zebra1.JPG

To add your name to our networking event invite list, email us.

Main

March 23, 2009

America To Pay For Opium Field Crop Damage

News flash (thanks to The Dallas Morning News and the Sacramento Bee): Farmers, if our troops harm your opium fields, do not dispair! The U.S. government will pay for the damage!

airdrop%20%28480%20x%20298%29.jpg

Marines retrieved bottled water Sunday from a pallet that parachuted off course into an opium field in Qalanderabad. Marines assured the Afghan farmer that he would be paid for the crop damage. The Dallas Morning News

The above photo (black and white version) and the caption were actually published in my Dallas newspaper today. I found the color version of the photo on the Sacramento Bee website.

Amazing!

Pierre Cutler
The Sacramento Executive

December 10, 2008

Frozen Tundra and the Obama Advantage

Pierre just called me from the frozen tundra. He is flying out of Cedar Rapids back to Dallas. The weather for Wednesday is listed as a high of 22F and a low of 13F. Didn't the Obama family decamp to Iowa in February 2007 and stay there for 11 months? I think the Obamas deserved the victory Barack got - big time! I wonder if his years in Chicago made him a more viable candidate weatherwise than the rest of the field?

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

June 19, 2008

What's The Real Scoop On What Will Lower Gas Prices?

Here's a look by Joshua Holland
Editor, Corporate Accountability and Workplace Coverage:

CNN tells me that a majority of Americans favor Barack Obama's call to clamp down on speculators and reduce demand through tougher fuel efficiency standards and more conservation. The network also informs me that a majority favor John McCain's plan to open up offshore drilling to expand oil supplies. The take-away: a majority want something substantive done that will lower prices at the pump soon.

Of course, neither candidate has much to offer in terms of short-term relief; the constraints of America's political culture guarantee that price controls and fuel subsidies for transportation-dependent industries -- things other governments might contemplate -- are off the table.
But even in the context of this truncated debate, it's clear that the conservative movement's ideas are utterly bankrupt. They're offering a defense of an unsustainable -- indefensible -- status quo: just pump more oil and we'll keep doing what we've been doing without a hiccup. All they have to offer is drilling offshore and in the Alaskan wilderness.

Let's dig into that argument briefly. Our friend Bill Scher over at Tompaine crunched the numbers offered up by Bush's own Department of Energy and found that opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would result in a decrease in oil prices amounting to 75 cents per barrel of crude, some 17 years from now. Assuming for the sake of argument that demand doesn't increase -- an unlikely assumption -- and using the rough rule of thumb that every dollar in the price of a barrel of crude oil equals 2.5 cents in a gallon of gas, that works out to a promise to reduce gas prices by less than 2 cents per gallon.
McCain claims that there's another 21 billion barrels offshore. Scher cites a a DOE estimate of 18 billion, but let's use the Senator's figure. Opening up our offshore deposits would result in an additional cost reduction of $1.50 per barrel. So, adding the two, we can conclude that opening ANWR and drilling like Hell offshore would result in cost savings to consumers of about 6 cents per gallon of gas. And that's by 2025, meaning that you could get into bed and conceive a child today, and that 6-cent-per-gallon cost reduction would be included in gas prices by the time the fruit of your loins got his or her learner's permit.

Rush Limbaugh won't be mentioning those details, I think..

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

February 24, 2008

Richard Branson Does It Again

Sir Richard Branson, of Virgin fame, has done it again. He has fueled a plane with a mixture of airline fuel and biofuel and it has successfully flown from London to Amsterdam. Read more here.

Currently airlines contribute 2% of the world's carbon emissions. Branson, a serial entrepreneur, has agreed to put all of the profits from his Virginia Airlines and trains ($3B) to solving global warming. This was a phenomenal start. A year ago, naysayers said it could never be done. Hats off to Branson.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

December 9, 2007

Cool Christmas Gift for the College Kid

For the kid away at college in a major city or university town without a car consider a membership to Zipcar. For a $50 a year membership fee and an hourly usage fee starting at $5, he or she can pick up a car, including a Toyota Prius, in a nearby garage to run quick errands. The driver must be at least 21 years old and have a good driving record.

No more, "But I have to have a car at school!"

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

November 29, 2007

International Day of Climate Action - December 8th

Good grief, Pete Seeger is 88 years old and he cares about the environment. Shouldn't we?

Watch for an event to attend in Sacramento.

Gillian Parrillo
Sacramento Executive

November 13, 2007

Sacramento's Darkened Ziggurat - Guest Blog

ziggurat.jpgThe Ziggurat building in West Sacramento looks like a step pyramid, like the ones you might see in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. But this modern pyramid has eleven steps, corresponding to its eleven stories, a bit more than the step pyramids of Egypt or the ziggurats of Mesopotamia. The Ziggurat building is currently owned by California’s State Dept. of General Services, or DGS.

In the old days, this beautiful building was lit at night by warm floodlights that made the sides of the square building glow like a white canvas tent that has illuminations burning inside.

