BioLogical

Let’s face it. We live in a society that values above all else, on-going technological development. Varying in breadth and scale, the consequences of rapid technological change have become firmly entrenched in our lives. But at what cost to our fragile planet? Has our drive through Silicon Valley implanted in us a tendency to dodge our duty to the environment?

            It seems like a case of Pandora and curiosity. We are all unaware that ‘Pandora’s box’, has yet to be shut. Biodiesel is equivalent to the lock and key. Yet to an extent, significant destruction has already been inflicted upon our earth, from burning fossil fuels. We can however, discontinue further human and environmental devastation. Suppose we put a stop to that devastation. What would happen? I don’t mean what process we would go through to end this devastation. I mean what it would be like when the job was done. How would it feel to live in a world where greenhouse gas emissions were a thing of the past? Or even a glimpse of a renewable sustainable world, where technology is used for the benefit of all human kind.  

           

We have a selective penchant for technologies that provide instant gratification, whilst avoiding life-saving innovations like biodiesel. C’mon! I thought we were the smart species. Instead of investing in alterative fuels, countless billions are squandered reassuring the next generation of technophiles. Collective ego 1, environment 0, has become the reality. Perhaps environmentalist David Bellamy can help us better understand; ‘‘Scientists know how to solve all the major environmental problems of the world, but too many people are still making too much money from doing things the wrong way’’. Statements like Bellamy’s show there is still hope.

            The devastation that has eventuated from the box can be ‘undone’, by realising that there’s hope at the very bottom. We can extricate ourselves. Biodiesel has the capability to regenerate our perception on the universe as a whole. Biodiesel can be produced from vegetable oil, recycled cooking grease, animal fats and countless others. I doubt there is much dispute that biodiesel can offer more benefits than fossil fuels. But what I’m keen to hear from consumers today is whether you really care anymore? Have you become so detached from using environmentally friendly alternatives, that the difference between pollution and clean - green is negligible? If not, would you be prepared to spend less money by purchasing biodiesel for a greener approach to your planet earth?

Many are sadly unaware of biodiesel’s advantages. Biodiesel can satisfactorily replace burning fossil fuels by being able to run in any diesel engine, with no mechanical changes needed. The highly efficient diesel engine was designed by engineer Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel. His inspiration was to liberate the farmers of the day, by manufacturing an engine that would run on a readily available fuel crop. The fuel would have been grown and produced locally on farmer’s land. Karl Diesel’s original engine ran purely on peanut oil. You’re most likely thinking, ‘well then why don’t they today’?

Mysteriously, on the evening of 29^th of September 1913, the engine developed for environmental purposes was all to float ashore, along with Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel’s lifeless floating body. But hold on there! Where did this come from? Although some were skeptical, the way Diesel died has never been verified. Suspiciously, he may have been the target of an assassination, aimed at destroying his plan for cheap, efficient and accessible fuel. Low and behold the world would have to wait another hundred years before the use of biodiesel was considered again.

            Fast-forwarding to today and it appears that the average farm in the US consumes gasoline at 82 litres per hectare. It would seem strange not to ask the question; why aren’t we cultivating the constituent crops of biodiesel? The attractive energy yield of biodiesel emits up to 78% less carbon dioxide whilst reducing carcinogenic hydrocarbon emissions by up to 75%. We really should be asking the question, ‘why aren’t we beginning to cultivate crops for worldwide biodiesel production?’

            Biodiesel can be locally produced. This eliminates our dependency on oil mainly derived from politically unstable areas, such as the Middle East. With ever-increasing oil prices, biodiesel is currently a highly feasible option. It has the potential to increase the value of the agricultural products from which it is derived. This improves the income of the rural sector and raises its standard of living. The demand for biodiesel will have farmers not only planting crops that have the option of being converted into biodiesel, but these crops can also be sold for their original purpose, for human and animal nutrition. These crops can also be planted together with other crops. How brilliant is this? No food shortages, whilst sustaining biodiesel production.  

