Jo Abbess » Technological Sideshow

Living Life and LOAFing It

Jo — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:21:21 +0000

CHRISTIAN ECOLOGY LINK
PRESS RELEASE

Living Life and LOAFing It – Green Christians ask churches to “Use your LOAF !” on sourcing sustainable food

In the run up to Easter, Christian Ecology Link is asking supporters to think and act on how they source food for their church communities, with the aim of reducing the impact of unsustainable agriculture on their local area, and the wider world.

CEL have launched a new colour leaflet on the LOAF programme principles in time for Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras), or Pancake Day, on 21st February 2012.

The key LOAF principles are that food should where possible be sourced Locally, grown and reared Organically, be Animal-friendly and Fairly traded.

There is an action letter that can be downloaded from the website, urging church leaders to adopt the LOAF principles at community facilities.

CEL’s Web Editor Judith Allinson said, “We hope that our members and friends will take the opportunity to join in sending a letter to their church leaders asking that their community LOAF during Lent, and then carry on LOAFing throughout the following year.”

Green Christians are being encouraged to order free copies of the new LOAF leaflet to distribute during Fair Trade Fortnight, which runs from 27th February to 11th March 2012, by sending an e-mail to : jill-publications@christian-ecology.org.uk

The new all-colour leaflet can also be downloaded from : http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/use-your-loaf.pdf or http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/loafUseYourLoaf.pdf

CEL members and friends are being asked to submit LOAF-themed recipes which will be uploaded to the new website : http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/archives/category/food/recipes

CEL’s Secretary, Barbara Echlin said, “Start the LOAF ball rolling in your own church by serving pancakes on Shrove Tuesday and make them with local free range eggs, organic milk and Fair Trade sugar. Ample food for all !”

Guidance for LOAF campaigners includes the suggestion to send the campaign letter to local church leaders and regional church administrators; and asking cathedrals, conference centres, educational venues and large churches with a refectory or cafe to take part.

CEL’s Information and Analysis Officer, Jo Abbess said “Good food is holy food – and good food comes from well-treated plants, animals and workers too. It’s not enough to choose organic over intensively-farmed – we need to choose co-operative food growers over convenience store profits.”

ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The LOAF principles were developed several years ago by Christian Ecology Link, and the new all-colour leaflet has been produced to accompany the launch of a letter-writing campaign – asking leaders and managers of all Christian venues to “Use their LOAF !”

2. LOAF stands for : Locally produced, Organically grown, Animal friendly, Fairly traded.

3. The full text of the LOAF letter is below. Members and supporters are asked to modify it as they wish, or print it as it is from the website.

Dear

As a supporter of Christian Ecology Link (CEL), I feel that many present aspects of food production imperil the wellbeing of Creation. This is why I am writing to tell you about CEL’s food campaign – LOAF – and to ask you to consider following these guidelines.

CEL is asking churches, cathedrals, districts, diocese offices, and Christian holiday, retreat and conference centres, schools and colleges to try to source food which is :-

* Locally produced

Supporting local and national farmers and producers strengthens local economies and communities, and lowers carbon emissions. We need to combat the nonsensical policy of importing food which could be, and indeed is, grown and produced here only for export.

* Organically grown

Subsidised industrialisation of agriculture leads to severe biodiversity losses, to soil depletion, water pollution and agrochemical resistance. Organic farming is key to the recovery of interdependent ecosystems. Supporting organic production is also central to the struggle against GM biotechnology, which poses threats to other crops (via cross-pollination) and biodiversity.

* Animal friendly

UK animal welfare standards are higher than many countries. But shops still sell produce from hens caged, beak-trimmed and bred for unnaturally fast growth rates; pigs confined to barren sheds, teeth clipped and tails docked, many pregnant sows in farrowing crates; turkeys in dark, dirty sheds where they develop lameness and burns. The wellbeing of animals is entrusted to us. Will you consider sourcing only free-range eggs and free-range, organic or outdoor reared meat ? Also, a shift to a much higher proportion of vegetarian/vegan cooking is also vital as meat and dairy production requires far more land and water and is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.

* Fairly traded

In a world where trade justice seems to recede and trade policies assist large producers rather than small producers, a commitment to serve only Fairtrade tea and coffee, for example, would signal support for the one certification guaranteeing minimum remuneration and community investment.

I feel that we are called to renew, heal and restore God’s creation: an immense commission only to be realised by infinitesimal everyday acts – in His grace.

Please find enclosed CEL’s new LOAF leaflet. More may be downloaded free from : http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/resources/loaf

I look forward to your response.

Yours

The UK’s Energy Crisis

Jo — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:24:58 +0000

What annoys me most about the Solar Power Feed-in Tariff saga is not that the UK Government suddenly pulled the plug on the full rate for household-sized systems, or that they set the cut-off date before they finished their consultation, or even that that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) dragged out a legal appeal process.

Despite the truly pitiful sight of a Minister of State being sent out to bat with a miniaturised teaspoon to defend the indefensible decision, and despite the energy industry stooges that have placements inside DECC and are clearly affecting policy, no, the thing that really gets me is the focus on budgets instead of targets.

Here’s a summary from the Government’s own “long term trend” figures for energy consumption in Great Britain :-

Nobody can swear to me that the last few years are not just a glitch caused by economic instabilities, and that the re-localisation of manufacture in future in a recovering economy will not push this demand continually higher according to the trendline.

What are we using to supply this energy ? Here’s a summary :-

Despite the near exponential rise in renewable energy, it’s starting from a small base. The increase in energy consumption is being satisfied by a sharp rise in the supply of Natural Gas – something which the UK is producing increasingly less of these days. And for those who think that shale gas production would help, no, only a few percent of demand could be satisfied. This is an import-led energy supply, and the trend should ring alarm bells, but clearly doesn’t even tickle the ears of the average person in the street.

Electricity demand growth remains healthy, despite problems with unreliable supply from nuclear electricity (refered to as “outages” in the DECC Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) reports) :-

Now, in the future, with an envisioned massive rise in renewable energy, higher electricity use would be reasonable, as long as other energy consumption reduced. But the growth in electricity consumption charted here is not people driving more electric cars or using electric heating instead of Natural Gas-fired comfort. This is higher consumption, pure and simple, not “energy switching” over to electricity.

As an aside – the sum total of these figures indicates that the nation as a whole is not engaged in significant energy conservation, despite decades of campaigning.

All these trends add up to a very slight loss in dependency on fossil fuels for the UK’s energy :-

This is the critical trend. North Sea oil and Natural Gas production is falling like a large rock, and no amount of technological advancement and re-stimulating the drilling sector is turning this around. This means that without a rapid decrease in fossil fuel dependency, the United Kingdom is going to start haemorrhaging wealth.

Goodbye, First World.

This is why is it essential to ramp up renewable energy deployment by whatever means at our disposal.

Greg Barker MP bleating about keeping to budgets is not helping.

Clicking with Climate

Jo — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:13:22 +0000

Image Credit : University of California at Berkeley

Human beings have two brains. The first is a self-centred workhorse of pragmatic decision-making, interested in social engagement in order to further individual interests – whether those interests are purely for personal enrichment or for the reward of the social group more widely.