Those lights took a gem of a building and turned it into an ethereal and enchanting jewel, and every night its reflection shone in the Sacramento River, and could be seen in the reflective sides of the multi-story downtown buildings on the eastern shore.

Today the Ziggurat building looms in the dark like a gloomy phantom, because we must not emit CO2. And how much CO2 are we talking about? If we assume CO2 emitted equates to energy expended, then we know we have to figure out how much electricity these lights require, and install a sustainable (and non-CO2!) power supply.

Continue reading "Sacramento's Darkened Ziggurat - Guest Blog" »

November 1, 2007

Is Nuclear Power the Answer?

Not according to Climate Progress which exposes nuclear power's Achille's heel:

No, I don’t mean cost, safety, waste, or proliferation — though those are all serious problems. I mean the Achilles heel of nuclear power in the context of climate change: water.

Climate change means water shortages in many places and hotter water everywhere. Both are big problems for nukes.

… nuclear power is the most water-hungry of all energy sources, with a single reactor consuming 35-65 million litres of water each day.

You can read the whole blog on Climate Progress's blog.

One more reason to do a little research before you make a decision on ways to mitigate global warming.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

October 24, 2007

Sacramento State course helps take the blues out of turning green

A lot of businesses say they are going green, but Sacramento State can help show them how to do it right.

The College of Continuing Education is developing a Green Business Operations Certificate program designed to help facility managers, building engineers, purchasing and contract managers, office managers and small business owners incorporate environmentally friendly practices into their businesses.

“Operating a green business is uncharted territory for many businesses and many government agencies because their employees tend to have no formal training or experience in green operations,” says Kirsten Ryden, professional development programs, College of Continuing Education. “They don’t know how to identify attributes of a green product or how to measure the fiscal impact of their new green policies.”

Courses will show organizations how to operate a green facility, define and report on key performance indicators, establish new procedures and sustainable procurement of materials and services used in a green business and develop financial justification models for programs and projects, Ryden says.

Courses begin in April, but CCE is getting the word out early so businesses have an opportunity to add it to their calendars. Several organizations are already on their wait list, Ryden says.

For more information on the Green Business Operation Certificate, contact CCE at (916) 278-4433. For media assistance, contact the Sacramento State Public Affairs office at (916) 278-6156.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive


October 23, 2007

Sacramento City Reaching Out to Green Companies

Clean energy has become big business and Sacramento city leaders are trying to attract more of it. The city is offering incentives like tax credits, financial assistance, and streamlined permitting to any clean technology company that moves in.

The old Amy Depot on Florin Perkins Road and Fruitridge Road is the center of the new area the city is now calling a "clean tech zone." Business owners are already excited for the idea. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could make a product that the customer wants, society wants, you make a profit and you feel good about it," said Trong Nguyen, Owner of Workwise.

The depot was built in the early 1940's before World War II and closed in 1991. Some of the land has been taken over by industry. Now the city is hoping all of it will be bustling with green technology.

(© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

August 21, 2007

Electricity From Wave Power

Wow, this is hot! And check out the other 9 inventions in this Fortune Small Business slideshow.

Starting in 2007, massive, predictable waves off the coast of Oregon will help light homes and businesses along the West Coast, thanks to an entrepreneur named George Taylor. A former surfer who grew up in Australia, Taylor, now 72, studied electrical engineering and spent the past 40 years as a small-business owner in the U.S. His most recent invention is a buoy that can convert a wave's up-and-down motion into electricity, which can be carried ashore by undersea cables and fed into the national power grid. electricity%20from%20the%20sea.jpg

The buoys are an environmentalist's dream - barely visible from the beach, drawing on an abundant, renewable energy resource, with little or no impact upon marine life and emitting no gases that contribute to global warming. Buttressing Taylor's optimism, researchers at Oregon State University say that only 0.2 percent of the ocean's untapped wave energy could power the entire world. The buoys Taylor plans to install off Oregon in 2007 will generate electricity at rates competitive with that produced by coal - currently the cheapest, most abundant, most commonly used (and dirtiest) source of energy. Future generations of the buoys could conceivably produce power more cheaply than that.

By the year 2010 Taylor plans to have a 100-ton, 37-foot-wide buoy that could generate 500 kilowatts. An array of 40 buoys that size, linked together, could generate electricity at prices significantly less than that of a typical coal-burning power station, and far less than the price at plants that burn more expensive fuels such as natural gas. Clean electricity that cheap could be used to desalinate seawater, split water molecules to make hydrogen for fuel-cell cars or provide inexpensive power for other ambitious, energy-hungry projects.

George Taylor reminds me of some of the inventors I have met over the years. Your first thought is to think they are some kind of crackpot, but on closer inspection....

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive


August 17, 2007

Leapfrog Infill by Ed Ring

Everybody's seen them; homes crammed so close together you can't park a car in the driveway, you can't put a trampoline in the backyard, and forget about planting a tree. This is the "smart growth" that Californians are having shoved down their throats, and there's nothing smart about it. By contrast, in the rural communities north of the American river and east of Sacramento, streets without sidewalks wind through rolling hills, and homes on acre and half-acre lots are set well back from the road. Mature trees provide shade, and deer and
wild turkey come up from the river to invade well-tended gardens. Nobody minds.