            As Karl Diesel put it, ‘‘The use of plant oils as fuel may seem insignificant today. But these oils may, over time, become as important as petroleum or coals are now.’’ It seems his words are promptly becoming a reality. Change is a process that I know will take its time, but there’s no point of denial. The evidence is in front of you, and there’s no two ways about it. Biodiesel would not only fuel your car and your local factories, your plane rides and your boat trips. The main by-product of biodiesel is in fact glycerine, in which you and I happily use every time we clean ourselves, with soaps or use of cosmetics. Yes that’s correct. Even biodiesel’s by-products have a functional purpose. Glycerine can be sold to be used in various industrial processes. Biodiesel offers a safe alternative to handling and transporting, as its biodegradable. It’s reached a point were burning fossil fuels have created so much pollution in the air, that if it weren’t for our lungs there’d be no place to put it all. 

              The environmental and human costs of fossil fuel’s by-products cause health problems for humans and devastation for nature. Nitrogen oxides, for instance, irritate the lungs. So before you ‘huff and puff’ at the thought of such effort needed to make a difference in the world, just think about this; ‘‘everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing them self’’.

            How about aiming your curiosity a little further in life? Spark the desire to live in an environmentally friendly sustainable civilisation. After all, who really wants to be inside a box all their life that endeavours to bring all the plagues and sorrows known to humanity? ‘‘One person can make a difference and every person should try.’’

                                                                                   

                                                                                                Krystal Baron

Oil and Gas Industry's Congressional Friends, Congressman 'Struggling' and More in Capital Eye Opener

By Zachary Newkirk on May 3, 2011 10:05 AM : May 3

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY'S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS:Gas prices are rising again, causing even more "pain at the pump" and challenging a nation to think up new clichés for paying lots of money while filling up one's car. Hawaii broke records last week when gas hit more than $4.50 per gallon.

But, just as gas keeps flowing into American vehicles to keep them running, the oil and gas industry's money keeps pouring into politicians' committees.

During the 2010 election cycle, the oil and gas industry contributed more than $30.5 million to federal level political interests, according to Center for Responsive Politics research. This amount includes more than $17.1 million from industry political action committees, nearly $11.4 million from individuals associated with the industry and more than $2 million in outside money the industry spent to independently promote or slam political candidates.

About 77 percent of that money benefited Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, the oil and gas industry has contributed more than $270 million to political campaigns, committees and causes. Republicans received 76 percent of the total money.

The top five beneficiaries of the oil and gas industry during all campaigns have been Republicans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has raked in more than $2.7 million from the industry. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is a distant second with more than $2.1 million.

But during the 2010 election cycle, a Democrat, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), was the top recipient with $452,700 in contributions. Another Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) rounded out the top five with $225,500. Lincoln was a member of the Blue Dog Caucus before her defeat to now-Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.). Boren is one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Party, voting against the health care bill, voting for its repeal, and voting against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for that position.

What companies are contributing the most? The people and PACs affiliated with Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and Chief Oil and Gas were the top three political donors during the 2010 election.

Koch Industries' employees and PAC doled out more than $1.9 million, of which 94 percent benefited Republicans. All five of the Democrats Koch Industries contributed to are -- or were -- members of the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.

The employees and PAC of ExxonMobil contributed more than $1.4 million to federal-level politics during the 2010 elections. Republicans received 88 percent of that money. Chief Oil and Gas' employees and PAC contributed $1 million to the conservative American Crossroads outside spending group.


CONGRESSMAN'S FINANCIAL WOES?: Rep. Denny Rehberg(R-Mont.), a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 2012, is "struggling just like everybody else" as he recently said of his economic status.

But unlike "everybody else," Rehberg is calculated to be worth between $6.6 million and $56.2 million, for an average of about $31.4 million, according to the Center's research based on 2009 personal financial disclosure forms -- the most recent available.

This would make Rehberg the 14th wealthiest member of the House of Representatives, according to the Center's study. In 2004 and 2005, Rehberg was the 11th wealthiest member of the House.

The wealthiest member of the House of Representatives (and the entire Congress) is Rep.Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) with an averaged net worth of more than $303.5 million.


