July 28, 2007

Government confirms wind turbine noise regulations inadequate

The families of Kevin and Dwayne Bailey, father and son, of Elmira, Prince Edward Island, have been forced to abandon their homes because of the intolerable noise from new wind turbines about a kilometer (about 1100 yards) away. From a visit by Paul and Ruth Downing:
When we first drove into their yard, our initial impression was that their one kilometer setback distance should be fine. However, their problems began within weeks after the turbines started operating. When they were downwind from the turbines, and the air was moving just enough to turn them (12-15 knots from the northeast), the noise was loud. It was a repetitive modulated drone of sound. Dwayne and Kevin both claimed it sometimes was loud enough to rattle the windows of their homes. The sound was even worse in the field behind their homes. Distances from 1 to 1.5 kilometers were the areas of the most annoying sounds. This spring the winds created constant misery.

Dwayne developed headaches, popping and ringing ears, and could not sleep. He tried new glasses, prescription sleep aids and earplugs, to no avail.

Dwayne’s two year old was sleeping well prior to the wind farm, but began waking up, 5-6 times a night.

Kevin Bailey stated, “When you are outside working and absorbed in what you are doing, you are OK. If inside, resting or reading, it’s a problem. Forget about sleeping at night. The repetitions would go away, you think that it is gone, and it comes back again.” Kevin tried sound dampening by draping the front walls inside his house, and sleeping in the back, but this did not work.

Kevin had problems with his electrical appliances. The fridge, water heater and power meter all vibrated. He purchased a new fridge, and it was just as bad. When the fridge was moved to the new house, the vibrations were gone. ...

Kevin noted, “All we ever had here was peace and quiet, and poverty. Now we only have poverty.” ...

We toured the wind farm site. Initially the winds were 12-14 knots. Downwind at 500 meters there was a loud rhythmic whooshing sound coming from each of the turbines that could be easily identified with their rotation. At least three or four turbines could be heard at once. The sounds were out of sync and confused. At 300 meters each turbine was very noisy from any direction. There is absolutely no way you could live next to a turbine at this distance. We stood at the base. There were many sounds. Electrical high pitched humming, the deep whoosh of the sails or rotors as they sweep past every 5 seconds, a steady swish of the rotor tips, which are cutting through the air at 240 kilometers per hour. When the wind changed, the rotors made a sound like a jet engine taking off, until they were in position again. ...

We went 1 km downwind and the loud rhythmic sounds could be heard from various turbines at different speeds, again, all out of sync with each other. A curiosity for a few minutes, but you could never live with this noise.
But never mind all that, because the PEI government hired a firm to measure the noise level at Dwayne's house and found that the noise from the turbines meets Canadian guidelines. Clearly, those guidelines are meaningless, because the evidence is that the noise is indeed intrusive and harmful.

The family of Nova Scotian Daniel d'Entremont, of Pubnico Point, similarly had to abandon their home. And they were similarly assured by government consultants that there was actually no problem.

But of course, there is a problem. But governments at every level are working to deny it to protect an industry whose dark side is beginning to catch up with it. A government that is no longer interested in protecting its people has more than lost its way. It no longer has a right to govern.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism

What's wrong with an RPS

Dear Congressman Peter Welch (Vt.) --

Your concern about climate change is not served by your sponsorship of H.R. 969 to establish a national RPS.

Since most of the lobbying in favor of this bill is by the industry group American Wind Energy Association, we can assume that most of the 20% renewables would be from wind. Wind on the grid is problematic, because of its high variability and significant unpredictability. It can not provide capacity, so it can not replace other plants. And its ramping and startup burden on those plants causes them to burn more fuel, which cancels to a great extent their being used less (if they are not simply switched to "spinning standby" -- burning fuel but not generating electricity).

Thus, a utility may provide 20% of its electricity from wind, but without anywhere near a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel burning.

Unlike the Safe Climate Act of 2007, H.R. 969 will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is unlikely even to reduce their growth significantly.

Please reconsider your sponsorship of H.R. 969 and vote AGAINST it.

[Track the bill at govtrack.us.]