But because "smart growth" requires leapfrog infill, this rural way of life is being relentlessly and needlessly destroyed. The reason for this is because an "urban service boundary" has been proclaimed, which prohibits any new housing developments on land beyond this boundary.
So as the population of California grows from 36 million to over 50 million in the next twenty years, we are going to squeeze all of these new people into existing "footprints" of cities.

Do you live in a semi-rural neighborhood within an "urban service boundary"? Because if you do, you'd better get ready for ten "detached homes" to get built on that one acre vacant lot across the street from you. These "cluster homes" are disgusting, ugly contrivances that would not make sense by any aesthetic standard - condominiums look better and provide more amenities, but they don't qualify as "residential single family dwellings." The "smart growth"
cabal exploits the technicality that defines these eyesores as "detached" homes, so get used to them - and pity the poor souls who have to live in them. And enjoy trying to share the road with your twenty million new neighbors, since no roads get built under the "smart growth" mantra, either - they intend to force us all into busses and light rail.

Now a company headquartered in Iowa with operations in the Sacramento area has come up with a plan to build 14 detached homes on 3/4 of an acre. An article in the Sacramento Bee entitled "Downsizing Comes Home" has an image of this abominable plan. And all the powers that be, the media, the environmental lobby, and the politicians, enthusiastically support this destruction of our lifestyle - now claiming low density development causes more CO2 emissions (global warming alarm is probably the biggest scam in the history of the world), and in a larger sense, claiming we are committing some crime against the earth if we want a yard. Perhaps the most offensive aspect of the artist's rendering of the 14 homes on 3/4 acre plan is all the open space surrounding the homes. But that makes sense when you understand the real agenda: This open parkland is owned and maintained by the government - while homeowners get nothing. That used to be called communism.

Volumes could be written about how a coalition of public employee unions, environmental lobbyists, trial lawyers, and opportunistic politicians and academics are destroying the ability of ordinary Americans to own homes on decent sized lots, but for now, let's run some numbers. If you cram 14 homes onto 3/4 of an acre, then at 640 acres per square mile, and 3.5 people per household, you get 41,813 people per square mile. Factor in streets, parks and commercial districts, and you are still looking at 20,000 people per square mile.

Basically, if the smart growth people have their way, the twenty million new residents destined to join us here in California over the next twenty years will be crammed into a mere 1,000 square miles - a square 31 miles on a side, divided into a million tiny pieces and stomped onto every former pearl of beauty, the untended vacant lot or doomed old house on a big lot, within existing cities. This is an absolutely horrific future, being foisted upon us by powerful vested interests and out-of-touch elites who couldn't care less about you and me.

To provide comparisons, the Central Valley in California is 40,000 square miles! If the market were allowed to provide housing, instead running everything through government agencies and trial lawyers, there would still be high density housing, because lots of people like that, especially when it's concentrated in the urban core of existing cities. If property rights were respected, and market-driven development were permitted anywhere (instead of a prison wall surrounding every metropolitan area, causing leapfrog infill to destroy every semi-rural suburb), additional semi-rural suburbs would be built, accommodating the dreams of those who want a little piece of this earth. There is plenty of room.

Ed Ring
EcoWorld

August 7, 2007

Green Jobs Act Passes

Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Green Jobs Act.

To understand the impact, I quote from a blog written by Van Jones of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights located in Oakland, CA.

This ground-breaking legislation will make $120 million a year available across the country to begin training workers (and would-be workers) for jobs in the clean energy sector. When the bill becomes law, 35,000 people a year will benefit from cutting edge, vocational education in fields that could literally save the Earth.

Lofty as that sounds, the Green Jobs Act is responding smartly to an important, practical need. To beat global warming and meet the energy challenges of the future, the United States will need hundreds of thousands of “green-collar workers.” Such workers will be needed to install millions of solar panels; weatherize homes and other buildings; create a sufficient quantity of bio-fuels; build and maintain wind-farms and much, much more. Without these workers, the country will not have the working muscle and hands-on smarts to change our trajectory and fashion a different future.

There is an added bonus found in creating a strong, green-collar workforce: these energy-saving, air-quality-improving, carbon-cutting jobs can do more than just save the planet or help avoid oil wars in the future. For tens of thousands of Americans who are falling behind in the global job market, these work opportunities can also create “green pathways out of poverty.”

At their best, green-collar jobs offer living wages and upward mobility — in growth industries. And most of these jobs simply cannot be outsourced to other countries. The reason is simple: the solar panels and wind farms must be constructed here in the United States, not overseas. And the millions and millions of buildings that need to be retrofitted to save more energy cannot be shipped over to China. They all must be weatherized where they stand — right here in the United States.

Therefore, green-collar jobs can provide secure employment for U.S. workers.

The key is to make sure that those people who most need the jobs — urban youth, returning veterans, struggling farmers, displaced workers from our manufacturing sectors — can get all the training they need to fill those posts.

