Feeds:
Posts
Comments

BP has turned to the web in an attempt to avert further criticism of its handling of the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil leak.

The energy company is to follow up a $50m US TV ad campaign with global digital activity aimed at defending its role in the crisis.

It will spend up to $1m a month buying keyword search terms on Google and YouTube and has dedicated resources
to responding to queries and comments made on social-media sites.

President Obama recently criticised BP’s spending on TV ads, suggesting the money could have been better used to help ‘fishermen or small businesses here in the Gulf who are having a bad time’.

Nonetheless, the company plans to continue running a series of campaigns informing the public of its efforts to clean up the oil.

The latest is a digital campaign that directs web users entering relevant search terms to a dedicated BP website. A sponsored link, running globally on Google, includes the message: ‘Learn more about how BP is helping.’

Similarly, searches on You­Tube that include keywords such as ‘oil spill’ and ‘BP’ bring up a link to a video message from embattled BP chief exec­utive Tony Hayward.

The activity, which also includes Flickr, Twitter and Facebook, is being implemented by Purple Strategies, a US agency that specialises in handling controversial public issues.

According to Giles Palmer, chief executive of Brandwatch, which measures companies’ online reputations, BP’s standing has been damaged by its poor management of the crisis. However, he believes that the company can still regain some of the trust it has lost.

“Imagine the celebrations around the world if we all felt part of the efforts to cap this leak,’ he said. ‘It could actually provide BP with an amazing platform to show just what it will do when the chips are down. This may be asking a lot, but it could happen.”

Meanwhile, BP has been targeted by environmental campaigners. Greenpeace placed a banner on the company’s London offices branding it ‘British Polluters’ and has launched a competition inviting the public to redesign BP’s logo.

Source: Marketing Magazine

BY PAUL STAMET

Paul Stamet’s Statement on Mycoremediation and its Applications to Oil Spills.

The BP oil spill has inflicted enormous harm in the Gulf of Mexico and will continue to do so for months, if not decades, to come. While we will need a wide array of efforts to address this complex problem, mycoremediation is a valuable component in our toolset of solutions. Mycoremediation has demonstrated positive results, verified by scientists in many countries. However, there is more oil spilled than there is currently mycelium available. Much more mycelium is needed and, fortunately, we know how to generate it.

Here is what we know about mycoremediation, based on tests conducted by myself, my colleagues and other researchers who have published their results. (See attached references.)

  1. More than 120 novel enzymes have been identified from mushroom-forming fungi.
  2. Various enzymes breakdown a wide assortment of hydrocarbon toxins.
  3. My work with Battelle Laboratories, in collaboration with their scientists, resulted in TAH’s (Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in diesel contaminated soil to be reduced from 10,000 ppm to < 200 ppm in 16 weeks from a 25% inoculation rate of oyster (Pleurotus ostreatus) mycelium, allowing the remediated soil to be approved for use as landscaping soil along highways. (Thomas et al., 1999)
  4. Oil contains a wide variety of toxins, many of which are carcinogens.
  5. Mycelium more readily degrades lower molecular weight hydrocarbons (3,4,5 ring) than heavier weight hydrocarbons. However, the heavier weight hydrocarbons are reduced via mycelial enzymes into lighter weight hydrocarbons, allowing for a staged reduction with subsequent mycelial treatments.
  6. Aged mycelium from oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) mixed in with ‘compost’ made from woodchips and yard waste (50:50 by volume) resulted in far better degradation of hydrocarbons than oyster mushroom mycelium or compost alone.
  7. Oyster mycelium does not degrade keratin-based hair as it produces little or no keratinases, whereas other mold fungi such as Chaetomium species (which include some high temperature-tolerant leaf mold fungi) produce keratinases.
  8. Worms die when put into contact with high concentrations of hydrocarbon saturated soils, but live after mycelial treatments reduce the toxins below the lethal thresholds.
  9. Spring inoculations work better than fall inoculations as the mycelium has more time to grow-out. Bioregional specificities must be carefully considered.
  10. Amplifying native mushroom species in the bioregion impacted by toxic spills work better than non-native species.
  11. More funding is needed to better understand and implement mycoremediation technologies.
  12. Oil spills will occur in the future—we need to be ready for them! Read more…

Source: Institute for Communications Resources

BY JACQUI GODDARD

Jean-Michel Cousteau, one of the world’s leading ocean explorers, has spoken of his “frustration at the human species” over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and called for it to become a catalyst for political, industrial and environmental change.

Describing the slick as “the worst oil accident anywhere on the planet”, the 72-year-old son of Jacques Cousteau, the pioneering underwater ecologist, said that the consequences for Man and nature would be monumental. “The sad side of the human species is that we talk a lot and take very little action until we have a catastrophe on our hands,” he told The Times.

