerilla projects with projectors, led-throwies, laser tagging and other ways of using light, is not a new phenomenon. For more info on what is possible to do with current technologies you should check out Graffiti Research Lab.

As for GMO, do you want to see all organisms being claimed by shady conglomerates? Do you acknowledge that large corporations hypothetically will be able to buy all the legal rights and means/control for all the organisms (like fruits, vegetables etc.) that we'll eat in the future?

For more info about related topics see:

Culture Jamming & Hacktivism.

FRA
IPRED
Lissabonfördraget

Global Temperatures Lower Than Expected In October?

HAX posts yet another interesting little write up on global temperatures. If you read swedish you can find it here.

A lot of people are concerned about the status of our planet. However, it seems as if these concerns of ours raise a lot political motifs besides caring about out planet.

Another Perspective On Global Warming

The danish researcher Henrik Svensmark has an alternate view on the problem of global warming. Check out the documentary here.

Fight Against Monsanto's Marketing Practices

With their fight against Monsanto's abusive marketing practices, Percy and Louise Schmeiser have given the world a wake-up call about the dangers to farmers and biodiversity everywhere from the growing dominance and market aggression of companies engaged in the genetic engineering of crops.

Percy and Louise Schmeiser

Barack Hussein Obama - Difficult Actions Await You Sir

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have compiled a massive list on Actions For Restoring America.

After eight years in office, Bush is the least popular president ever. By far. This is due to obvious actions such as the war on terror, the war in Iraq as well as the war in Afghanistan. Most importantly, it is due to the fact that the United States of American came together as a nation in the wrong way. They should have tried to reflect on what had happened and on their own actions in the world. This did not stop and ask themselves why there are people out there who hate their politics and ideals. As this isn't enough, the United States as FAILED CONSIDERABLY in nurturing their own economy and country:

Major economic concerns in the U.S. include national debt, external debt, entitlement liabilities for retiring baby boomers who have already begun withdrawing from their Social Security accounts, corporate debt, mortgage debt, a low savings rate, falling house prices, a falling currency, and a large current account deficit. As of June 2008, the gross U.S. external debt was over $13 trillion,the most external debt of all countries in the world. The 2007 estimate of the United States public debt was 65% of GDP. As of October 1, 2008, the total U.S. federal debt exceeded $10 trillion, about $31,700 per capita. Including unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar promised obligations, the government liabilities rise to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household

You should take this information from Wikipedia with a pinch of salt rather than truth. However, these tendencies are real and should be dealt with.

After 9/11, there was no contemplation at all. Instead of looking forward and reevaluate their position + attitude towards the rest of the world, the administration went conservative and chose the aggressive perspective down a path oozing from conservatism and religious norm. Other countries had to be either on their side or against them. This rhetoric and thinking is stale and outdated, they should have been self critical. They should have let their laws and human rights do its job.

A lot of people wanted Barack Obama to become president. Obama is the right choice right now. But will he govern as he preaches? Will he live up to the world's expectations? Will he turn out to be a puppet - A hawk like the rough republicans? Or will he pave the way for a new America, a new America which says NO to enhanced control of society and NO to an increased influence from lobbyists?

On the agenda for the forthcoming president of the United States:

Stop Torture and Abuse

Close Guantanamo and Restore the Rule of Law for Detainees

End and Prohibit the Practice of Extraordinary Rendition

Warrantless spying.

Watch lists.

Freedom of Information - Ashcroft Doctrine.

Monitoring of activists.

DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

Real ID Act.

Abortion gag rule.

Ban all workplace discrimination against sexual minorities by the federal government and its contractors.

Death penalty.

"Faith-based initiatives."

Torture and Abuse

Guantanamo

Extraordinary Rendition

Spying on Americans

Monitoring of activists

Real ID Act

Watch lists

Financial watch lists

Employee databases

Secure Flight

Harmonize privacy rules

Civil Liberties Oversight Board

DNA databases

Freedom of Information

FOIA ombudsman

Scientific freedom

Signing statements

Presidential documents

Federal websites

DOJ politicization

Overclassification

Death penalty

Human rights treaties

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties

'Special Administrative Measures' for prisoners

Prisoner communications

Crack/Powder Sentencing

Medical marijuana

Discrimination against sexual minorities with federal dollars

The Civil Rights Division

Other Agencies' Civil Rights Enforcement

Federal Racial Profiling

Affirmative action

Rights of the disabled

School harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Benefit plans covering domestic partners