Unfortunately, so far, the United States has no coherent strategy for training enough workers to meet the growing labor demand in the green and clean energy sectors.

Imagine making going green an engine for America's economic future. Imagine replacing all of those outsourced jobs with jobs right here in America. Imagine giving hope to inner city youth - especially important in Sacramento where violence is taking so many of our youth - either by death or lifetimes in jail.

Word is that President Bush is going to veto this bill. If you believe that the passage of this bill is an important step to turn greening America into a reality in which all of our population can share, please contact the White House and ask him to reconsider.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

August 4, 2007

Sustainable Demographics by Ed Ring

No discussion of environmental policy should ignore the inevitability of an elderly population, but they do. The interconnectedness of the size of the human population of the planet and the health of global ecosystems is apparent to all, but environmental policy debates treat the population issue as a sideshow, instead of granting it centrality.

Only then can the crucial nature of human population demographics be analysed from an environmental and a cultural perspective. And from that perspective, there are two ways that nations of the world are coping with the aging of their populations. One is to import new citizens, the other is to automate society with armies of robots. These are utterly distinct ways to demographically manage collective aging.

In Japan, a nation fully industrialized with a formidable technological base, robots are on the verge of walking, talking, and performing basic tasks. Parallel progress is being made to render these robots lifelike. Japan is learning to emerge into the inevitable next state of humankind, because they are not importing young people. If you believe that human population is destined to level off, then you have to assume the human population will begin to age.

So how Japan copes may help us all prepare for the advancement of humanity to a new evolutionary state, where productivity from semi-autonomous robots and androids removes the need for a young workforce, or a workforce that outnumbers the retirement citizens. Environmentalists must realize that if our ecosystems benefit from a stable, sustainable quantity of human inhabitants on earth, than inevitably that population will become an elderly population. How this will work must be part of any comprehensive vision of environmentalism.

Ed Ring
Editor, EcoWorld

August 1, 2007

Californians Want Government Action on Environment

For the first time, a majority of Californians (54%) say they think global warming poses a very serious threat to the state’s future economy and quality of life.

A majority of the state’s likely voters (54%) say that presidential candidates’ positions on the environment will be very important in determining how they cast their vote in 2008.

Significantly more San Joaquin Valley residents (35%) than residents statewide (25%) identify air pollution as a very serious health threat to them and their families.

These findings from a newly released statewide survey conducted by the Public Policy Insitute of California. You can read the full report here.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacrmento Executive

July 7, 2007

Redwood’s 7 pt. Pledge

By Ed “Redwood” Ring

Later today, when somewhere in this world begins the seventh day of the seventh month of the seventh year of the new millenium, the concert heard round the world will start, and global warming consciousness will continue to build. Now we have a pledge that all 2.0 billion likely listeners will be urged to sign. On Larry King Live yesterday, Al Gore denied this has anything to do with politics, stating that global warming is a moral issue.

But with a pledge being presented to 2.0 billion people, and climate crisis trainer training camps in full bloom around the planet, this is not just a moral issue. This is the biggest political mobilization in the history of mankind. So the most constructive thing we can do is take what must include an incredible amount of positive energy, and help keep the juggernaut in touch with reality. To that end, here are some considerations presented as an alternative seven point pledge:

1. Gore: To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 per cent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth.

Redwood: To recognize the “climate crisis” is useful as a propaganda campaign for pragmatic interests with multiple agendas, helping to create a mob mentality that may have devastating consequences for our personal and economic freedoms.

2. Gore: To take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own CO2 pollution;

Redwood: To recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant, indeed, that plants cannot survive without it. To recognize that emphasizing CO2 emissions reduction takes the emphasis away from reducing genuinely unhealthy air pollution, such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates.

3. Gore: To fight for moratorium on construction of any new facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

Redwood: To recognize 90% of the world’s energy comes from burning; 80% from fossil fuel. To understand that trying to inject CO2 underground is probably not feasible, could be dangerous, and could be an incredibly expensive waste. To realize that we are burning rainforests to grow biofuel; to realize that biofuel is not carbon neutral and is not going to replace fossil fuel; to fight to stop rainforest destruction.

4. Gore: To work for a dramatic increase in energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school and transportation;

Redwood: To support energy efficiency technologies, but not through product bans or rationing. Further, to also support increasing energy production.

5. Gore: To fight for laws and policies that expand use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

Redwood: To fight for laws that expand all sources of clean energy, and to recognize that over-regulation stifles innovation and leads to destructive waste of resources.

6. Gore: To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests;

Redwood: To plant trees, recognizing that tropical deforestation is a more significant threat to global climate than industrial CO2 emissions, especially since meaningful restoration of tropical rainforests is far more feasible than reducing CO2 emissions.

7. Gore: To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment.

Redwood: To stop demonizing businesses and to recognize that the ideology of total control of land and production that underlies radical environmentalism requires tyrannical governments.