“I don’t want to call this doomsday. I want to believe we can sit down with decision-makers and industry and government and convince them that there’s a better way to manage our life support system. We can do the good thing or we can keep destroying it.”

He added: “I hope that this is the kick in the butt that’s going to make our decision-makers change the way they operate.

“It’s also a kick in the butt for those industries that are making a huge amount of money to invest that money, not just talk about it as they all do, in renewable energy.”

Mr Cousteau’s father, who died in 1997, was a marine conservation trailblazer who raised awareness of the fragility of the planet and its oceans and the devastating effects of pollution, via 120 documentaries and more than 40 books. Jean-Michel Cousteau continues his father’s work through his California-based Ocean Futures Society, whose mission is to explore the seas and fight for their protection.

After witnessing the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster 21 years ago, in which 11 million gallons of oil leaked into the sea off Alaska, he had hoped for change. But a lack of regulation and oversight of the oil and chemical industry meant that a new disaster had been waiting to happen, he said.

Remnants of the slick could ultimately reach Europe by travelling in the Gulf Stream, he believes. “So BP, your oil is coming home,” said Mr Cousteau, who visited Louisiana last week. Read more…

Source: Common Dreams & Times Newspapers

With millions of gallons crude oil being spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the focus now is on shutting down the leak. However, in the cleanup efforts to come, “extreme caution” must be exercised so as not to make a bad situation even worse, says a leading bioremediation expert with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).

“The concentration of detergents and other chemicals used to clean up sites contaminated by oil spills can cause environmental nightmares of their own,” says Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division who has studied such notorious oil-spill sites as the Exxon Valdez spill into Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

“It is important to remember that oil is a biological product and can be degraded by microbes, both on and beneath the surface of the water,” Hazen says. “Some of the detergents that are typically used to clean-up spill sites are more toxic than the oil itself, in which case it would be better to leave the site alone and allow microbes to do what they do best.”

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig leased by energy giant BP that exploded on April 20, is now estimated to be disgorging some 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. To contain the spreading oil slick and keep it from polluting the fragile ecosystems of the Gulf coast and the Mississippi delta, clean-up crews have deployed an array of chemical dispersants, oil skimmers and booms. They have also attempted to burn off some of the surface oil. Such aggressive clean-up efforts are fraught with unintended consequences, Hazen warns. He cites as prime examples the Amoco Cadiz and the Exxon Valdez disasters.

In 1978, an oil tanker, the Amoco Cadiz, split in two about three miles off the coast of Normandy, releasing about 227,000 tons heavy crude oil that ultimately stained nearly 200 miles of coastline. The spill-site was so large that only the areas of greatest economic impact were treated with detergents. Large areas in the more remote parts of the coast went untreated.

“The untreated coastal areas were fully recovered within five years of the Amoco Cadiz spill,” says Hazen. “As for the treated areas, ecological studies show that 30 years later, those areas still have not recovered.” Read more…

Source: Science Daily

BY ERNEST CALLENBACH

I. Thou shall love and honor the Earth for it blesses thy life and governs thy survival.
II. Thou shall keep each day sacred to the Earth and celebrate the turning of its seasons.
III. Thou shall not hold thyself above other living things nor drive them to extinction.
IV. Thou shall give thanks for thy food, to the creatures and plants that nourish thee.
V. Thou shall educate thy offspring for multitudes of people are a blessing unto the Earth when we live in harmony.
VI. Thou shall not kill, nor waste Earth’s riches upon weapons of war.
VII. Thou shall not pursue profit at the Earth’s expense but strive to restore its damaged majesty.
VIII. Thou shall not hide from thyself or others the consequences of thy actions upon the Earth.
IX. Thou shall not steal from future generations by impoverishing or poisoning the Earth.
X. Thou shall consume material goods in moderation so all may share the Earth’s bounty. See Video…

By Victoria Fine

Huffington Post Impact has put together a comprehensive list of links to donate and get involved in relief efforts for victims of Tuesday’s devastating earthquake. You can also go to The Goods: Help Send Relief To Haiti, an online store by Causecast and HuffPost Impact, where you can purchase products for organizations that will be directly used on the ground in Haiti.