The second human brain is a relativistic engine, constantly comparing, reflecting, analysing. We are concerned about other peoples’ emotional response, wondering what other people think about us, responding to peer group pressure.

Are we more successful, popular than others ? Do people listen to us more than others ? We know we’re right, but do they ? We need to pitch ourselves in the right way. We jostle for pole position, for a place on the platform, hoping not to make too many opponents, whilst making more converts to our point of view.

Personally, I don’t listen to my second brain very often. As a social animal, I hope I’m tolerant, and my priorities in interpersonal engagement are mutual empowerment, transparent collaboration and inclusion. In my public projection, I’m not trying to vaunt myself over others, or massage my image for approval, or put up a fake facade. You get me, you get direct.

But I can’t avoid the second human brain entirely – as it is the reason for a lot of fuzziness in our view of the world around us. It’s too easy to stir doubt, falsehoods and bad ideas into the collective cake mix of society, where it fizzes into a bubbling mess. In matters of climate change science and energy engineering, there are no grey areas for me. But for a number of people I know, these are subjects of much confusion, denial and disinformation.

People hold on to the totem of what other people think. And so you have even very intelligent social commentators reciting from paid-for public relations by companies and business pressure groups. Journalists often do not appear to understand the difference between pseudo-science and real live science. There are too many people selling unrealistic, unworkable technological “solutions”, particularly in energy, so it’s hard to know what to accept and what to dismiss.

Yet it is critical to know what rock, what branch to keep a hold of in the flood of information that could sweep us away. The social construction of climate change is an important edifice, a safe house in an information world at war with itself. What high wind can sweep away the grubby pages of non-science from the Daily Mail ? What rising sea can cleanse the Daily Telegraph of its climate change denial columnists ? What can stop the so-called Global Warming Policy Foundation from infecting the Internet with their contrarian position ? What can make us accept the reality and urgency of global warming ? How can we learn to click with climate change ?

Three significant academic thinkers on the social significance of climate change are launching new works at the British Library in London, on 16th January 2012. The British Sociological Association have invited Mike Hulme, John Urry and Gordon Walker to discuss chapters from their recent books which address the question – where next for society and climate change ?

In the words of Chris Shaw at the University of Sussex, “they pull no punches in their analyses, and their approach is based on years of research into the social dimensions of the climate change debate. This is an essential opportunity for all those interested in bringing climate change into the democratic sphere, to help understand the issues involved in such a transition. It is also a chance to discuss the ideas with the authors and other delegates.”

For more information, see here and here.

Another Meeting I Will Not Be Attending

Jo — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:07:40 +0000

What appears to be a serious event is due to take place at the Energy Institute in London on 6th December 2011, “Peak Oil – assessing the economic impact on global oil supply“.

Dr Roger Bentley, author of a seminal 2002 paper on the subject, research that spawned hundreds of related learned articles, will be speaking.

But the event organisers have also invited one Dr Matt Ridley, the self-styled “rational optimist”, and member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and this, I’m afraid, prevents me from attending.

Ridley projects a view that many probably find comforting – as his headline in The Times of 1st October 2011 summarises – “Cheer up. The world’s not going to the dogs”.

He has been captured speaking at a TEDx event pouring scorn on “environmental” scare stories of the past, but not bothering to delve or dig into how mankind has actually gone out of its way to act on past crises and prevent catastrophes.

And now he’s thrown in his lot with the shale gas miracle men, writing a report with a foreword by Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most balanced individuals.

How much uncorroborated optimism can one man contain ?

Solar FIT to Bust #5

Jo — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:11:58 +0000

Germany can do it, but not the British. The Collected Republic of the People can install solar power with great will and nerve, but not Johnny English.

Let’s be clear here – the people in Scotland have a vision for future Renewable Energy, and so do many people in Wales and Ireland, but it appears English governance listens to fuddy duddy landowners too readily, and remains wedded to the fossil fuel industry and major construction projects like nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage.

What precisely is wrong with the heads of policy travel in Westminster ? Do they not understand the inevitable future of “conventional” energy – of decline, decimation and fall ?

It really is of no use putting off investment in truly sustainable and renewable power and gas. There are only two paths we can take in the next few decades, and their destination is the same.

Here’s how it goes. Path A will take the United Kingdom into continued dodgy skirmishes in the Middle East and North Africa. Oil production will dance like a man with a stubbed toe, but then show its true gradient of decline. Once everybody gets over the panic of the impending lack of vehicle fuel, and the failure of alternatives like algal biodiesel, and the impacts of a vastly contracted liquid fuel supply on globalised trade, then we shall move on to the second phase – the exploitation of gas. At first, it will be Natural Gas. But that too will decline. And then it will be truly natural gases. As gas is exploited for vehicles, electricity will have to come from coal. But coal, too, is suffering a precipitous decline. So renewable energy will be our salvation. By the year 2100, the world will run on renewable electricity and renewable gas, or not at all.

Meanwhile we will have had wars, rumours of wars, and just plain bomb-dropping, and lots of ancient civilisations will have bit the uranium-laced dust, and Scotland will have long since made a break for economic and political freedom. And we will have locked ourselves into dangerous climate change through our wanton burning of fossil fuels.

Path B – the logical long-term option and where we’re headed anyway – is to bypass climate change, bypass warfare and bypass idiocy and go straight to renewables.

But can the English Government work this out ? Can they see beyond their Cost Benefit Analyses and their short-termism and the calls to cut regulation and targets ? Can they imagine what life will be like in 30 years – and can they be made to be accountable to the future citizens of this country ?

We need to stimulate the development of renewable energy in the United Kingdom. It will take tax breaks, direct funding, subsidies. The Feed-in Tariff for solar power is essential in the current economic environment, to build a long-lasting electricity generation asset. If the British Government truly takes the prosperity of this country seriously, they need to plan for a significant deployment of renewable energy. We don’t know what the price of fossil fuels will be in five years time, ten years time. But we know that sunshine will always be free.

Thorium Trolls Hypnotise Environmentalists

Jo — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:14:37 +0000

Kirk Sorensen is apparently a one-man propaganda machine. His personal energy must be immense. He keeps turning up everywhere.

Never since the days of Tesla versus Edison has there been such an energy-related public communications coup.

He is a social media god. He has to be – he’s running an enterprise start-up marketing an unproven energy process.

It appears that Bryony Worthington has been scooped up. But then she backed carbon offsetting and Carbon Capture and Storage. Can we ask if her judgment has improved lately ? And Friends of the Earth have been hypnotised. Or maybe not. George Monbiot was taken in a while back.

From now on, I can predict British environmentalists from every sector of society to call for the development of the Thorium Fuel Cycle – although I think it’s a waste of time and resources, and in my view cannot be scaled up quickly enough to be of any use in dealing with the global energy crisis.

All we have so far is a massive, well-researched sales pitch. And Kirk Sorensen’s done his homework on networking the institutions. In fact, I think that’s all he’s capable of – talk. I sense he is a Master of Spinology.

Miracle energy sources are a never-ending source of humour and despair. Remember cold fusion ? Where’s that now ? Still in a test tube ? Burning seawater ? Are you serious ? Remember Carbon Capture and Storage ? Where’s that now – after all the hype ? And what about algae biodiesel ? Will the flow rates of output fuel ever be high enough ?