June 27, 2007

Bottled Water - Environmentally Unfriendly

A piece forwarded to me by my step-son Nathan. From Jim Murphy 'Mark to Market' writer, Dow Jones:

"Et Tu, Michael?

I have never been a fan of designer waters, not just for the obvious reasons that they cost a lot more than virtually free municipal water, which is almost always comparable in quality to Poland Spring, Evian, Dasani or whatever.

There are other less obvious, but more weighty, reasons to shun bottled water.

Tons of gasoline and diesel fuel are expended in trucking bottled water to warehouses, local supermarkets and other outlets all over the United States. As if that were not environmental lunacy for a product that comes free out of the kitchen tap, the plastic bottles in which the water comes probably take a century or two to decompose after they are trucked to landfills where the petroleum byproducts from which they are made seep into the ground water.

That's why the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, deserves praise for banning city payment for designer water at all municipal buildings and agencies.

The mayor pointed out that, not only would the city save about $500,000 a year in bottled water costs, but San Francisco municipal water is equal to or superior to anything that comes in a bottle.

"In San Francisco," Reuters reported, "for the price of one gallon of bottled water, local residents can purchase 1,000 gallons of tap water," according to the executive order signed by the mayor.

Those city employees worried about the quality of the municipal water supply can always pick up a bottle of designer water on their way to work.

Or they can do what my son, Max, and his wife, Karen, did when they realized the environmental drawbacks of bottled water: They gave away the bottled water cooler they had and began using a Brita water filter. Not, mind you, that the family is recommending a Brita filter. Any decent water filtration system is a lot "greener" than any bottled water.

Aside to Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City: Mr. Mayor, have you gotten rid of all city-funded bottled water just as Mayor Newsom did? If you haven't, I know from your great record on environmental matters you soon will. There's no need to give me credit for the idea."

Gillian's comment: Last night Pierre and I attended the Police Concert. Part of the proceeds from their tour will go to support WaterAid, an organization that works to provide access to safe water to everyone in the world. Currently 1/6th of the world's population, more than one billion people do not have such access. Something is completely out of whack when people who live in the rich nations are deciding which designer water is more 'cool' that the rest and paying astronomical prices for those deemed to be the coolest and more than a billion people face death and disease from the water supplies available to them.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

May 18, 2007

Biofuel or Biohazard? by Ed Ring

On May 9th 2007 the BBC ran an online story entitled “UN Warns on Hazards of Biofuels” where they conclude “Current research concludes that using biomass for combined heat and power (CHP), rather than for transport fuels or other uses, is the best option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade - and also one of the cheapest.”

The report also correctly points out that “demand for biofuels has accelerated the clearing of primary forest for palm plantations, particularly in southeast Asia.”
There’s more: The report notes water is a concern, stating “The expanding world population and the on-going switch towards consumption of meat and dairy produce as incomes rise are already putting pressure on freshwater supplies, which increased growing of biofuel crops could exacerbate.”

These problems with biofuels, which we have explored in-depth in several posts, including “Ethanol & Water,” “Deforestation & Global Warming,” and literally dozens of others (ref. post categories Biofuel and Global Warming), can be boiled down to the following position: Global warming alarm, primarily manifested as a war against industrial CO2 emissions, has had one major impact so far, which is to launch devastating new rounds of tropical deforestation, which is exacerbating global drought, extreme weather, water scarcity, wildlife destruction, and, you guessed it, global warming.

There is a need for biofuel certification, and the ugly inconvenient truth is if you came up with a comprehensive set of criteria for biofuel certification, there may not be any environmentally justifiable reason to grow biofuel, other than in certain low yield applications in arid regions to stablize soil, and within contained, factory environments. Here are some of the criteria biofuel needs to meet:
(1) Biofuel cannot displace food crops.
(2) Biofuel cannot displace rainforest.
(3) Biofuel cannot displace critical wildlife habitat.
(4) Production of biofuel must be decisively energy positive.
(5) Biofuel must not exacerbate water scarcity, either in the growing or the refining process.
(6) Biofuel plantations cannot exploit local labor, or exclude local ownership.
(7) Biofuel use should be encouraged in the most efficient applications, such as combined heat and power, and not automatically be directed into the automotive sector.
(8) Biofuel produced using cellulosic extraction must not prevent valuable organic matter from returning to the soil.

Any other criteria? When viewed against these criteria, the potential for an environmentally correct biofuel industry becomes far more problematic than is generally acknowledged.

Whatever happened to “Save the Rainforests?”

Ed Ring
Editor, EcoWorld

May 9, 2007

EOL: The Encyclopedia of Life

WASHINGTON (May 9, 2007) – Many of the world’s leading scientific institutions today announced the launch of the Encyclopedia of Life, an unprecedented global effort to document all 1.8 million named species of animals, plants, and other forms of life on Earth. For the first time in the history of the planet, scientists, students, and citizens will have multi-media access to all known living species, even those that have just been discovered.

And so an idea that was first introduced to the world at TED Talks when Ed Wilson made his TED Prize wish in March was launched today with a $50M funding commitment.