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

July 26, 2007

Worldwatch makes erroneous carbon savings claims for wind

A July 25 press release from the Worldwatch Institute claims that "2006 Wind installations offset more than 40 million tons of CO2":
Calculations are based on U.S. data: average capacity factor for new wind power capacity (34%, from American Wind Energy Association); average capacity factor for coal-fired power plants (72%, from North American Electric Reliability Council - NAERC); average CO2 emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants (0.95 kg/kWh, from U.S. Energy Information Administration); and average coal-fired power plant capacity (318 megawatts, from NAERC).
There are two big flaws in Worldwatch's calculation.

First, a more objective source than the industry itself for the average capacity factor for wind energy facilities in the U.S. is the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, the capacity factor for wind was 21% in 2005. The AWEA's figures of 34% is promotional spiel and not based on actual data.

Second, there are other sources of electricity on the grid besides coal, including relatively cleaner-burning natural gas and carbon-free nuclear and hydro. At the least, the relative contributions of these sources must be considered. The renewable energy certifier Green-E, has recently proposed to value renewable energy output in terms of actual greenhouse gas emissions from the equivalent output by the rest of the grid.

By Green-E's calculations, the total greenhouse gas (not just CO2) emissions for different grid regions range from about 1,000 lbs/MWh generated to almost 2,200 lbs/MWh, or 0.47 kg/kWh for new (since 2000) facilities in the Southwest to 0.99 kg/kWh for all non-baseload facilities in the Midwest. The average among all regions in the U.S. for wind's theoretical equivalence according to Green-E is 0.66 kg/kWh.

Then there is the complication of how a highly variable and significantly unpredictable source such as wind actually affects the grid. Obviously, it can't replace any building of new capacity, because the grid still needs to be able to supply power when the wind isn't blowing. Its ability to reduce emissions from those other sources, particularly fossil fuel–fired sources, is also problematic for several reasons.

First, extra ramping and startups cause more fuel to be burned, with more emissions, cutting into whatever savings might have been achieved by using them less. Second, plants that can't ramp quickly may be switched to "spinning standby", in which they don't generate electricity but continue to burn fuel and create steam to be ready to switch back to generation when the wind dies. And third, all sources on the grid are not equally involved in the balancing of wind's variability. Hydro is the first choice to be ramped down, with no carbon savings, and natural gas plants are the second, with much less carbon savings than if coal were reduced.

In addition, the high cost per installed megawatt of wind reflects the energy required in its manufacture, transport, and construction. It may take several years before the theoretical carbon savings from a facility's output allows it to break even.

But now look again at what Worldwatch, with its very flawed formula, claims for wind: "Already, the 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced by the new wind plants installed last year equaled more than 5 percent of the year’s growth in global emissions. If the wind market quadruples over the next nine years -- a highly plausible scenario -- wind power could be reducing global emissions growth by 20 percent in 2015."

Global carbon emissions will continue to grow substantially, but not quite so much as they might without 300,000 MW (requiring 23,000 square miles) of new industrial wind energy facilities. That's pathetic even before considering the flaws in their calculation.

With the likes of Worldwatch watching out for it, the world indeed needs to watch out.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

July 20, 2007

How forest friendly is Karnataka's Wind Energy?

Ameen writes from Tumkur City, India (click the title of this post):

Among the areas where wind turbines have been erected in Karnataka are the hills and highlands of eastern parts of Chitradurga district and in western parts of Tumkur district. We saw these windmills first hand this month and I am sad to say that these windmills have had a very immediate negative impact in the forests where they have been setup.
  1. Each such wind mill has a concrete base of at least 30 feet by 30 feet.
  2. Each one of these has an individual road.
  3. Hundreds of trees have been removed to accomodate these giant "fans".
  4. The transportation of giant equipment requires huge trucks and causes enormous disturbance to the local flora and fauna.
This way almost every hill top of the 273 Sq. km. Mari Kanive state forest and other reserve forests along Tumkur-Chitradurga border has just been devastated. The building of these roads has also opened up the forests for tree looters and the situation according to a local forest watcher is "just out of control in Mari Kanive forests". These wind mills are atop the hills that extend for hundreds of kilometres north, up to Gadag district.