The U.S. State Department Operations Center has set up the following number for Americans seeking information about family members in Haiti: 1-888-407-4747

HuffPost Impact is following relief organizations in Haiti and will be updating with their latest messages from the ground. Read more…

By Michael Pollan

Author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” “In Defense of Food”

The idea for this book came from a doctor–a couple of them, as a matter of fact. They had read my last book, “In Defense of Food”, which ended with a handful of tips for eating well: simple ways to navigate the treacherous landscape of modern food and the often-confusing science of nutrition. “What I would love is a pamphlet I could hand to my patients with some rules for eating wisely,” they would say. “I don’t have time for the big nutrition lecture and, anyway, they really don’t need to know what an antioxidant is in order to eat wisely.” Another doctor, a transplant cardiologist, wrote to say “you can’t imagine what I see on the insides of people these days wrecked by eating food products instead of food.” So rather than leaving his heart patients with yet another prescription or lecture on cholesterol, he gives them a simple recipe for roasting a chicken, and getting three wholesome meals out of it — a very different way of thinking about health.

Make no mistake: our health care crisis is in large part a crisis of the American diet — roughly three quarters of the two-trillion plus we spend on health care in this country goes to treat chronic diseases, most of which can be prevented by a change in lifestyle, especially diet. And a healthy diet is a whole lot simpler than the food industry and many nutritional scientists — what I call the Nutritional Industrial Complex — would have us believe. After spending several years trying to answer the supposedly incredibly complicated question of how we should eat in order to be maximally healthy, I discovered the answer was shockingly simple: eat real food, not too much of it, and more plants than meat. Or, put another way, get off the modern western diet, with its abundance of processed food, refined grains and sugars, and its sore lack of vegetables, whole grains and fruit.

So I decided to take the doctors up on the challenge. I set out to collect and formulate some straightforward, memorable, everyday rules for eating, a set of personal policies that would, taken together or even separately, nudge people onto a healthier and happier path. I solicited rules from doctors, scientist, chefs, and readers, and then wrote a bunch myself, trying to boil down into everyday language what we really know about healthy eating. And while most of the rules are backed by science, they are not framed in the vocabulary of science but rather culture — a source of wisdom about eating that turns out to have as much, if not more, to teach us than nutritional science does.

What follows is a small sample of “Food Rules”, a half dozen policies that will give you a taste of what you’ll find in the book: sixty-four food rules, each with a paragraph of explanation. I think you’ll see from this little appetizer that “Food Rules” is a most unconventional diet book. You can read it in an hour and it just might change your eating life. I hope you’ll take away something you can put to good use, and maybe get a chuckle or two along the way. And do let me know if have any food rules I should know about. I’m still collecting them, at pollanfoodrules@gmail.com.

#11 Avoid foods you see advertised on television.

Food marketers are ingenious at turning criticisms of their products — and rules like these — into new ways to sell slightly different versions of the same processed foods: They simply reformulate (to be low-fat, have no HFCS or transfats, or to contain fewer ingredients) and then boast about their implied healthfulness, whether the boast is meaningful or not. The best way to escape these marketing ploys is to tune out the marketing itself, by refusing to buy heavily promoted foods. Only the biggest food manufacturers can afford to advertise their products on television: More than two thirds of food advertising is spent promoting processed foods (and alcohol), so if you avoid products with big ad budgets, you’ll automatically be avoiding edible foodlike substances. As for the 5 percent of food ads that promote whole foods (the prune or walnut growers or the beef ranchers), common sense will, one hopes, keep you from tarring them with the same brush — these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

From “Food Rules”:

#19 If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.

#36 Don’t eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.

This should go without saying. Such cereals are highly processed and full of refined carbohydrates as well as chemical additives.

#39 Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.

There is nothing wrong with eating sweets, fried foods, pastries, even drinking soda every now and then, but food manufacturers have made eating these formerly expensive and hard-to-make treats so cheap and easy that we’re eating them every day. The french fry did not become America’s most popular vegetable until industry took over the jobs of washing, peeling, cutting, and frying the potatoes — and cleaning up the mess. If you made all the french fries you ate, you would eat them much less often, if only because they’re so much work. The same holds true for fried chicken, chips, cakes, pies, and ice cream. Enjoy these treats as often as you’re willing to prepare them — chances are good it won’t be every day.

#47 Eat when you are hungry, not when you are bored.

For many of us, eating has surprisingly little to do with hunger. We eat out of boredom, for entertainment, to comfort or reward ourselves. Try to be aware of why you’re eating, and ask yourself if you’re really hungry — before you eat and then again along the way. (One old wive’s test: If you’re not hungry enough to eat an apple, then you’re not hungry.) Food is a costly antidepressant.

#58 Do all your eating at a table.