See the results in a 2 minute video and sign up to support the effort. Let's leave something spectacular for future generations.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

April 26, 2007

A Lifetime of Poopbags and Owners' Apparel Too

rsz_BodieIMG_0054%5B1%5D.jpg

Now this guy is going to need a lifetime of poopbags and his owner really should be wearing a hat promoting the site - a trucker's poopbags hat.

poopsbaghat.jpg

Enjoy Mike

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

April 22, 2007

Earth - Given to Us To Hold In Trust For Future Generations

earthdaylogo.gif

Things You Can Do To Moderate Your Impact On This Earth:

1. Do you run the shower waiting for the water to heat up? Catch the water in a bucket and use it to water your plants.

2. Shop for locally produced products and save the energy required to transport non-local products.

3. Thick vegetation close to the house keeps rooms cooler.

4. Buy unpackaged or minimally packaged products.

5. Take your own cup to the local coffee shop and save paper and styrofoam cups.

Remember, we are holding the earth in trust for the next generation and in my opinion we are getting an F grade right now.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

April 20, 2007

Radical Environmentalism by Ed Ring

In the April 23, 2007 issue of Business Week, a magazine one might reasonably hope to have a balanced perspective on environmental issues, an article has appeared entitled “Climate Wars: Episode Two,” by John Carey.

Beneath the title, the teaser line reads as follows: “With the skeptics almost silenced, businesses are fighting over how to cut carbon emissions.” Silenced? Does anyone in America remember the first amendment? Does anyone in America still remember that skepticism is one of the foundations of science? What if the skeptics are right?

Our concerns with global warming alarm are well documented: Climate models don’t adequately take into account the role of changes in land use nor the role of water vapor; they don’t allow for balancing mechanisms in the earth’s climate; they emphasize industrial CO2 emissions at the expense of countless other factors. One good volcanic eruption and all of a sudden we’ll be wanting to warm the earth - but don’t bother the journalists - their minds are made up and the debate is closed.

What’s perhaps most amazing is these journalists who have relentlessly demonized the energy and transportation industries - the biggest industries on earth - for correctly trying to insert a note of caution into the mad rush to blame anthropogenic CO2 emissions for every thunderstorm or hot day, are abruptly free of their cynicism now that these companies are on board. Carey writes approvingly, like some forgiving parent, that the major oil companies and automakers have “evolved.”

Carey can’t help taking an easy shot at President Bush, who despite whatever else you may think of him is right on this one. As Carey says, “There are still holdouts, not the least George W. Bush. His mantra is that China and India must sign on if the U.S. is to impose curbs…” Mantra? How about a good point? China and India together produce nearly 5.0 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to not quite 6.0 gigatons for the U.S. But China and India have 2.4 billion people, compared to .3 billion in the U.S. Even if industrial CO2 matters - and a skeptic would be underwhelmed at that notion - what happens as China and India continue to industrialize?

Maybe Carey and other journalists - along with any conscientious environmentalist - ought to realize that mandating CO2 emission reductions are going to empower the biggest businesses on earth. Maybe they should realize that as we embrace this obsessive fanaticism, outlawing backyard barbeques and incandescent light bulbs, the only companies powerful enough to remain in the industrial production game will be those select members of monopolies and cartels. Maybe the corporate multinationals have simply realized there’s a lot of money, taxpayer’s money, to be made by rolling over. And who can blame them?

Why doesn’t anyone in the media report on how scientists who have continued to question global warming alarm and the role of industrial CO2 have been intimidated and silenced - assuming “silencing” people is still a bad idea in the United States? Why doesn’t anyone in the media follow up on the myriad of reports that continue to raise questions about the wisdom of doing anything in the name of reducing CO2 emissions - such as devastating the remaining tropical rainforests to grow “carbon neutral” biofuel, when it may be the tropical rainforests are more critical to the global climate than regulating CO2?

There are many disturbing fallacies in Carey’s article. How about contrasting his bias against evil businesses who have suddenly been brought to heel, to his almost reverential, totally uncritical treatment of the environmental organizations who have opportunistically stoked this hysteria? Environmental organizations in the United States have been taken over by radicals, who are anti-growth, anti-capitalism, anti-car, anti-industry; they want to force everyone off the sacred “open space” and cram us all into ultra-high-density mega-cities; essentially the radical core of the environmental movement is communist. They have literally billions of dollars each year they use to spread propaganda and lobby politicians, and the global warming scare is the best thing that ever happened to them. Hiding behind their nonprofit status, they are as big as big business can get. But unlike businesses, these environmental radicals have declared economic war on the world.

Hopefully before it’s too late Americans will recognize the truth, that radical environmentalism has corrupted the environmental movement, coopted journalism, cowed our policymakers, and undermined open scientific discourse. Radical environmentalism is the reason homes cost two or three times what they should cost, and the reason we haven’t got enough roads to drive efficiently to work and back, and instead have to wait in gridlock for hours every day. They are the reason for energy and water shortages, and they will be to blame when rationing and punitive pricing is the norm for those essentials. Have there been important goals that environmentalists have accomplished? Of course. But they have gone too far.