The Thorium Fuel Cycle is not all it’s cracked up to be.

The simplest solutions are the best. Ones that already exist and already work. We need to stop hoping for the future and live in the now. We already have all the technology we need to solve climate change and the energy crisis – gas and power. Renewable electricity. And renewable gas.

The Nuclear Trolls Are Out Tonight

Jo — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:20:09 +0000

This web log’s Google Analytics hit rate rocketed on Sunday evening.

What on Earth is going on, I thought ?

I normally only get massive web click counts when somebody’s written something critical about me, or I’ve written something that a lot of people disagree with.

Last week, for example, it appears many people frequented http://www.joabbess.com, only to read my not-entirely-supportive comments about the Occupy movement :-

http://www.joabbess.com/2011/10/12/occupy-your-mind/
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/10/14/occupy-your-mind-2/
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/10/15/occupy-your-mind-3/
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/10/17/occupy-your-mind-4/
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/10/18/occupy-your-mind-5/
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/10/19/occupy-your-mind-6/

So what was with the Sunday evening crowding ? And why so many new visitors (as evidenced in the frequency data) ? It seems the “fourth generation” nuclear power fanatics were out in full flight formation last night, judging by the number of comments I received in relation to old posts :-

http://www.joabbess.com/2011/05/10/george-monbiot-bites-thorium-bait/
http://www.joabbess.com/2011/09/30/george-monbiot-corporate-sell/

So, I’ll say it again, only louder and more clearly : non-nuclear molten salt technology should be used as energy storage in concentrated solar power plants. It’s something that can be done to smooth over renewable energy variability now, efficiently, sustainably. We don’t need to wait four decades or more for working, widely-available Thorium reactors – if they ever get built – for a major non-fossil fuel energy supply. Thorium nuclear power is a red herring, a technological cul-de-sac. We don’t need it and we don’t want it (all of us, apart from the Thorium Trolls, that is).

The Problem of Powerlessness #2

Jo — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:26:58 +0000

On Wednesday, I received a telephone call from an Information Technology recruitment consultancy. They wanted to know if I would be prepared to provide computer systems programming services for NATO.

Detecting that I was speaking with a native French-speaker, I slipped into my rather unpracticed second language to explain that I could not countenance working with the militaries, because I disagree with their strategy of repeated aggression.

I explained I was critical of the possibility that the air strikes in Libya were being conducted in order to establish an occupation of North Africa by Western forces, to protect oil and gas interests in the region. The recruitment agent agreed with me that the Americans were the driving force behind NATO, and that they were being too warlike.

Whoops, there goes another great opportunity to make a huge pile of cash, contracting for warmongers ! Sometimes you just have to kiss a career goodbye. IT consultancy has many ethical pitfalls. Time to reinvent myself.

I’ve been “back to school” for the second university degree, and now I’m supposed to submit myself to the “third degree” – go out and get me a job. The paucity of available positions due to the poor economic climate notwithstanding, the possibility of ending up in an unsuitable role fills me with dread. One of these days I might try to write about my experiences of having to endure several kinds of abuse whilst engaged in paid employment : suffice it to say, workplace inhumanity can be unbearable, some people don’t know what ethical behaviour means, and Human Resources departments always take sides, especially with vindictive, manipulative, micro-managers. I know what it’s like to be powerless.

I’m an open, honest, well-meaning person, and I’m quite sociable, unless I’m trying to focus on something complicated, when I need to be left alone. I like informality and equality, enjoy being able to offer pragmatic solutions, good advice and insight; am capable of managing difficult situations and negotiating progress in a spirit of co-operation. I can work under some stress, as long as it isn’t every day, or in a hostile environment; and I can do good research and detailed work, for example in computer systems programming. I can work with a wide variety of people, as long as they’re minded to be constructive. I like to train people to do the best they can, and do better than before, and I like to build teams that are mutually supportive. Simple is good. Direct is best. I try to create efficiency, I can facilitate business process, manage change and I’m always trying to work myself out of a job.

Unfortunately, there are some people out there who do not understand me, who somehow see me as a threat, and who actively campaign against my aims and methods, sometimes by attempting to isolate me. It slowly dawns on me – a look here, a word there, a conversation I’m not party to. I get the sensation of alienation. I can look in a person’s face and see the antipathy. I don’t know why, but I know what. People can be cruel and ruthless. You cannot expect easy co-operation, especially in a hierarchy, where my competencies always seem to challenge the power base. I really don’t want to put myself through that again. I shouldn’t have to undergo torture in order to earn a living. Rejection, I can handle – what I fear is dejection.

“What you need to do”, says my relative, “is take a job for another ten years or so. A good solid career. You should take a role in the field you have studied.” I reply with, “The trouble is, I now know enough about a great number of organisations I couldn’t possibly bring myself to work for.” My assessment, of course, puts me in the category of judgmental, and makes me fairly unemployable. I’m pretty certain that even those organisations who have a similar approach to mine wouldn’t want to work with me.

Another relative suggests I need to do something practical, says that I can’t spend all my life thinking. There’s only so many roles for thinkers. There’s only so much space for intellectual inquiry. Yes, that’s true. We’ve had enough thinking. The economists told us to price carbon. Everybody else is resisting a price on carbon. High carbon emitters continually lobby against being penalised. It will never work. The economists told us to trade carbon. That has been spectacularly unsuccessful in a number of ways, including the failure to create verifiable, sustainable carbon credits; and the fraud and theft of carbon credits.

The economists told us to price pollution, to make the polluters pay. And the polluters end up passing the costs along the value chain to the end consumers. They don’t stop polluting, they just make their consumers forfeit.

The technologists from the oil and gas industry told us to do things like Carbon Capture and Storage, and other geoengineering. Watch how the number of carbon capture projects grows ! The pace is slower than a drugged snail’s. Why ? Entropy, man. It’s always going to be cheaper to prevent carbon emissions in the first place than re-capture the carbon from the air. And the price of re-capture can be expected to be stellar – it’s all in the chemistry. The only thing that got captured was your intelligence. You were captured by the idea and it failed you.

The policymakers keep blaming the consumer, and telling us all we will enjoy lowering our energy use. The citizens are fighting back, by paying no attention at all to the messaging of restraint; and campaigning against high energy prices.

Nope, I can’t make a career working for an environmental organisation, as life would be defined completely by negatives : antagonism is not an attitude I can keep up. Environmentalists keep making unreasonable, unfeasible demands. They demand change, but don’t offer a pathway to a positive future. It seems that, for the most part, environmentalists can achieve nothing of note. I’m inclined to think that those who control the purse strings control the changes that have to be made – the insurers, the investors, the highly capitalised companies.

But I don’t want to work for a multinational, transnational corporation. Their prime directive is to make a profit to satisfy the demands of their shareholders. They don’t care about carbon unless it is to take care of their bottom line. I could never work for a fossil fuel oil and gas company, even if they have an “alternative energy” section, because they are outright compromised, and are carrying huge carbon liabilities. I’m not sure if there are any ethical finance or banking outfits that I could fit into. I don’t know if there are any renewable energy technology corporations that would be prepared to hire me.