Due to their destructive nature, there already have been protests against the setting up of wind farms in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, namely Bababudan Giris (adjoining Bhadra Tiger Reserve) and Kudremukh National Park.

As a nature lover I have opposed hydro dams as being detrimental to forests. But, by witnessing the damage done by wind farms in Karnataka's forests, I doubt if wind energy in our country is really that green.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights

July 17, 2007


"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."

--Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
"Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies",
April 29, 1938

Q & A: Wind Energy

The president of National Wind Watch sent us these answers to questions recently posed by a student in Texas.

1.  Most of the prevailing literature on wind energy has been relatively positive, can you comment as to why your organization has chosen to take an oppositional approach?

Answer:  Most of the prevailing literature on wind energy is wishful thinking. If you read it objectively, you begin to notice that all claims of success (other than sales figures) are not backed up by actual data. This is combined with a tendency to dismiss adverse impacts as insignificant or unlikely. Faced with the evidence of adverse impacts, many advocates of wind energy simply deny them. After a while, one realizes that the arguments for large-scale wind energy are for the most part intellectually dishonest and unable to withstand scrutiny.

Since there is little (if any) evidence of good from wind energy, it is our duty to oppose the fruitless and extensive industrialization of rural and wild places by the wind industry.

2.  As of late, Texas has taken the lead in wind energy production. Reports have highlighted the beneficial impact -- both economically and environmentally -- of this relatively recent wind energy "boom". The vast expanse of Texas lands seem ideal for wind farms. So, where is the problem?

Answer:  Where is the proof of these claimed economic and environmental benefits?

Economically, there may be local effects of rents paid to landowners and pay-offs to communities, but that is all paid for by federal and state taxpayers and local ratepayers, who must still pay for keeping up the rest of the grid as much as before along with the added burden of backing up the wind turbines and overbuilding transmission lines to accomodate their occasional surges and shunt their unpredictable supply somewhere it might be needed or until it dissipates as heat.

The environmental benefit is presumably in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is assumed (though again without proof) to outweigh local negative impacts on wildlife and landscape. But the savings of greenhouse gas emissions that are claimed are theoretical only and ignore many aspects of the grid that complicate such a possible effect -- namely, an intermittent, variable, unpredictable source such as wind has to itself be balanced to maintain a steady voltage on the line. This adds inefficiencies to the use of fuel by other sources (from more frequent starting or ramping) or may require other sources to "stand by" -- burning fuel to keep the steam ready to generate electricity when the wind drops. In addition, hydropower is the most ideal source to balance wind, or wind's variations are simply allowed to modulate the line voltage within acceptable tolerances -- either case obviously does not affect the burning of fossil fuels.

Even in pro-wind theory, wind energy will never have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In isolated systems, even the AWEA claims only that wind will slightly slow the growth of emissions, not reduce them. Globally, wind would barely keep up with expanding electricity needs to maintain its less than 0.5% contribution, according to the International Energy Agency's modeling to 2030 ("Renewables in Global Energy Supply", January 2007). Considering that electricity is but one source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, even the most hopeful theoretical benefit fades toward nothing. In reality, it's likely even less.

Until a significant global environmental benefit can be proven, we must act on the assumption that the local environmental effects can not be justified.

3.  Recently, the Texas General Land Office received funding and permission to start testing and research for offshore wind energy production and technology. What are your views on offshore wind farming?

Answer:  While siting them far offshore mitigates the impact on human neighbors, impacts on seascape and wildlife remain (besides interfering with birds, the turbines' low-frequency noise is likely to disturb fish and sea mammals), as do the very low possible benefits. Offshore construction is more difficult and expensive, and wear and tear on the turbines is much greater -- promising to make offshore wind even more of a boondoggle than onshore.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights

Wind turbine syndrome

To the editor, Hays (Kan.) Daily News:

Sam Zwengler apparently only sees (and hears) what he wants to hear ("Still looking for syndrome evidence," letter, July 14).