Anyone who watches the news with a critical eye should be concerned about the certainty with which this is being pushed. It is the biggest propaganda campaign in U.S. history. It is being sold, and to think there are no hidden agendas, or room for skepticism, is a mistake of epic proportions. And believe it or not, the environment may be the biggest victim of all, along with our liberty and freedom.

Ed Ring
Editor, EcoWorld

April 15, 2007

Bees Make A Bee-line In the Wrong Direction

Early studies give credence to the theory that bees are abandoning their hives because the radiation given off by cell phones and other electronic devices is interfering with the bees' navigation systems. Currently 70% of the East Coast commercial bee populations are lost and 60% of those on the West Coast. The phenomenen has now spread to Europe. The outcome could prove devastating as most of the world crops are pollinated by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

Read the whole article in the UK newspaper, The Independent

Does this give more credence to the research that shows increases in brain cancers, lower sperm counts and a loss of brain cells all attributed to cell phone use?

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

April 12, 2007

Doris Duke Foundation Funds Global Warming Research

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation has set up a $100 million fund to underwrite 5 years of global warming research. The foundation's Climate Change Initiative will look at policies that can speed up the use of new technologies and broaden the use of existing ones to reduce carbon dioxide, methane and other industrial gases that scientists blame for heating the atmosphere.

The mission of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation is to improve the quality of people's lives through grants supporting the performing arts, wildlife conservation, medical research and the prevention of child maltreatment, and through preservation of the cultural and environmental legacy of Doris Duke's properties.

Doris Duke, whose life was full of ups and downs in terms of bad selections of husbands, lovers, an adopted daughter, and butlers, left a huge fortune to her foundation, which is doing very positive things including this latest initiative.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive

March 25, 2007

Reforest the Tropical World - Ed Ring

There is a network of tree nurseries and over-sustainable forestry operations that are reforesting vast swaths of Central America. It is a huge success story. One example of this profitable process is Finca Leola (www.fincaleola.com), with reforesting operations in the northern highlands of Costa Rica.

Finca Leola’s principle of business is simple and powerful in its regenerative impact - that by underharvesting a newly planted forest of cash timber, the overall forest mass increases faster, allowing larger underharvests. Perpetual and growing profit.

Such an alternative economic model is all the more important in this day of allowing anything - including rampant tropical deforestation - in the name of growing biofuel to reduce CO2 emissions. We need to reforest the tropics at least as much as curtail anthropogenic CO2.

What if global warming were the result of changes in land use, and increased CO2 is a result of a hotter earth? Over 20% of the earth’s surface, in agricultural basins and plateaus from California’s Central Valley to Africa’s Sahel, has now seen its water table lower dramatically, often by an order of magnitude or more, due to mechanized pumps and deep wells. Ten million square miles of overheated earth due to depleted water tables could be countered by massive infrastructure projects to desalinate seawater and pump it via pipeline back into these aquafirs.

What if global warming and climate change is because over 10% of the earth’s surface, nearly two-thirds of our original tropical rainforests, no longer exist? For over 100 years, tropical forests have been decimated via logging, more recently they are being finished off thanks to lucrative biofuel prices, with perhaps no end in sight. Without forest transpiration, especially near the coasts, the regular monsoon circulation is collapsed, causing more droughts and extreme storms, and these deforested lands are now - equatorial with formerly perennial transpiration - heat islands on a continental scale.

Someday the earth might warm too much, and wouldn’t it be a huge missed opportunity, if we didn’t put forested mountain bike trails atop good-sized urban highrise condominiums, to mitigate the land-based heat island effect, when such measures, not CO2 hysteria, would keep earth cool?

Ed Ring
Editor, EcoWorld

March 11, 2007

Is the Earth Trying To Tell Us Something?

1. 40 percent to 60 percent of the bees nationwide have perished during the past six months.
2. Fall-run chinook salmon that make a home in the Sacramento River and its tributaries fell in 2006 to their lowest numbers since 1992.
3. A 90% decline in plankton over the past 50 years, leads to fish and seabirds dying in droves.
4. The polar bear population is declining. Loss of summer ice will almost certainly result in extinction.

You can read an interesting report on the effect of global warming on California prepared by Enviornmental Defense in 2006.

Be informed. Ask your government what they are doing to combat this potential catastrophe.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive


March 4, 2007

Message For SACTOWNTRUTH

Gillian is reading the New York Times right now (it's a Sunday ritual) and I've snuck off to read the incoming comments on our SacramentoExecutive blog. I found a blistering attack of Rhonda Erwin by SACTOWNTRUTH ... Gillian hasn't seen it yet. But I can only imagine the wrath of Gillian when she sees it.

Knowing Gillian's support of Rhonda and the kindred spirit between these two women, I feel compelled to defend them. I posted a comment and want to elevate it in a new blog entry...