No, a desk is not a table. If we eat while we’re working, or while watching TV or driving, we eat mindlessly — and as a result eat a lot more than we would if we were eating at a table, paying attention to what we’re doing. This phenomenon can be tested (and put to good use): Place a child in front of a television set and place a bowl of fresh vegetables in front of him or her. The child will eat everything in the bowl, often even vegetables that he or she doesn’t ordinarily touch, without noticing what’s going on. Which suggests an exception to the rule: When eating somewhere other than at a table, stick to fruits and vegetables.

Source: Huffington Post

BY JOANNA MOORHEAD

‘Grow your own’ fever has gripped the Pennines community, which is aiming for self-sufficiency.

It’s an ordinary small town in England, but its residents claim they’ve discovered the secret that could save the planet. And with world leaders preparing to gather in Copenhagen in just over a week’s time to debate how to do just that, the people of Todmorden in the Pennines this week issued an invitation: come to our town and see what we’ve done.

In under two years, Todmorden has transformed the way it produces its food and the way residents think about the environment. Compared with 18 months ago, a third more townspeople now grow their own veg; almost seven in 10 now buy local produce regularly, and 15 times as many people are keeping chickens.

The town centre is dotted with “help yourself” vegetable gardens; the market groans with local meat and vegetables, and at all eight of the town’s schools the pupils eat locally produced meat and vegetables every lunchtime. Read more…

Source: Independent

ARC1DomeBy Cascadia Capital CEO Michael Butler and Senior Vice-President

Part I, Picking the Winners

We are living in the Age of Uncertainty. Nobody knows how bad the economy really is or how long the pain will persist; nobody knows what type of stimulus package we need or whether a stimulus will actually work. And nobody knows where clean technology innovation is headed, given the current tumult in the capital markets.

Despite financing the future for hundreds of emerging growth companies over the past 25 years, I admit to not having all the answers today, at a time when that would be immensely helpful.

But I do know that the current stimulus package – with approximately $90 billion worth of energy-related spending and tax breaks – has the potential to boost certain sustainable industries and renewable energy sectors that have enormous job-producing potential, and that these good-paying and high-value positions will enhance economic growth both today and tomorrow.

An Extended Keynesian Injection

Unlike the New Deal stimulus, this 21st century eco-stimulus offers us an extended Keynesian injection because new green companies and new clean industries will be created from the ground up while existing – but still maturing – segments of the New Energy Economy will expand and extend their reach.

The businesses and sectors that stand to gain the most from Washington’s legislative initiative will be the ones that can best harness public and private sector capital flows to generate a fairly quick payback. Every enterprise in the clean tech world is looking for stimulus money, but if you can’t break even on a cash flow basis anytime soon, there’s little sense in approaching lawmakers on Capitol Hill for financial aid.

Energy Expenditures

Congress is still not officially signed off on the size and composition of the stimulus. So, my informal, conservative and real-time dollar break out, which is subject to change as legislators crunch the numbers, currently looks like this:

  • Energy Efficiency and Transmission – $50 billion
  • Renewable Energy Tax Credit Extensions – $13 billion
  • Tax Breaks for Large-Scale Renewable Projects – $11 billion
  • Energy Efficiency Improvement – $9 billion
  • Renewable Energy Manufacturing – $1.4 billion
  • Department of Defense Energy Upgrades – $4 billion

Yet even as the legislation is hammered out before going to President Obama for signing, it’s possible to identify three potential winners that will have a tremendous economic – and job-creation – impact on the post-petroleum era.

First, the solar and wind power industries. These sectors are struggling today because debt funding and critical tax equity take-out financing has dried up; but I believe they could experience a reversal of fortune if Congress includes a refundable tax credit in the stimulus package (See Part II, following this story).

Taxing Matters

Amending the tax code in this way makes sense because the refundable tax credit would be a financeable arrangement and go directly to the solar and wind developers, who created a combined 30,000 new jobs in 2007 and 2008.  With the right tax policies in place, the solar energy sector alone could create 440,000 permanent jobs and spur $325 billion in private investment by 2016, according to Navigant Consulting.

The second potential eco-stimulus winner will be the green building industry, which represents a mammoth opportunity and offers a powerful

long tail in terms of new employment possibilities.

Building for the Future

The numbers tell the story in a stark way here: There are currently 120 million homes, 5.1 million commercial buildings and legions of government office structures in the U.S. today. These structures account for approximately 40 percent of the nation’s carbon emissions and consume 60 percent of its raw materials, so if even a reasonable percentage of them were retrofitted and became more energy efficient and environmentally friendly, we’d be setting a major economic multiplier in motion.

The material science sector could especially benefit from a green building stimulus surge if it develops and markets products like clean cement and other building products; and the software industry could also prosper by creating automation services and systems to manage the homes, offices and buildings that are working toward greater energy efficiency.