I am an awkward one. Don’t hire me. You’ll only want to fire me. Don’t give me any money to perform a function – there’s nothing I can achieve if people aren’t prepared to work with me. Am I playing hard to get ? Giving the wrong impression ? Once again, I have to strike out on my own. I rather get the idea I will need to create my own job. What is worthwhile doing ?

I’ve been studying the management of climate change, a sort of hybrid discipline between business management studies and climate change policy – taking in climate change science and developments in energy. We’ve learned about carbon management, carbon pricing in all its forms, and the rocky seas of energy policy. We’ve heard that technology and innovation can solve the problem. We’ve heard that renewable energy can save the day. We’ve been exposed to the diversity of proposals for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the institutions, organisations and government departments that are tasked with handling climate change.

There are things that need to be done : the full weight of the world’s production capability and purchasing power needs to be directed towards sustainable and renewable energy, energy conservation, universal building insulation, joined up systems of low carbon transportation, low carbon agriculture, low carbon economic development… All new investment should be directed towards creating low carbon energy assets, energy efficiency and energy conservation.

There are ways to make things happen. You do something yourself. You ask somebody else to do it. You pay somebody to perform a function. You create obligations, and a system of accountability. If you’re the Governor of Texas and you’re desperate for rainfall to break the long, hot drought, you beseech the heavens for divine intervention. You wait for the passage of time and the unfolding of events to whisper the suggestion of change…

And then there’s the power of influence. It’s a constant surprise – the genuinely influential don’t realise how hard it is for others to emulate their role. There are in fact very few people who can influence for the better.

I don’t want to have influence. I don’t want to be famous for bending minds. I don’t want to be admired for being seductively convincing. What I offer is the truth as I see it – flat and un-adorned. However, honesty is not lucrative; and pragmatism doesn’t sell. People don’t seem to like straight talking or plain speaking.

I don’t have influence, but I don’t want influence. I don’t want to be someone that other people revere and follow. I don’t want to be a leader. I just want to put the facts and figures and methods out there for others to recognise – to witness to inevitable changes, and our changing responsibilities and accountabilities.

I don’t have power. I don’t want power. I am without artifice. I don’t want to be a sales person or be forced to fabricate with public relations. I’m not trying to prove anything – I’m just trying to show it.

People say I should take employment in order to pursue my goals and aims. I don’t know if there is any form of employment, currently, that would allow me to pursue my goals and aims. I cannot think of any role that anyone would want filled that would grant me the kind of authority I would need to pursue my goals and aims. And anyway, I don’t want to offer a service of labour to a paternalistic organisation in exchange for some kind of accredited authority; permission to get done what needs to be done.

I cannot do anything about the appallingly bad media coverage of climate change science, the crisis in energy and policy. There are not enough hours in the day to effectively counter their poorly-constructed and often unfactual narratives. I don’t have the energy to go against all this stupidity and propaganda. The channels of mass communication lack the necessary staff with the skillsets to relate the full scale of climate change to their communities of audiences. I disagree with almost all economists and many of the industrial corporations about how to handle climate change. I cannot completely align myself with any single political party or grouping – the Members of Parliament and many civil servants struggle with science and technology. They are mostly non-scientists, non-engineers.

I often find myself considering a company or an organisation and thinking, “I can’t work for these people. They’ll have me doing something useless”, or “I can’t work with these people. Their pitch is all blather. Their intellectual framework is tilted, on weak foundations, and liable to fracture.” I cannot live a lie. I cannot live with a lie.

I have adopted a position of powerlessness, but it is problematic. My communication skills are constrained by my repudiation of power.

I cannot produce anything much by communicating, as I don’t want you to believe without evidence and knowledge, and I don’t need you to agree with me just because I say something. You will probably dismiss my thoughts on the basis of my position, and I can’t make the message stick; but then, in a democracy of thought, I shouldn’t force you to accept anything I say.

I don’t want to convert you, recruit you, make you change your mind. But somebody has to say these things – give us all the opportunity to reflect and maybe come to our senses.

What should be said. What has to happen.

All I can do is keep saying what needs to be said and keep saying what has to happen, what will happen; whilst critiquing all the confusion, distortion and disinformation. That’s all I can do. I’m not very successful at communicating these things, but it’s still all I can do. All I can do is not enough. But it’s all I can do.

[ UPDATE : IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THIS POST INDICATES JOABBESS.COM IS WORK-SHY. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. BESIDES HAVING VOLUNTARY ROLES, JOABBESS.COM IS CURRENTLY IN TWO PART-TIME PAID EMPLOYMENT ROLES, AND PAYS INCOME TAX, NATIONAL INSURANCE, HOUSEHOLD BILLS AND COUNCIL TAX FROM THE EARNINGS. A FULL CURRICULUM VITAE OR RESUME CAN BE PROVIDED ON REQUEST. ]

Daniel Yergin : Revisionist Comb-Over

Jo — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:18:02 +0000

Image Credit : cache.daylife.com

I don’t have anything against balding people. Anybody can start losing hair, and will most likely feel embarrassed about it and start doing silly things like combing strands over the patch – the classic comb-over : not a sign of vanity, more a sign of vulnerability. It’s a kind of disguise, not admitting to the facts, even as the facts become more and more apparent. The balding person does not accept what is happening, and is seeking to delay the inevitable.

I’ve read the Introduction and Prologue (and a little of Chapter 1) of Daniel Yergin’s new book “The Quest : Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World”. I have found it very hard-going, and I keep having to pause. The reason ? I am far too critical of the writing, and it keeps making me some kind of cross between a tad narked and full-blown irritated.

What are the main problems with his style and content ? Historical revisionism and comb-over of the facts. Here’s just one example :-

“In the face of swelling protests, the regime in Tunisia collapsed. And then, as protesters filled Tahrir Square in Cairo, so did the government in Egypt. Demonstrations against authoritarian governments spread across the entire region. In Libya, the protests turned into a civil war which drew in NATO”

Top marks for storytelling, zero for accuracy. There is no mention of the “soft power” tactics that Hillary Clinton and others in the USA have likely launched to influence the opposition in countries in the Middle East. There is no mention of the rigging of the food commodities markets in the major stock exchanges, and the speculation in both food and energy, that has taken away the prospects for economic development in Arab countries. The protests in North Africa and the Middle East are not only about “repressive” regimes, but that’s the only narrative you’ll hear in the mainstream news, and it’s deliberate. More importantly, Daniel Yergin airbrushes over the cognitive dissonance of NATO launching an extended bombing campaign in Libya, which has been killing and injuring people, and destroying homes, businesses and administrative centres; when their only mandate was to “protect civilians”. “Humanitarian intervention” has yet again been proved to be an oxymoron. In addition, the civil war in Libya, which may have been provoked by covert foreign interference, didn’t draw in NATO – it drew in the United Nations : why NATO got involved is unclear as yet.

So that’s the revisionism. What about the veil over the balding dome ? It seems that Daniel Yergin is in denial about Peak Energy – the peak of production in oil, gas and coal, including all the unconventional low quality resources. He is a bit hazy about whether and when this will happen and ignores the data that indicates we are almost right on top of it. He lauds progress in various technologies, but does not seem to recognise that virtually nothing can put off Peak Energy – apart from a major permanent global recession.

I will continue to read this book in chunks from time to time from now on, but it doesn’t appear to be rooted in reality sufficiently for me to take it very seriously.

