Hi all, It is finally becoming clear that bio-plastic is is beginning to be leveraged into the same agriculturally disastrous boom that was first triggered by European bio-fuel subsidies. I have just been introduced, on a Link TV 'Earth Focus' report, to disturbing new programs selling bottled spring water, often in new 'bio bottles', and using the proceeds from the water to support water 'aid' projects in economically colonized communities that are water, and/or clean water, poor. In one case, such a water 'aid' product has been bought up by Starbucks corporation, which is now donating a minuscule 5% of proceeds from this water to water 'aid'. The list of disturbing implications of these programs is too long to take time to post, (I'm sure that your imaginations can figure most of them out), but here is the central synopsis. The same big ag, chemical, fossil fuel, food, and water exploitation entities which have become increasingly merged into a handful of monolithic global parent corporations like Vivendi, Suez, Nestle, Monsanto, and Unilever, are now concertedly launching a blitzkrieg campaign of products which capitalize on the general public's desire to help save the planet, and then steer that very public into consuming an entire new spectrum of ecologically disastrous products. Products which those corporations believe they will use to seamlessly transition themselves from centrally petroleum based production, to centrally agriculturally based production, thereby ensuring that they will not have to sell one less plastic bag or bottle, one less overpriced liter of retailized water or corn syrup based soda, one less personal automobile, nor one less liter of internal combustion fuels... (Ross Mirkarimi's compostable bag ordinance, while probably a supportable positive step in microcosm, must be seen in a whole new perspective in the macrocosm, based on the emerging huge shadow of this global corporate roll-out of bio-plastics, biofuels, and cache' water products. Once Ross's ordinance passes, we -must- make certain that it evolves into a reusable canvass bag program for San Francisco.) The phrase 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' does not begin to equate the gravity of this looming situation. Just as with bio-fuels, we of the SF Greens need to immediately place ourselves at the cutting edge of the movement to fight these products, and turn the world to -real- planet saving measures like returnable glass bottles, returnable canvass bags, a massive shift to truly renewable energy sources, a massive shift to renewable powered electric mass transit, and the kicking of corporations like Starbucks, Nestle, Coca Cola, Vivendi, et al, out every watershed and aquifer on the planet - followed by organized community action to restore all of the Earth's water sources to democracy, and purity. To see show times for the program on which I saw the naively positive report about these new water/bottle programs go to: http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=earth_studio Link TV can be seen throughout Saturdays and Sundays in San Francisco on cable channel 27. To see the web site of one of the European versions of this bottled water Frankenstein's monster go to: http://www.belu.org/ peace, Eric Brooks jrizzo@sprintmail.com wrote:
Eric Brooks said:
My biggest beef with Environment California is that they are supporting bio-fuels.
I just sent someone else a message about biofuels. Eric inspired me to forward an expanded version here. If you don't want to read my rant, scroll down to the link to the Chicago Sun Times story below.
It makes my hair stand on end when I heare Biofuels described as "green" or "renewable." They are neither.
Let's start with biodiesel. Biodiesel creates greenhouse gases when it burns, and uses energy to create it. And, there is only enough used vegetable oil to create 1 percent of the gasoline used. Biodiesel is being used as a "gateway fuel" to corn-based ethanol, which is pushed by Big Agriculture and the Bush administration (and now by Pelosi). The Bushies recently gave City College $200,000 for a biofuels program.
Corn ethanol burns to create greenhouse gases. At best, the gas/Ethanol mixes that are used reduces greenhouse gas emissions by zero to 5 percent.
It also takes as much energy to produce it as it gives when it burns -- there is no net gain. Only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content of ethanol is "renewable." The balance of ethanol's energy comes from coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and process it into ethanol.
Biofuels are being promoted by big agriculture: ADM, Monsanto, etc. Monsanto is interested in new markets for its genetically modified corn seeds.
Probably the worst aspect is that biofuels will compete for land used for food. It would drive up food prices, as corn prices have soared in Mexica. And it will devour open space, remaining rainforests, etc, as more farm land is need. There's nothing green about biofuels.
If **ALL** the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol production, U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by only 12 percent.
The alternative press has been covering this for years. Now, the mainstream press is now catching on:
Chicago Sun Times: Expensive, wasteful ethanol can't solve our problems http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/231613,CST-EDT-REF27B.article
Washington Post: ETHANOL HYPE, Corn Can't Solve Our Problem http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/ AR2007032301625.html
The Independent: The Big Green Fuel Lie http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2328821. ece
This is why I do not support the biofuel program at City College.
Best, John
_______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active