Get It Done!

What we need to get done that will help everything else is switch to totally green, totally clean energy. Without emissions from fossil fuels, the air will be cleaner and there will be less respiratory problems. With new technology comes an expansion to the green economy.
And that's a lot but that's not all--we won't have to depend on anyone else, anywhere, ever.
It's past time.
We can do this.
And so can everyone else.
Please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Thank you.

Another Reason To Choose Emissions-Free Energy

"http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/bill-would-protect-drinking-water-from-toxic-chemicals.html
June 9, 2009

Washington, DC -- A bill introduced today by Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) would protect drinking water from toxic chemicals often used during oil and gas drilling. A companion bill also was introduced today in the Senate by Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act would close a loophole that has exempted oil and gas companies from complying with critical requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2005, after the oil and gas industry successfully lobbied for the exemption. It remains the only industry unregulated by a provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act which monitors underground injections near drinking water sources.

While drilling for oil and gas, companies often times inject millions of gallons of chemically-treated water into underground rock deposits to force the oil and gas to the surface. The technique, known as hydraulic fracturing (or hydrofracking) is used in nine out of 10 oil and gas wells in the United States and is suspected of endangering drinking water supplies throughout the country. ....."

This is another reason to choose emissions-free energy. With emissions-free energy, there would be no pollution in our water from the energy source. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com. Thank you.

Permafrost and Carbon Emissions

Permafrost melt poses long-term threat, says study
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090527/sc_afp/climatewarmingpermafrost
AP Wed May 27, 2:57 pm ET


PARIS (AFP) – Melting permafrost could eventually disgorge a billion tonnes a year of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, accelerating the threat from climate change, scientists said Wednesday.
Their probe sought to shed light on a fiercely-debated but poorly-understood concern: the future of organic matter that today is locked up in the frozen soil of Alaska, Canada, northern Europe and Siberia.
The fear is that, as the land thaws, this material will be converted by microbes into carbon dioxide, which will seep into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.
This in turn will stoke warming and cause more permafrost to thaw, which in turn pushes up temperatures, and so on.****
Burning fossil fuels adds about 8.5 gigatonnes of emissions each year, but it is a process that can theoretically be controlled.
Permafrost thaw, though, would be self-reinforcing and could be almost impossible to brake.
"It's not an option to be putting insulation on top of the tundra," Schuur said.
"If we address our own emissions either by reducing deforestation or controlling emissions from fossil fuels, that's the key to minimising the changes in the permafrost carbon pool.""

Permafrost melt is another problem caused by global warming, and fossil fuel burn cannot be that easily or inexpensively controlled. So what's to be done? For what we can do, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

Biomass Limitations and the Alternative

Biomass, which includes buring wood for fuel, has its limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7997398.stm). If not done sustainably, we could end up with more greenhouse gas than we have had with fossil fuels: "At its best, biomass could produce as little as 27kg of CO2 (equivalent) per megawatt hour - 98% less than coal, saving around two million tonnes of CO2 every year . . . However, the study also found that in some cases overall emissions could be higher than those of fossil fuels" (ibid). But it could be used in combination with other things (ibid).
Why bother, though, with something so difficult when there's a totally green, totally emissions-free alternative? For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.

Pollution and Life Expectancy

Pollution influences life expectancy. The BBC reports on a study done in the U.S. finds, unsurprisingly, that the more pollution, the shorter the life expectancy, and that when the air gets cleaner, life expectancy goes up: "It has taken a quarter of a century, but US researchers say their work has finally enabled them to determine to what extent city air pollution impacts on average life" (Hawkley, Humphrey, "City air pollution 'shortens life'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7946838.stm). The researchers' study, begun in the 1980s, concluded that life expectancy rose two-and-a-half years, and 15% of the improvement is caused by air quality improvement (ibid). But there is much to still be done to improve air quality, especially for people who are in high-pollution areas every day such as around commuter trains and highways that have high diesel truck traffic and who are thus more susceptible to allergies, asthma, cancer, and cardio-vascular trouble (ibid.)

It's good to lower pollution levels, but what if there were not any pollution at all because the energy for power and even transportation came from something other than fossil fuels? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.org.

Water vs. Oil

In Peru there's a "water versus oil dilemma" (Collyns, Dan, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7951182.stm). The oil companies want to drill in places that provide a lot of water for the country, particularly the poorer regions . . . poorer economically. The San Martin region lies in the oil area:
"The oil concession in question, Block 103, is held by a consortium.
Canadian oil company Talisman Energy is the largest partner with a 40%. Spain's Repsol and the Brazilian state company Petrobras have a 30% share each.
More than 70% of the Peruvian Amazon is divided into oil and gas concessions for exploration or exploitation The Peruvian government says it plans to be self-sufficient in oil and gas by 2011 In 2008 Peru produces nearly 50m barrel of crude oil Official figures says there are around 100 mining companies running more than 600 operations in Peru, in an area which covers 0.56% of national territory" (ibid).
But the area also includes a region that provides much water for the country:
"One-sixth of it belongs to the conservation area of the Cordillera Escalera, the only area the court ruling states cannot be touched.
Environmentalists say apart from the mountain range being home to rare wildlife, such as the spectacled bear, it is also a major source for the rivers in northern San Martin.
Situated on the eastern side of the much larger Andes mountains range, it is the first high ground to be hit by clouds that drift westward across the Amazon basin from the Atlantic Ocean on the other side of the continent.
That means a lot of rain, so the hills soak up the water like a sponge and literally seep water.
Drilling for oil in any part of the Cordillera Escalera could contaminate the entire watershed, say environmentalists.
"It's literally a water bank for the entire population here," says San Martin's regional governor, Cesar Villanueva. "We cannot allow it to be touched" (ibid).

But a conflict like that doesn't have to happen. There is an alternative that does not use oil or any fossil fuels and that will help preserve water and the entire environment. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.

More Pain At The Pump

Where I'm at, gasoline prices have gone up to $2.01. That's not as bad as it's been in a while, but still . . . .
Something needs to be done. And something can be done! Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.