The New Sciontist : BP Subvertisers

Jo — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:17:06 +0000

Image Credit : Liberate Tate (Event Flyer)

The New Scientist magazine must be hard up. They’ve already bowed to economic pressure and taken the “king’s shilling” from the oil and gas industry by running Statoil advertisements, at least one made to look like a normal New Scientist article, giving Natural Gas a makeover as desirable as washing powder – all clean and reliable and loved by obsessives everywhere. Now they appear to have lost their power for critical reasoning and sunk to being suckers as billboards for BP spin, taking a front cover foldout for biofuels, with what I think is a completely deceitful portrayal of BP’s business.

The glowing advertisement reads, “Providing advanced biofuels for London 2012 : At BP we’re dedicated to fuelling the success of London 2012. We’re supporting British athletes like [paralympian] Stef Reid and also working to provide some of the official vehicles with advanced, lower carbon fuels made from energy grasses. London 2012. Fuelling the Future.”

Broking BP’s wares smacks of financial desperation on the part of the magazine, but allowing outright opportunism seems to me to be adopting very low standards indeed. BP seem to be attempting to mend their broken public relations record, and this advertisement slots right into that agenda, and in the process makes the New Scientist a “chosen son” of the 21st century royal owners of the economy – a fossil fuel energy salesmen. This is an archetypal sell out. This really is the last “energy grass” straw. Here’s just a few things about this advertisement that are manipulative or unjustifiable in my meagre opinion :-

1. Spin doctoring : biofuels – even “advanced biofuels” – are not necessarily “lower carbon”.

2. False impressions : “advanced biofuels” will only fuel 1% or less of the London Olympics 2012 vehicle fleet.

3. Hidden agenda : “advanced biofuels” may be the thin edge of the genetically modified wedge – a tank full of GMO derived gunk

4. Hyping the vision : BP’s sales of liquid bio-source vehicle fuels each year are minuscule compared to its core business.

5. Hidden failings : the social and environmental negatives from BP’s biofuels business

Hat Tip : Low Carbon Kid

1. Spin doctoring : biofuels – even “advanced biofuels” – are not necessarily “lower carbon”.

What are “advanced biofuels” made from “energy grasses” ?

http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/truly-sustainable-renewable-future
“…The general current idea is that advanced biofuels are liquid fuels made from non-food, non-feed sustainably grown feedstocks and agricultural wastes, and, perhaps, municipal wastes…For example, a groups of potential energy crops are perennial grasses – either something like switchgrass or miscanthus or energy canes; or a mixture of perennial grasses. The idea is that these could be grown on marginal lands that are not so good for growing food; that they take little or no fertilizers and should not require irrigation; and, especially if perennial, require no or little tilling. Consider that as the ocean levels rise, in places along the East Coast [of the United States of America] in particular, some grasses that are salt-tolerant might be developed to be energy grasses and enable farmers in those areas to continue to grow some kind of valuable crops on their lands…”

The new International Energy Agency report “Biofuels for Transport” indicates that biofuels can provide carbon emissions reductions if production is done right :-

http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2389

However, we already know that so-called “first generation” biofuels proved to have higher carbon emissions than projected :-

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/tag/rfa/

http://biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_reality_check.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5867/1238.abstract

“Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”, Searchinger et al., Science, Volume 319, 29 February 2008, pages 1238 – 1240.

And “second generation” biofuels, now re-christened as “advanced biofuels”, are not yet proven to reduce emissions for their full lifecycle. One of the biggest factors in the accounting of carbon emissions are forest and farmland clearance for energy crops, and that’s possibly going to get worse for “advanced” biofuel crop production :-

“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”, Fargione et al., Science, Volume 319, 29 February 2008, pages 1235 – 1238

“…land clearing may be further accelerated by lignocellulosic biofuels, which will add to the agricultural land base needed for biofuels, unless those biofuels are produced from crops grown on abandoned agricultural lands or from waste biomass…”

Image Credit : Jonathan Burton

2. False impressions : “advanced biofuels” will only fuel 1% or less of the London Olympics 2012 vehicle fleet.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9036378&contentId=7067213

“Fuelling the Games : We’re fuelling the official Games fleet and showing the potential of new and more sustainable mobility options…During the Games we’ll be providing fuels and engine oils for over 5,000 official vehicles…The Games fleet will be fuelled with BP Ultimate – fuels that demonstrate outstanding improvements in engine cleanliness and protection, driving better efficiency and emissions…BP will provide responsible transport fuelling options such as advanced biofuel blends, prior to their commercial launch. BP will demonstrate the huge potential of biofuel blends by making them available in limited quantities at BP’s retail site on the Hammersmith flyover in west London, at a scale to fuel 40 vehicles in the official Games fleet. At the flyover site, we will promote biofuels: from a new technology that unlocks the potential of energy grasses; a new technology that converts sugars into diesel and a new generation of advanced fuel molecule for blending with petrol…”

So only 40 vehicles out of over 5,000 will be powered by energy from grass. The rest will be fuelled by BP Ultimate, which is a fossil fuel with a few biologically sourced components, and other additives :-

http://www.bp.com/retail/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9036643&contentId=7067702#7249863

“What’s in these new BP Ultimate fuels? : Our new generation Ultimate fuels are a special blend of different components at varying levels, carefully selected and developed to deliver the clean and protect benefits of these fuels…”

http://www.bp.com

“Why is BP introducing a new generation of Ultimate fuels? : Our previous generation of Ultimate fuels were great products that were developed and tested using engines and vehicles from pre 2006 and at a time when bio-fuel legislation was in its infancy. The last few years have seen major advances in engine technology and increased levels of different bio-components in our fuels, which means that our current products are reaching the end of their natural shelf life. New and improved Ultimate fuels have been specially designed to complement and enhance these sophisticated state-of-the art engines as well as continuing to offer benefits for older ones too…”

Does anybody outside of BP know what the new recipe for BP Ultimate is ? What effect will its fuel exhaust have on health and the environment ? Has anybody tested this ?

3. Hidden agenda : “advanced biofuels” may be the thin edge of the genetically modified wedge – a tank full of GMO derived gunk

http://www.bp.com

“…BP has a focused biofuels strategy, investing in the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil from lignocellulosic feedstocks, including dedicated energy grasses, in the US and the development of
the advanced fuel molecule biobutanol in partnership with DuPont…”

So what is the chemistry underlying this collaboration ? Genetically engineered micro-organisms :-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352_supp/full/474S09a.html

“Chang recently found a way to boost butanol production by tenfold, at least in the laboratory. She plucked a combination of genes from different organisms and expressed them in Escherichia coli. Some of the genes are from a strain of the bacterium Clostridium that naturally produces butanol…James Liao, a chemical and biomolecular engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles…altered a pathway in Clostridium so that the bacterium produced the branched version of butanol – isobutanol…Several companies are trying to commercialize butanol or isobutanol production from biomass…In December 2010, the biotech company Green Biologics, of Abingdon, United Kingdom, announced a deal to provide its fermentation technology, based on a Clostridium strain, to two Chinese biochemical companies. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, a joint venture between the oil company BP and the chemical giant DuPont, has opened a demonstration plant in Hull, United Kingdom, and expects to have a commercial plant operating by 2013. And Gevo, an advanced biofuels company in Englewood, Colorado, is converting an ethanol production facility in Minnesota to produce about 68 million litres of isobutanol per year from 2012. Like ethanol, butanol would probably enter the market as a petrol blend…”

http://www.biobutanol.com/Biobutanol-Producers-Gevo,-Butamax,-Cobalt,.html

“…Butamax : Joint venture: BP and Dupont : Process utilizes the fermentation of corn : Will alter existing ethanol plants for isobutanol production : Commercialize butanol by 2012 – 2013 : Use of genetically engineered yeast : Will extend reach to brazil in 2013 with the construction of a butanol plant…”