He cites a recent article in Nature, implying it as a peer-reviewed study of the impacts of living near wind energy facilities. In fact, it is only a news-section piece about the Spanish developer Acciona. Despite Zwengler's assertion, the article says nothing about residents living near the machines.

If he accepts that puff piece as scientific evidence that no ill effects exist, it is no wonder that he can only deny the increasingly frequent reports of serious health effects caused by wind turbine noise.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, human rights, animal rights

July 14, 2007

Half a percent of conservation, or 60,000 square miles of industrial wind turbines?

"Renewables in Global Energy Supply", International Energy Agency (IEA), January 2007:
Further expansion of wind power will promote significant reductions in greenhouse gases. (pp. 25-26)

The Alternative Policy Scenario presented in this year's World Energy Outlook ... shows how the global energy market could evolve if countries around the world were to adopt a set of policies and measures that they are now considering and might be expected to implement over the projection period. (p. 12)
In 2004, according to the IEA, wind generated 0.47% of the world's electricity, namely, 82 terawatt-hours* (TWh, or 1 million megawatt-hours) out of 17,450 TWh (a figure that is found in another IEA publication, "Key World Energy Statistics", 2006). They project that wind generation will grow about 18-fold by 2030, to 1,440 TWh (p. 12).

But how much will total electricity generation also increase by 2030? On page 13, they state that the share of all renewables will increase from 18% in 2004 to more than 25% of all electricity in 2030, and that the absolute amount will increase from 3,179 TWh in 2004 to 7,775 TWh in 2030. As 3,179 is 18% of 17,450, 7,775 is 25% of 31,100.

Wind's share of electricity generation, therefore, will rise from 0.47% in 2004 to only 4.6% in 2030.

Considering the destruction of landscape and communities, of wildlife and human health, by sprawling wind energy facilities, the responsible choice is obviously to increase conservation by that slight amount and say NO to big wind.

*According to the AWEA, 7,976 MW of wind capacity was added worldwide in 2004, for a total at the end of the year of 47,317 MW. The average for the year from the capacity at the end of 2003 (39,341 MW) to that at the end of 2004, therefore, is 42,329 MW. An output of 82 million MWh (average rate of 9,361 MW) represents 22% of that capacity. At a 22% capacity factor, 1,440 TWh would require an installed capacity of 750,000 MW. Requiring at least 50 acres per installed megawatt, that would be a total of 60,000 square miles. (Not to mention the millions of tons of materials, miles of roads and transmission lines, cement, etc.)

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights

July 12, 2007

Bush et al. crimes are institutional, not going away

From "The Grand Inquisitors", by David Cole, New York Review of Books, July 19, 2007:

Schwarz and Huq's Unchecked and Unbalanced provides a more structural critique of executive excess in the post–September 11 era. Presidential aggrandizement, they remind us, was not invented by George W. Bush. In 1975 and 1976, Congress's Church Committee, on which Schwarz served as legal counsel, revealed extensive abuses of executive power during the cold war, including widespread illegal spying on Americans. Schwarz and Huq suggest that the problem is not just that people like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Gonzales have been in power, but that institutional flaws make it all too easy for such officials to get away with unconstitutional initiatives in times of crisis. The Church Committee diagnosed four such flaws that encouraged the cold war abuses: ambiguous laws and instructions; implicit orders from high officials to violate the law; secrecy; and feeble congressional oversight. Schwarz and Huq demonstrate that despite many post-Watergate reforms, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the same institutional factors are central to understanding the Bush administration's recent torture, rendition, and warrantless wiretapping policies.

In short, where [Joe] Conason [It Can Happen Here] stresses the actions of power-hungry politicians and enabling lawyers, Schwarz and Huq emphasize the importance of structural features in the organization of our federal government. Both diagnoses capture a significant part of the story. In some sense, we have had the worst of all possible combinations: Ashcroft and Gonzales, not to mention Bush and Cheney, came to power just when they could do the most damage. They arrived in office with strong ideological commitments to unchecked power, and they exercised authority at a time when the concept of restraint was most vulnerable. If Conason's focus on particular politicians and officials is right, we might expect the problems to subside with a new administration. But if, as I believe, Schwarz and Huq's structural criticism is equally if not more correct, the problems will continue, albeit perhaps less acutely, well after President Bush leaves office.