A Jolt of Prosperity

The third stimulus beneficiary will be the nation’s outdated and outmoded electricity infrastructure, which needs to be upgraded with intelligent and breakthrough digital technology that will boost efficiency and reliability while lowering cost.

A number of skeptics talk about how daunting this overhaul would be. And they are right. The current electricity grid feels like a 19th century creation rather than a 21st century innovation. And it’s a jumble of fraying old wires, decaying transmission stations and antiquated analog equipment that is holding the nation’s global competitiveness back.

But this effort would be well worth it. A recent analysis by the Grid Wise Alliance reveals that $16 billion in smart-grid disbursements over the next four years would serve as the catalyst for projects worth $64 billion. These projects would create nearly 300,000 direct and high-value jobs between 2009 and 2012; and 150,000 of these positions would be established before the end of 2009. In addition, the Grid Wise report indicates that 140,000 indirect jobs would be generated between 2013 and 2018 as a result of smart-grid investment.

A Rising in the Valley

Smart grid innovation and infrastructure improvements would – in the same way as green building retrofits – help the software industry play a much-needed role in clean technology. And, with information technology hitting a plateau, Silicon Valley could reinvigorate itself by embracing a modernized electricity grid through two-way communications devices, smart meters and advanced control systems that take all the gathered energy information and manage it in real-time.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal spending programs struggled to reverse The Great Depression for almost a decade, and it wasn’t until the United States geared up for the Second World War that the economy finally righted itself.

A New New Deal

I believe Barack Obama is more fortunate than Roosevelt because the nation is on the brink of a New Energy Economy today. If Congress and the new President choose eco-stimulus programs and policies wisely, we may see prosperous and peaceful new horizons sooner rather than later.

Michael Butler is Chairman and CEO of Seattle-based Cascadia Capital, LLC, a national investment-banking firm that is helping sustainable industries finance the future; Jamie Boyd is a senior vice president at Cascadia.

The above opinion piece is from independent writers and is not connected with Greentech Media News. The views expressed here are those of the authors and are not endorsed by Greentech Media.

Source: Greentech Media

Nassim Haramein for more than two decades has been claiming that black holes are the source of creation, not the result of it.  His model early on permitted him to predict that black holes would be found at the center of all galactic formations.  In many cases Haramein produced large controversy stating that black holes were most likely there prior to galactic formation, or even star formation, and that even our own sun and the atomic structure that makes up our reality is centered by black hole dynamics, or what he calls the spin horizon of a white whole/black whole.  Eventually, telescopic evidence supported the fact that all observed galaxies seem to be centered by super-massive black holes as Haramein predicted.  Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes form at their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms.

Now, as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society, a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were there first.  This is a fundamental confirmation of Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size.

This may be one of the most exciting confirmations as of yet, as it leads directly to a continuous creation process where our universal black hole produces what we call super-massive black holes, which produce smaller ones we call stars, which in turn produce smaller ones we call atoms.  In Haramein’s model, black holes are formed by density gradients in the geometry of spacetime itself, which generates spacetime torque, in turn curling the manifold – like water going down the drain or the slight gradient in air density that produces hurricanes and tornadoes. This results in the extraction of a percentage of the energy available in the vacuum structure, like the air coming up the drain, producing what we experience as mass and electromagnetic radiation (a layman’s explanation can be found in What is the Origin of Spin?). In various sections of his scientific papers (given below with page numbers), Haramein described these processes and a scaling law is given to define the scale relationships of this creation dynamics.  Further, Haramein gives a calculation in his Scale Unification – A Universal Scaling Law For Organized Matter paper (see equation #4 through #16) where he demonstrates that the nuclei of atoms can be described as mini black holes, replacing the need for an ad hoc strong force with no source of energy to define its strength with the gravitational force of a mini black hole extracting energy from the vacuum.

In the same conference, Dr. Elizabeth Humphreys reported that stars have been caught in the act of being born extremely close to the super-massive black hole near the Milky Way core.  This contradicts the standard model that would predict that these stars would get ripped apart by the strong tidal gravity produced by the nearby black hole.  It is evident that the mechanism that allows such young stars to be present so close to a super-massive black hole is not clearly understood by the standard model. However, it is predicted by the continuous black hole creation model of Haramein’s theory.  Stars could only exist in the vicinity of such tidal gravity if they harbored a black hole themselves.  Of course it’s implied that all stars are born out of black holes, and are themselves smaller black holes, including our sun.  In Section 4 of the Scale Unification paper, Haramein and his colleagues give powerful evidence of such a black hole at the center of our sun. This is as well described in a section of the special features (YouTube video) of the “Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation” DVD set.

Resources:

Older Posts »