To start to get a view on what could be viewed as BP’s truly gargantuan plan to take over the world with bioengineered fuel, you need to see this short YouTube film :-

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/BP.pdf

“BP’s role in the global agrofuel industry : Biofuelwatch, updated November 2009 : …UK Wheat ethanol: BP, DuPont and Associated British Foods (which includes British Sugar) are jointly building one of the UK’s largest planned wheat ethanol refineries, at Hull, with a 420 million litre per annum capacity. The company will operate under the name Vivergo Fuels and BP holds 45% of the shares. The plant will consume 1 million tonnes of wheat per year, at a time of record and fast rising wheat prices. BP expect the refinery to open in 2010 and state that they plan to later retrofit it to produce biobutanol. Together with another refinery which Ensus is planning to open shortly it will use 19% of the UK’s wheat harvest (based on 2009 figures) and makes it far more likely that the UK will become a net importer of wheat, pushing up wheat prices worldwide…”

“…A $200 million joint venture with DuPont, called Butamax, to build the world’s first demonstration plant to produce biobutanol. The joint venture was agreed in 2006 and the refinery is expected to open in 2012/13 and to produce 20,000 litres a year. Biobutanol is a biofuel made from solid biomass which could be used for aviation. Commercialisation depends on genetically engineering bacteria (synthetic biology). BP expects sugar cane to be the main feedstock for their biobutanol production worldwide…”

Of course, one potential way to avoid the competition between wheat grown for food and wheat grown for fuel is to genetically modify, patent and own a GM wheat crop, which could be branded as an “energy grass”, and not a food or a feed, because wheat is, after all, just a grass :-

http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/159/

“Defra Should Reject GM Wheat : £1.28 million of public money for a crop with “no market””

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/BP.pdf

“…joint venture with Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. to develop cellulosic biofuels, which commenced in 2007. BP has acquired shares of Mendel and is on their Board. The aim is to accelerate a plant breeding programme for perennial grasses which have been genetically engineered specifically for ethanol production…”

This type of activity could be just the chilling tip of a Frankenstein non-food non-feed iceberg – potatoes could be next – and we all know you can make potcheen alcohol with them :-

http://labelgmos.org/2011/06/help-stop-gm-potatoes-in-norfolk/

4. Hyping the vision : BP’s sales of liquid bio-source vehicle fuels each year are minuscule compared to its core business.

BP loudly trumpets its success in biofuels of all kinds :-

1.03 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008
1.66 billion gallons of biodiesel in 2008

http://www.bp.com

“BP is a major biofuels operator. For example, in the US we blended more than 1.03 billion gallons of ethanol and 1.66 million gallons of biodiesel into fuels in 2008…”

36 million gallons of Vercipia Biofuels projected for 2012 :-

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/BP.pdf

“BP’s investment in ‘next generation’ agrofuel research and development involves: A partnership with Verenium to develop and commercialise cellulosic ethanol, to turn whole sugar cane plants and miscanthus into ethanol, with BP investing $90 million. A second joint venture with Verenium, called Vercipia Biofuels, involves a cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands Country, Florida which BP expects to commence commercial production in 2012 and to produce up to 36 million gallons a year…”

Three mills in Goias and Minas Gerais states in Brazil each producing 480 million litres of ethanol equivalent per year and each mill will be able to export 340 GWh of electricity per year :-

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7067732

“BP has agreed to pay approximately US$680 million to acquire 83 per cent of the shares of CNAA and to refinance 100 per cent of CNAA’s existing long term debt…BP will acquire two operational mills and a third that is under construction. All the mills are in the Centre-South regions of Brazil, in Goiás and Minas Gerais states…The total planned combined crushing capacity of all three mills, when fully developed, is expected to be 15 million tonnes of sugar cane per year. At full capacity, each mill will have a production capacity of about 480 million litres of ethanol equivalent per year. Each mill will also have the capacity to export approximately 340GWh of electricity per year to the grid…”

Tropical BioEnergia mill in Edeia, Goias state in Brazil producing 435 million litres of ethanol per year, with another planned (of perhaps a similar size) :-

http://www.bp.com

“…Since 2008, BP has held a 50% share in Tropical BioEnergia S.A., which operates an ethanol mill in Goiás state with a production capacity of 435 million litres of ethanol per year. The ownership and operation of this mill is not impacted by this acquisition…”

http://www.bp.com

“Tropical fact sheet : In 2008, BP invested in a 50% stake in Tropical BioEnergia S.A., a joint venture established by Louis Dreyfus Commodities/Santelisa Vale (LDC/SEV) and Maeda Group, which will operate a 435 million litre (115 million gallon) a year ethanol refinery in Edéia, Goias State, Brazil. The joint venture also intends to progress plans to build a second ethanol refinery, investing a total of approximately US$1 billion (R$1.66 billion) in the two refineries…BP Biofuels a growing alternative…”

1.4 million gallons per year concept plant at Jennings, Louisiana, US.
36 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol from a Vercipia Biofuels plant in Highlands County, Florida, USA :-

http://www.bp.com

“Proving the technology : By developing a robust technology package and proving it at scale, BP will have the capability to deploy the technology package at commercial facilities for use in biofuel production in the US market. To support this objective, BP will acquire a 1.4 million gallon-per-year (40 ton/day feedstock) : demonstration facility in Jennings, Louisiana. The facility includes integrated enzyme manufacturing, fermentation facilities and an analytical laboratory…”

“BP will become the 100% owner of Vercipia Biofuels, based in Tampa, Florida. Vercipia is advancing next-generation biofuels through the development and commercialization of cellulosic ethanol. Vercipia will utilize dedicated energy canes and grasses, both abundant biomass feedstocks, in conjunction with BP’s proprietary, novel enzymatic conversion technology. Vercipia is currently progressing the design and engineering required to develop one of the first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol facilities in the US, located in Highlands County, Florida…The facility is expected to produce up to 36 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year…”

But the reality is that biologically sourced fuels make up only a tiny fraction of its global business :-

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481

http://www.bp.com

BP Statistical Review of Energy 2011

Oil production page 8

Global annual production of fossil fuel liquid vehicle fuels : 82,095 thousand barrels per day, or 29,964,675 barrels of oil.

Biofuels production page 39

Global annual production of biofuels in 2010 : 59,261 thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent, or roughly 438,531 barrels of oil equivalent, that is roughly 1.5% of the amount of fossil fuel liquid fuels.