human rights, anarchism

July 10, 2007

Europe drying up for wind energy developers

'Wind energy in the U.S. "is like Europe was years ago," says Xavier Viteri, head of Iberdrola's renewable-energy business. "There's a lot of room for development there ...."' (Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2007, page A1)

That raises the question, Why isn't Europe like Europe was? Clearly, the momentum has slowed. Even "showcase" Denmark hasn't added new wind capacity since 2004. Doubts have arisen about the utility of wind energy on the grid. Adverse impacts (to wildlife, landscape, and human health) can no longer be denied. Instead of repeating Europe's mistakes, the U.S. and Canada ought to consider the limits of wind energy that European countries have already discovered.

There's a good reason Iberdrola and other European wind developers are moving their efforts to North America. Europe doesn't want them any more. Let's learn from that experience instead of repeating the same boondoggle.

wind power, wind energy

July 9, 2007

Health benefits of moderate drinking

"An extensive body of data shows concordant J-shaped associations between alcohol intake and a variety of adverse health outcomes, including coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, stroke, dementia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, and all-cause mortality." O’Keefe JH, Bybee KA, Lavie CJ, "Alcohol and cardiovascular health: the razor-sharp double-edged sword", Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2007;50(11) [in press].

Here are some graphs showing the "J-shaped curve", i.e., a drink or two every day reduces the risk of the outcome in question, but more than a few drinks returns one to the same level of risk as with abstention and then increases the risk.

These graphs examine only the effect of the alcohol consumed, not other benefits such as those documented for red wine.

One "drink" contains 10-15 grams of alcohol (ethanol): approximately 12 oz. of beer, 4-5 oz. of wine, 1.5 oz. 80-proof liquor, or 1 oz. 100-proof liquor.

Alcohol and All-Cause Mortality
The relationship of daily alcohol consumption to the relative risk of all-cause mortality in men and women. DiCastelnuovo A, Castanzo S, Bagnardi V, Donati MB, Iacoviello L, de Gaetano G, "Alcohol dosing and total mortality in men and women", Archives of Internal Medicine 2006;166:2437–45.

Alcohol and Stroke Risk
Relationship between daily alcohol and ischemic stroke. This was fully adjusted for the usual stroke factors. OR = odds ratio. Sacco RL, Elkind M, Boden-Albala B, et al., "The protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption on ischemic stroke", JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 1999;281:53–60.

Alcohol and Risk of Diabetes
Alcohol intake and incidence of new type 2 diabetes. Koppes LL, Dekker JM, Hendriks HF, Bouter LM, Heine RJ, "Moderate alcohol consumption lowers the risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective observational studies", Diabetes Care 2005;28:719–25.

Also:  Bell S, Daskalopoulou M, Rapsomaniki E, et al., "Association between clinically recorded alcohol consumption and initial presentation of 12 cardiovascular diseases: population based cohort study using linked health records", The BMJ 2017;356 (Published 22 March 2017). doi: 10.1136/bmj.j909

July 8, 2007

Ridge Protectors Country Auction, July 12



Hundreds of wonderful advertising ephemera, 1890s to 1900s; 1760 engraving of England/Wales framed & matted; 3 prs. important early andirons, 18th & early 19th cent, ornate brass & iron; Audubon folio of 26 prints, 1950s; hanging knife sharpening stone in tiger maple case. c. 1840; primitive lift-top desk/till, orig. green paint, c. 1850; Reed & Barton and Webster &Wilcox ornate silver plate trays; Rosenthal demitasse chocolate set for 6; 1870 Waterbury brass bucket 8" h x 12" diam., hand wrought bail; Bohemian lustre electrified mantle lamp, castle and deer pattern, orig. cut glass drops; Cape Cod lighter; 19th cent. sled in blue paint with flower; 2 Heidi Schoop peasant/Dutch girl planter/vases; early primitive rope bed, Mercersburg, PA; cultured pearls, with appraisals, 16" strand and 14K gold ring; Flexible Flyer sled, c. 1940; folio containing prints by Winslow Homer, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Delacroix; cut glass cruet, sawtooth & zipper design; cut overlay purple & clear bottle; advertising box, Colman's mustard, Paris Exposition 1878; vintage ephemera including ornate Valentines, postcards, paper dolls, and children's books; Harrison Fisher book "Beauties" 1913; oil on canvas, boy holding puppies 26" x 14.5"; ornate Victorian walnut tapestry chair; grain-painted frame with watercolor of baby; landscape, oil on canvas 16" x 20" by Walker; Dutch home scene print in good gilt frame; claw-foot bathtub; crystal frame and starburst centerpiece; 2 Art Deco mesh evening bags; wooden library ladder, ornate early spool bed, and much much more.