SACTOWNTRUTH -

The beauty of our society is that we are founded on the notion of free speech. And here at Sacramento Executive we support free speech by publishing people's views like yours, even though we strongly disagree. My wife has met Rhonda - she is an awesome lady, given the trials and tribulations that she's endured.

I see Rhonda's work with the juvenile system and I applaud her. I see her courage in the face of racism that is so deeply rooted in America and I respect her.

I know that for every two African American men attending college there are three in prison.

I know that 45% of African Americans do not graduate from high school.

I know that exactly zero African Americans are members of the elite Dallas Country Club in Highland Park.

Why these staggering statistics? Because we as a nation allow it to occur. We are basically racist. And that's a crime against humanity.

SACTOWNTRUTH, you don't speak the truth. You speak racism and bigotry. And you didn't even have the courage to sign your name.

SACTOWNTRUTH? I think not.

Rhonda, we love you and support you.

Pierre Cutler
The Sacramento Executive


December 22, 2006

Brazilian vs. California Ethanol

One of the more interesting propositions facing California’s voters last November was Proposition 87, which would have taxed in-state oil producers to fund alternative energy projects. Proponents of this bill aired a television commercial, narrated by Bill Clinton, where the Brazilian ethanol industry was referenced. The closing message is “If Brazil can do it, so can California.”

This is preposterous. First of all, Brazil, which only replaces a bit more than 10% of their petroleum with ethanol, has a per capita petroleum and ethanol consumption of about 4.0 barrels per year per citizen (ref. EIA). California, the most energy-efficient of all US states, nonetheless has a per capita petroleum consumption of over 20 barrels per year per citizen (ref. DOE). For this reason, California, with 33 million inhabitants and sitting on maybe 40,000 square miles of fully utilized farmland (ref. NetState), requires nearly 700 million barrels of petroleum per year. This is almost as much as Brazil; with 186 million people, and nearly 10,000 square miles of farmland already dedicated to growing sugar cane, Brazil requires only about 800 million barrels of petroleum and ethanol per year.

Where is California going to find enough land to make any dent whatsoever in their petroleum consumption through planting biofuel crops? Let’s not forget that sugar cane doesn’t grow in California, but corn does. Sugar cane, best case, will yield maybe around 11,000 barrels of ethanol per square mile per year (ref. UCLA), but corn yields less than half that, around 4,700 barrels per square mile per year (ref. USDA).
This math is not encouraging: For California to replace 10% of its current petroleum consumption with ethanol, California would have to convert 50% of its existing farmland to grow biofuel crops. Not a chance.

Obviously California can import ethanol from America’s cornbelt, but the issue remains of how to find sufficient land. As we note in Biofuel vs. Photovoltaics, there are around 5.0 million square miles of arable farmland in the entire world, and even at yields of 11,000 barrels of oil per year, to get 80 million barrels per day (to match world petroleum consumption), you would pretty much have to replace 100% of the world’s farmland.

Proponents of biofuel correctly point out that it isn’t meant to completely replace petroleum, and that new techniques to extract biofuel from cellulose or to grow it in self contained reactors may greatly increase capacities. What they aren’t saying is that meanwhile food prices are being driven up all over the world, particularly in poorer countries, and deforestation is accelerating, because of this new cash crop.

Bottom line - if this is the best proponents of Proposition 87 could offer, they didn’t have anything worth voting for. Let’s not forget it was government bureaucrats who wasted billions of dollars on hydrogen fuel cells, delaying the introduction of hybrids and all-electric cars by a decade or more.

It would have been tempting to support Proposition 87 if the bureaucrats intended to use 100% of the funds to expand photovoltaic capacity. But investments are already going into photovoltaic research and new manufacturing. And the private funds going into photovoltaics today are coming from the Silicon Valley, where investors are managing their own money with an eye towards breakthroughs, not patronage.

Ed Ring
Editor, EcoWorld

December 12, 2006

Apple's Not Green

iPods come in all shapes and colors - even green. But according to Greenpeace, Apple comes at the bottom of the list of electronics companies when it comes to environmental and recycling criteria. Top of the list is Nokia, follwed by Dell, Fujitsu-Siemens, Motorola, Sony Ericsson and Hewlett-Packard. And there in the 14th position is Apple.

Apple, according to the report, still relies on toxic chemicals and plastics. It also does, according to the report, a poor job promoting recycling efforts for its iPods and other products.

"For a guiding company that is so inspirational to many, we really need to know about these problems and what they are doing about them," said Zeina Alhajj, a Greenpeace campaign coordinator.

Apple didn't comment

So, Pierre, about that blog you wrote about Apple's stock meteoric rise, could this prove a damper?

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive


Sponsors

CBLogo_webjpg (180 x 92).jpg

caroline%20jensen%201%20%28180%20x%2068%29.jpg

Pillsbury.jpg

legacy%20capital%20%28180%20x%2062%29.jpg

MPSC logo (180 x 64).jpg

Comstock2.jpg



eMail Us

comstocks (180 x 53).jpg
prosper_logo (180 x 28).jpg
re_bannerad.jpg

Website Contributors

AmplifyOEROverLogo.gif