[ UPDATE : THESE FIGURES ARE FOR GLOBAL PRODUCTION OF BIOUELS. THE NUMBERS INCLUDE BP'S PRODUCTION. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A DEFINITIVE ACCOUNT OF BP'S ACTUAL OWN BIOFUELS PRODUCTION. AND YES, BEFORE YOU ASK, I HAVE READ VIRTUALLY ALL THE REPORTS I CAN FIND ON THEIR WEBSITE. SOME LINKS I HAVE TRIED : http://www.bp.com/...&contentId=7068633 http://www.bp.com/.../renewables_section_2011.pdf http://www.bp.com/...&contentId=7066907 http://www.bp.com/.../BP_Annual_Report_and_Form_20F.pdf http://www.bp.com/.../BP_Summary_Review_2010.pdf http://www.bp.com/...&contentId=7066618 http://www.bp.com/.../FOI_2006_2010_full_book.pdf http://www.bp.com.../bp_first_quarter_2011_results.pdf ]

5. Hidden failings : the social and environmental negatives from BP’s biofuels business

The BP advertisement shows paralympian Stef Reid sailing through a field of “energy grasses”. One senses a nobility, a triumph of will over circumstances.

It would be far more accurate to replace the athlete with the sun-burned, landless serfs of Brazil who are indentured to harvest the energy crops.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/?1463/biofuels-unethical-Europe-policies-alternative-fuels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/biofuels-targets-unethical

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/07/brazilian-government-frees-sugarcane.html

http://lynnadventuringabroad.blogspot.com/2009/11/camping-in-backlands-researching-in_28.html

If the industry gets mechanised, the poor workers will be further disadvantaged. Originally thrown off land to make way for the energy crop plantations, they will no longer have any means of growing their own food, or of earning even a seasonal living :-

http://www.greenlaunches.com/biofuels/brazil-sugarcane-workers-are-soon-to-feel-the-corporate-axe.php

For the environment, however, it might be good to move from sugarcane to grasses :-

http://www.dailytech.com

Further reading on fuel blending and genetic modification for the production of fuels and fuel additives and biological components :-

http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/fuels.html

“…Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) …introduced in April 2008 and by 2011 5% by volume of UK road fuel sales must be from renewable sources. The Government will review the 5% limit after 2011 with a view to increasing the percentage mix of biofuel if possible. Using biofuels helps to reduce emissions. The actual reduction in CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions varies widely depending upon the feedstock and the production method. Some methods result in more CO2 being released than using standard fuel whilst others are CO2 negative (they remove more CO2 than they emit). It is anticipated that the biofuels introduced under the RTFO will result in at least a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. For instance a 5% biofuel (5% bio element 95% petrol or diesel) reduces CO2 emissions by about 2.5%. To begin with most biofuels at the pump will be limited to a 5% maximum mix. This is due to the fact that most manufacturer engine warranties will currently only allow 5% biofuels to be used, although some manufacturers already allow B30 (30% biodiesel 70% diesel) to be used. Specialised “flex fuel” vehicles are already available which will allow any mix between pure petrol and E85 (85% bioethanol 15% petrol) to be used…”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352_supp/full/474S09a.html

“Chang recently found a way to boost butanol production by tenfold, at least in the laboratory. She plucked a combination of genes from different organisms and expressed them in Escherichia coli. Some of the genes are from a strain of the bacterium Clostridium that naturally produces butanol…Similar attempts by other researchers have [...] suffered from low productivity…So, instead of importing the entire butanol-making pathway of Clostridium, Chang mixed in genes of two other bacteria, Treponema denticola and Ralstonia eutropha…Shota Atsumi, a chemist at the University of California, Davis…has also inserted genes from other organisms into E. coli to induce the bacteria to produce various forms of butanol, as well as the five-carbon alcohol pentanol…Atsumi’s collaborator on the project – James Liao, a chemical and biomolecular engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles – recently produced a higher alcohol in a process that combines two sought-after advantages over ethanol production from corn. He started with a species of Clostridium that, unlike many butanol-producing strains, can digest cellulose, thereby enabling more of the available biomass to be used. Instead of pressing E. coli into service, Liao altered a pathway in Clostridium so that the bacterium produced the branched version of butanol – isobutanol. Isobutanol has the same chemical formula as butanol but a different structure that improves its engine performance and makes it easier to synthesize into other chemicals. Several companies are trying to commercialize butanol or isobutanol production from biomass…”

http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/03/faster-butanol-bio-synthesis-from-uc.html

“2 March 2011 : A Faster Butanol Bio-Synthesis from UC Berkeley Chemists : University of California, Berkeley, chemists have engineered bacteria to churn out a gasoline-like biofuel at about 10 times the rate of competing microbes, a breakthrough that could soon provide an affordable and “green” transportation fuel…The advance is reported in this week’s issue of the journal Nature Chemical Biology _UCBerkeley : Butanol is far superior to ethanol as either a fuel additive in gasoline and diesel, or as a drop-in substitute for gasoline in modern engines. Up until now it has been too expensive to ferment butanol from sugars, but UC Berkeley’s gene-modified chimeric E. Coli may be the beginning of a new butanol age. By transplanting genes from Clostridium acetobutylicum, Treponema denticola and Ralstonia eutrophus, into E. Coli, the Berkeley scientists are helping lay the groundwork for a brave new microbial world of frankenstein fuel factories…”

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/bp-makes-major-agrofuel-move-ucla-beats-cal/

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1tg0n7wk;jsessionid=C0CB2282B71F9F0EF5063D96CCDBA08B

“Metabolic engineering of microorganisms for biofuels production: from bugs to synthetic biology to fuels : Author: Kuk Lee, Sung : Publication Date: 07-13-2010, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/19/chemistry.agriculture
“Synthetic biology aims to solve energy conundrum : Designer enzymes are big business as the need to produce viable biofuels grows – but can they offer a long-term alternative? Chris Edwards,
The Guardian, Thursday 19 June 2008″

A little history of resistance on this :-

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/3612-biofuels-and-the-green-resistance-stop-bp-berkeley

“15 March 2007…The still nascent Stop BP movement began as a response to British Petroleum’s offer to fund a secretive half-billion dollar bio-energy laboratory on the University of California at Berkeley campus. Ostensibly, the idea is to genetically engineer plants to yield more ethanol, but other likely projects include research into better burning ethanol. BP learned awhile back in New South Wales that high ethanol content burns out engines. They learned this from their customers who were livid to discover the damage after they had breakdowns and stopped buying BP products. But such incidents now seem to serve BP’s interests since they make the issue of biofuel research seem pressing, thus helping them push research deals through quickly and out of sight. The Stop BP at Berkeley Campaign, however, worries not only about a lack of oversight, but also that there is no guarantee that BP or UC Berkeley will devote any of this research treasure to ensuring the safety of food supplies and fragile ecologies as these new organisms (or products) are grown and released…”

A little up-to-date resistance :-

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/bp-genetically-modifying-gulf-of-mexico/

http://www.soci.org/Chemistry-and-Industry/CnI-Data/2010/3/Synthetic-biology-breakthrough-may-fuel-future