other items coming in:

2 matching trestle end tables, yellow birch, VT made, arts & crafts style
2 primitive strawberry crates
3 paintings of the same mystery woman, signed E. Mardeff, 1916, oil on canvas
Colored lithograph print young boy holding dog
Ogee veneer frame 26" x 17"
Guilt edged frame with wooden matte 25" x 18"
Oriental watercolor, figural garden scene with original teakwood frame
Contemporary oil on board, Fridtjof Schroder, "Beauty and the Beast"
Animal landscape, oil on board, signed William Mearns, 23" x 17"
Zeiss Ikon Contaflex 35 mm camera, light meter, flash, lenses, original manuals
Pictorial book of New York, 1905, Whittemann
Pictorial book of Western Pacific Railway
Group of vintage magazines c. 1890-1900 The Delineator, Babyland, others
Group of vintage children's book, Raphael Tuck and others
Period pastel, peasant girl and dog, c. 1895 24" x 18"
Silver plate, William Rogers, round serving plate
Period magazines, Collier's and Life
Still life, oil on board, c. 1940 9" x 7"
Detailed vintage porcelain figural planter
Venetian gold glass cornucopia
3 piece group colored blown glass, small, highly decorative, floral
Sawyer print, Willoughby Lake, VT
Pressed glass footed compote 8" diam
Portable Singer sewing machine, c. 1940 with original table
3 nesting tables, c. 1900 Duncan Phyfe Style
Collapsible wooden sewing table
2 large leather suitcases, c. 1930s
Brass spittoon
Big crock with lid for pickles or sauerkraut
Dining room and foyer matching chandeliers
Hand-crafted big, hope chest by Mike Michaud and Sean Foley
Lamp by Highbeams
Antique Dollhouse (made out of old wooden "sharp cheese" boxes)
Antique spool bed
School desk with lift top, inkwell and attached swiveling chair
Dark mission-style arm chair with cane backs restored
2 mission style rocking chairs
Old piano stool, upholstered
Small red painted Sheridan chair
3 canebottom chairs, one fully restored
2 mule-ear ladderback chairs with cane seats
White painted splint seat (splat? seat?) low chair
Antique Kilim runner in browns, tans and a little blue. 38" x 109"
Victorian leather settee for a gentleman's library

P.S. More sterling silver has come in, an inlaid chess table, Irish porcelain, a practically new horse cart, brass candelabra, Victorian needlepoint lady's arm chair, wonderful rustic porch chairs made by Gerry and Paul Bednarz, rustic wooden out building (maybe 15 feet x 10 feet?), Lenox china, a 1900 clothes wringer on a wooden stand in working order, handmade baskets by Linda Kozak, cedar hope chest by Sean Foley and Mike Michaud, plus at least 30 more items donated I apologize for leaving out.


July 1, 2007

Reduce your carbon footprint by replacing meat

Today's New York Times "Style" section takes a dubious look at "ecoconsumption". ("Green consumerism" is an oxymoron.) It includes a sidebar of more substantive suggestions from The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook for reducing one's carbon footprint. Number 1:
Whenever possible, replace meat with soy or other vegetable protein in your diet. It takes eight times as much energy to produce a pound of meat as it does a pound of tofu.
environment, environmentalism

War is for making money

"I think most wars are to make money, and this one's no different. There are a lot of companies over there making a ton of money, and the only ones suffering are the soldiers and the Iraqi people."

--Stuart Ashley