PRIORITIES USA REVEALS DEMOCRATIC DIVIDE:  Democrats recently announced that they will fight fire with fire in the world of money in politics. In reaction to the conservative outside spending groups like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two groups -- Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action -- were created to raise $100 million for President Obama's re-election campaign, according to Politico on Friday.

Priorities USA Action is a 527 group while Priorities USA, with a 501c(4) status, does not have to disclose its donors.

Longtime Democratic advisers -- including former White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, strategist Paul Begala and former Rahm Emmanuel aide Sean Sweeney  -- will head the new outside spending groups.

President Obama is a stated opponent of undisclosed campaign funds. In April, he announced plans to require companies on government contract to disclose their campaign contributors, a plan that was met with Republican opposition. But Obama has not spoken out against the creation of these new Democratic groups.

Not all Democrats are pleased with large outside spending groups being formed, no matter their potential for raising $100 million.

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a long-time advocate for campaign finance reform and fierce critic for undisclosed outside spending groups, told The Huffington Post, "I’m not going to endorse playing with the devil. I'm not going to endorse becoming just another corporate candidate."

Capitalism, environment and a reluctance to change

“So many problems, so little time” has become the catch-phrase of environmental scientists in many academic circles. What’s more frustrating is the fact that the intellectual and monetary resources are available to solve the world’s major sustainability issues, but governments and institutions are prioritizing propping up failing banks and funding military campaigns.

Environmentalist David Bellamy sums it up nicely when saying; “Environmental scientists know how to solve all the major environmental problems of the world, but too many people are still making too much money from doing things the wrong way”.

What the capitalists, along with the submissive public and deleterious regimes which support this system of environmental abuse fail to understand is that the economy, held aloft in importance, is completely dependant on ecology and healthy ecosystems for survival.

Think about all the life-support systems that we rely on, without really having them on our conscious minds. The plants producing our air, the filtering of our water, the food chains that we over-exploit; all of this is under-valued and forgotten, but if any of it were to fail, the consequences would be dire for life on this planet.

Climate changes have occurred often over the 4 + billion year geological time span, but there is no doubt that the current warming and sea level rise has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. However, as oil is the blood of capitalism, we must realise that depletion of this resource and subsequent crisis may occur before any negative effects of global warming are felt.

Oil itself is actually a chemical rich resource of hydrocarbon molecules that can be molecularly ‘designed’ in such a way to fit many industrial applications. Synthetic fibres, fertilisers, medicines and plastics, plus many, many more, are all derived from crude oil and it is obvious that the above are all mainstays of modern human existence.

Unless we begin to find alternatives now, human society will face annihilation in the near future. While the old elites live it up on our blood sweat and tears, they know that squeezing out a few more years of debauchery won’t matter as they won’t be around when crisis hits. All the while, we experience price hikes, GST and don’t forget the burden on future generations due to this ecological mismanagement.

Why is it that we find it so hard to force change and take these problems seriously? Personally, I feel that there is a failure to transmit ecological and environmental knowledge to the masses. Instead, the knowledge = power paradigm holds sway, whereby a privileged, educated few hold the keys to our collective problems.

As socialists and leftists I feel there has been a tendency to steer away from science in general, placing more of a focus on learning and understanding the liberal arts. Even though these areas are vitally important, basic scientific understanding, especially of the environment, will be essential in any new world order.

Ultimately, most of the problems we face, environmental or social, come from science being taken hostage by capitalist interests. Our great minds and thinkers are swayed by the higher pays offered by corporations whose only interest is in using science to further environmental degradation.

We as socialists must also become more environmentally aware as individuals. One of the reasons that change has been so slow in coming is the fact that city life has limited our perspective. We are made to feel ‘safe’ from the elements in its confines and therefore disconnected from our true habitat.

Environmental activism and socialism go hand-in-hand, as the problems faced by society are issues of sustainability and resource limitation. How do we use the limited resources of this planet to ensure equality for generations ahead? Although it is a difficult question to answer, the current generation, with its access to information and ideas, has the power to make change happen.