“Synthetic biology breakthrough may fuel future : Andrew Turley, 08/02/2010 : Bacteria that can produce ‘high-energy’ biofuels, such as biodiesel, direct from simple sugars, or light up in coordinated waves could provide a turning point in the fortunes of synthetic biology – a field that has so far failed to fulfil its early promise. Researchers from the University of California, US, engineered E coli to produce biodiesel, or fatty esters, from glucose, without the need for other carbon sources (Nature 2010, 463, 559). They then engineered the same strain to express hemicellulases, enzymes that break down hemicellulose, a step towards bacteria that can produce biodiesel direct from cellulosic biomass. Global biodiesel consumption is more than 2bn gallons/year. Companies make fatty esters commercially by reacting triglycerides from vegetable – or less commonly animal – oils with alcohols. But using vegetable oils as a fuel feedstock is economically and environmentally problematic, critics say. For example, as farmers switch to crops for biodiesel, food production could fall, exacerbating food scarcity and driving up prices. In addition, high demand for energy and land scarcity could encourage farmers in ecologically rich, but economically poor, regions to cut down forests to make way for crops. Biodiesel can be made from cellulosic biomass, waste plant material, such as wood chips, or nonfood crops, such as grasses. But, using current methods, it is more difficult and more expensive. Scientists hope to bring the cost down by getting bacteria to do the hard work. E coli, for example, will grow on plant sugars. In earlier work, scientists made E coli that produced ethanol, which they used to chemically convert fatty acids into fatty esters (Microbiology 2006, 152, 2529). But fatty acids are not a commercially viable feedstock, which limits the potential of this approach. Therefore, the Californian researchers redirected the E coli fatty acid metabolism towards fatty esters and other commercially useful fuel and chemical products. Crucially, they encouraged the bacteria to produce more fatty acids, while expressing key enzymes that caused esterification. Commercially viable bacteria that performed all the steps in the chain inside their cells – bacteria for ‘consolidated bioprocessing’ – would make biofuel production easier and cheaper, the researchers say in the paper. ‘This engineering strategy supports yields of these products within an order of magnitude of that required for commercial production,’ they add…”

http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12478

“Venter’s one-man algae fuels bubble : Monday, 13 September 2010 : 1.Craig Venter’s one-man algae fuels bubble : 2.One-Third of Americans Back Ban on Synthetic Biology : 3.Berkeley-BP Deal Only Looks Worse Post-Spill : EXTRACT: “The truth is, neither [Venter nor Keasling] will succeed in replacing petroleum for many reasons, including the fact that [genetically modified organisms] are not as robust as wild species.” NOTE: Related articles: *Biofuels, BP-Berkeley, and the New Ecological Imperialism: http://ht.ly/2CCFo : *Gates, BP and DiFi’s spouse buy into company using genetic engineering to produce biofuels: http://bit.ly/bSbzjn : *Democracy Now: Why is Oil Giant BP Helping Develop California Schools Environmental Curriculum? http://bit.ly/bVndFr : *BP, the fox in the public school henhouse: http://bit.ly/cCieQ…”

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/07/05/x-fuels-and-x-bugs/

“X-fuels and X-bugs : Jim Lane, July 5, 2011 : Bio-adjacent, low-carbon extreme fuels and extremophile organisms open up new horizons in yields and sustainability : There are a class of fuels that are deeply rooted in biological process, and share the goal of replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon substitutes, but are not strictly biofuels. Huh? Well, think of fuels that are generated directly from biomass precursors, such as CO2, water, and sunlight. Some use micro-organisms to perform the transformation, some are thermo-chemical in nature – but they are making organic molecules, even if they are not making or using life forms that contain DNA. They are distinct from, say, synthetic fuels made from fossil-based sources, such as coal-to-liquid fuels, because they are low-carbon in nature, even if they are not made from biomass. There are also a group of new processes bubbling up from the labs – based in extremophile micro-organisms, or new understanding of the role played by symbionts (co-operative “hosted” organisms, such as the bacteria that assist organisms in digestion). What can we call all these extreme organisms and hard-to-categorize processes? Here at the Digest, we are broadly categorizing them as X-fuels and X-bugs…”

http://www.bp.com

“U.S. Regulatory Environment : In pursuit of energy security, lower carbon fuels, and rural development opportunities, the U.S. government provides the regulatory framework necessary to develop a scaled and sustainable cellulosic biofuels industry. The Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS 2) creates a robust and carefully considered regulatory structure for the development of various types of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels. By 2022, the RFS 2 requires the blending of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, which would represent nearly 10% of the U.S. gasoline supply. In addition, the RFS 2’s requirements for environmental performance ensure that the next generation of biofuels achieves at least a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to gasoline.”

“Feedstocks : Ethanol will be produced from feedstocks such as energy cane and energy grasses using proprietary technology. Energy grasses contain large amounts of energy in the “sugars” held in their cell walls. These sugars can be difficult to extract, but using new advanced technologies it is possible to convert the sugars into liquid fuel. This means higher volumes of fuel produced from each tonne of feedstock, and each acre of land, compared to current-generation biofuel feedstocks like corn and other advanced biofuel feedstocks such as agricultural wastes. High-yield energy grasses can produce an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of biofuel per acre, compared with approximately 400 to 500 gallons per acre from corn and 150 to 200 gallons per acre from agricultural wastes. Energy grasses can be grown on lower quality agricultural land – land that is not well suited to growing food crops economically.”

“Fueling the future with biofuels : BP has announced that it will make a strategic acquisition of Verenium Corporation’s biofuels business. The transaction will enable BP to advance its objective to produce advanced cellulosic ethanol in the US through the development of low cost, low carbon, sustainable biofuels at scale using proprietary technologies. A diverse energy mix is important to future U.S. energy security. In growing a material U.S. biofuels business, BP will contribute to energy security by providing low-carbon biofuels to the transport sector. BP will also create new jobs in the construction and operation of biofuel facilities. In addition jobs will be created in the agricultural sector, particularly in the south eastern states where climatic conditions support the production of biomass such as energy cane at the scale required to supply large-scale, commercial biofuel production facilities.”

“A strategic acquisition : BP is committed to building a large-scale biofuels production business with a technology platform based on the biological conversion of sugars to biofuels using sustainable, low cost feedstocks. The company is producing Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, is accelerating the commercialization of bio-isobutanol as an advanced biofuel, and is developing the technology to convert sugars to biodiesel. It is also building a worldclass ethanol plant in the UK. A significant strand of the company’s strategy is building an industry-leading cellulosic ethanol business in the US.”

“The acquisition of Verenium Corporation’s biofuels business will give BP access to proprietary biomass-to-ethanol conversion technologies, a leading edge research and development (R&D) capability and a biofuels demonstration facility necessary to advance the company’s cellulosic ethanol strategy. This capability will initially be focused on supporting BP’s strategic goal to build its US-based cellulosic ethanol business, and will enable BP to integrate other proprietary biofuel technologies through R&D and scaleup in the future.”

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39592

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/us-bp-idUSTRE72A4BX20110311

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9025016&contentId=7066349

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030039&contentId=7055156

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030051&contentId=7055185

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030044&contentId=7055172

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/02/us-epa-raises-biofuel-target-for-2008.html

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/biofuels-need-more-production-reports-says-rfa/1007155.article

And finally, BP continues to interfere with the educational process by engaging young engineers in a competition to design a fake carbon capture system (when the fuel is burned, the carbon dioxide is re-released !) :-

http://www.gradcracker.com/blog/article/83/imperial-colleges-meltdown-win-bp-ultimate-field-trip