Same-sex couples under Medicaid

Discrimination against sexual minorities in adoption and foster care

Discrimination By the Federal Government and Federal Contractors Against People with HIV

Political protest

Media Consolidation

Network neutrality

Online censorship of soldiers

Fleeting expletives

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

The faith-based initiative

Broaden the mandate of the Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination

Local immigration enforcement

Immigration raids

ID theft prosecutions

Deportation to nations that torture

Detention standards

Expedited removal

Board of Immigration Appeals

Single-sex education

Fair housing for domestic violence victims

Discrimination remedies

Home health care workers

Global gag rule on abortion

Abortion restrictions

Emergency contraceptives

Regulations on birth control and religious refusals

Abortion clinic violence

Affordable birth control

The shackling of pregnant prisoners

By the way, I think he will find the time to save the global environment during his first year...

Other links:

CNN - Obama's First Priority: Fixing The Economy
Economist - America's election: Great Expectations
NY Times - For Obama, No Time to Bask in Victory As He Starts to Build a Transition Team
The Wall Street Journal - Difficult Choices Await New President

Correction Concerning The Article On GMO

I was sloppy (or tired?) when I wrote the about GMO. and did not post the correct information about who wrote the article I referred to . The article was written by both Maria Hagberg AND Jimmy Sand. Jimmy writes a lot about problems and issues concerning culture, philosophy, society and politics. If you read swedish then you should check out his blog "Strötankar och sentenser".

If he writes something else about GMO or eco related stuff in the future, then I'll post about it.

U.S. Elections

John McCain or Barack Obama? We will know the outcome during the forthcoming week. Who will be the one to lead a nation in crisis? The United States is facing a recession and the financial crisis is far from over. Will the war on terror come to an end over the next four years?

The United States is facing a probable bankruptcy due to Federal Reserve with their dodgy ways, medicaid, medicare among other highly complex and large economic and sociocultural sequences. This is taken from an article in The Economist:

Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

I am highly sceptical that these 'problems' will be solved unless radical changes were to be made within economics, sociolinguistics, politicals, foreign/national relations, academics and education. However, not changes within systems but changes concerning how people alter or 'hack' complex processes. The US citizens will have to say no to a society based on control by doing something about it.

The world awaits an answer to this question...

GMO

I recently posted an article related to GMO, highlighting the book Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pamela Ronald, Raoul Admachak published in april 2008.

I have come across an article in swedish with the same controversial outlook as the one which I was focusing on. This stance creates a new perspective and critiques the methodological approach within the eco community and its scepticism against GMO. The article is written by Maria Hagberg from the political party Feminist Initiative (EDIT: AND Jimmy Sand).

Even though the argumentation and rhetoric is based on binary oppositions and choices, one still gets to confront the idea that GMO isn't 'bad' or 'evil' per se. She mentions the problem with large corporations and their profitable market approach through investment in chemicals - they are deliberatly blocking positive advancements of the eco community and even GMO. Other problems that are mentioned includes: the issues of patents, 'third-world countries' with their needs, as well as ethics & trading. Be sure to read the criticism from Kathleen McCaughey, GMO-spoke sperson @ Greenpeace and Lars Igeland of Miljöförbundet Jordens Vänner. The chemical market and the GMO market seem to be intertwined:

The Monsanto Company is an American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as "Roundup". Monsanto is also by far the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed, holding 70%–100% market share for various crops. Agracetus, owned by Monsanto, exclusively produces Roundup Ready soybean seed for the commercial market. In March 2005, it finalized the purchase of Seminis Inc, making it also the largest conventional seed company in the world. It has over 18,800 employees worldwide, and an annual revenue of USD$8.563 billion reported for 2007

Oh the problem of patents... haven't we heard this before?. This problem has to be addressed and not looked down upon! Have a look at this Pirate Party related text on the patent system:

An abolished patent system

Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. The latest example of this is the bird flu virus, where not even the threat of a global pandemic can make research institutions forgo their chance to make a killing on patents.

The Pirate Party has a constructive and reasoned proposal for an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. It would not only solve these problems, but also give more money to pharmaceutical research, while still cutting public spending on medicines in half. This is something we would like to discuss on a European level.

Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries).

Europe has all to gain and nothing to lose by abolishing patents outright. If we lead, the rest of the world will eventually follow.

Moreover, Later on in the article Greenpeace seems to be positive about the technology of genetics but still criticizing the 'unnatural' GMO.

"The debate on GMO" was published in Göteborgs Fria Tidning (which aims to be non-profitable and free from ads) and can be read (Swedish) at Jimpan's blog.

Göteborgs Fria Tidning