Biogas and alternative fuel

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ELIMINATE THE BARRIERS FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TO COME TO MARKET.

*****
GOOD MORNING FLINT ,

by Terry Bankert 08/26/2008
,http://attorneybankert.com/ ,
full article with citations posted,
http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/ ,
Summary for discussion at Flint Talk thread Good Morning Flint:http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=34884#34884

* * * * *
REFLECTIONS:Flint and Michigan have a great opportunity to lead the world in biofuel production. In September the Swedish King promoting one of his countries corporations comes to Flint Mi USA to break ground for a BIO Plant. Great! Did you know that one in five cars in Sweden are run on alternative fuel. We should keep our mind open and listen and learn what biofuel is all about. Biofuel can come from human waste as the plant in Flint will produce. Our governmental policies should support and breakdown barriers to alternative fuel production. Thanks to Governor Grandholm for bringing the King of Sweden and a new industry to Michigan and Flint.
* * * * *

At a time when energy experts around the world are debating the “food versus fuel” debate, British Petroleum President (global biofuels) Philip G New tells Sudheer Pal Singh that the solution lies in uncovering the web of market and regulatory problems.[1]

FLINT AND MICHIGAN HAVE SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY...LETS HAVE BIOFUEL FROM FLINT MARKETED TO THE WORLD King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden will visit Michigan on Sept. 26-27 to discuss alternative energy issues, [3] here we have an excellent opportunity to change our world and economically help Flint.[trb]

SWEDISH KING TO BREAK GROUIND FOPR SWEDISH PLANT Gustaf's Sept. 26 visit to Kettering University will coincide with the groundbreaking of the new Swedish Biogas International plant in Flint. [4]

ONE IN FIVE CARS IN SWEDEN RUN ON ALTERNATIVE FUEL The government of Sweden and the national association of auto makers, BIL Sweden, have started work to end oil dependency. One-fifth of cars in Stockholm can run on alternative fuels, mostly ethanol fuel. Stockholm is to introduce a fleet of Swedish-made hybrid ethanol-electric buses. Plans for oil phase-out in Sweden by 2020 was announced in 2005.[33][3]

DO YOU KNOW WHA TBIO FUEL IS "Bio-energy" redirects here. For the term bio-energy in the context of non-mechanist philosophy or alternative medicine, Biofuel can be broadly defined as solid, liquid, or gas fuel derived from recently dead biological material.This distinguishes it from fossil fuels, which are derived from long dead biological material. Biofuel can be theoretically produced from any (biological) carbon source, though the most common by far is photosynthetic plants. Various plants and plant-derived materials are used for biofuel manufacturing. Biofuels are used globally, most commonly to power vehicles and cooking stoves. Biofuel industries are expanding in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

DID YOU KNOW BIOFUEL WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT AND GLOBAL WARMING Biofuels offer the possibility of producing energy without a net increase of carbon into the atmosphere, because the plants used in to produce the fuel have removed CO2 from the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels which return carbon which was stored beneath the surface for millions of years into the air. Therefore, biofuel is in theory more nearly carbon neutral and less likely to increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. (However, doubts have been raised as to whether this benefit can be achieved in practice, see below). The use of biofuels also reduces dependence on petroleum and enhances energy security.[1]

BIOMASS CAN COME FROM US, HUMAN WASTE Biomass is material derived from recently livingorganisms. This includes plants, animals and their by-products. For example, manure, garden waste and crop residues are all sources of biomass. It is a renewable energy source based on the carbon cycle, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal, and nuclear fuels.[1]

OUR POLICY SHOULD BE TO SUPPORT AND FUND 2ND GENERATION BIOFUEL FROM HUMAN WASTE Supporters of biofuels claim that a more viable solution is to increase political and industrial support for, and rapidity of, second-generation biofuel implementation from non food crops, including cellulosic biofuels.[19] Second-generation biofuel production processes can use a variety of non food crops. These include waste biomass, the stalks of wheat, corn, wood, and special-energy-or-biomass crops (e.g. Miscanthus). Second generation (2G) biofuels use biomass to liquid technology, including cellulosic biofuels from non food crops.[20] Many second generation biofuels are under development such as biohydrogen, biomethanol, DMF, Bio-DME, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, biohydrogen diesel, mixed alcohols and wood diesel.[2]

MICHGAN WITH OUR GOVERNOR GRANDHOLM BROUGHT THE SWEDISH INITIATIVE TO FLINT The royal visit springs from an invitation by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who visited Sweden a year ago on a business investment mission.[3]

THE SWEDES ARE LEADERS IN BIOFUEL Swedish firms are involved in a couple of cutting-edge energy ventures in Michigan:[3] • A waste-to-energy project in Flint headed by Swedish Biogas International.[e][3]

HERE IS HOW BIO GAS WORKS IT COMES FROM WASTE Biogas is produced by the process of anaerobic digestion of organic material by anaerobes. It can be produced either from biodegradable waste materials or by the use of energy crops fed into anaerobic digesters to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, digestate, can be used as a biofuel or a fertilizer. In the UK, the National Coal Board experimented with microorganisms that digested coal in situ converting it directly to gases such as methane.[2]

BIOGAS CREATES A METHANE BYPRODUCT What are the major challenges that the global ... biofuel industries face?[1]The major challenges are to deliver a global industry which is both sustainable and economic; how to be able to introduce new technologies which have the potential to transform the industry; and to work with the agriculture sector to make sure that we bring the interests of energy and nutrition together.[1]

Hopefully the Swedish will show us how to make biogas use a success.[trb]What are the problems that confront the existing market regulatory mechanisms and how can that be set right?[1]In developmental economics, we are often told that one of the major challenges in the biofuels industry is the failure of market mechanism which has stopped people from investing and producing food as efficiently as possible.[1]

My only point is that rather than making a simplistic assumption that the introduction of biofuels has caused the food versus fuel controversies, biofuels have the potential to be part of some solution to these problems.[1]As compared to conventional fuels, how much savings in greenhouse gas emission can a biofuel crop provide?[1]The greenhouse gas contribution of a biofuel depends on how it is produced and what it is made from. So, if you make biofuel from the right thing and if you produce it in the right way, then you can get 80-90 per cent improvement in greenhouse gases. This is what we call “biofuels done well”.[1]

An example of this is Brazil where sugarcane is producing 80-90 per cent green house gas savings.[1]Have the higher global crude oil prices contributed to the boost in the demand for biofuels? [1]Higher fossil fuel prices clearly must allow greater opportunities for alternative energy sources to flourish without requiring massive government subsidies and incentives.[1]What kind of investments you are looking forward to make in the Indian market? [1]What kind of policy changes do you expect or recommend? [1]

A national policy with very clear targets, where there are mandates with introduction of biofuels and an understanding of the mechanisms to ensure compliance.[1]It’s an essential first step to ensure that the market exists. After that, incentives to support innovation, clarity around environmental concerns and sustainability obligations of the industry should be exposed.[1]

FLINT WILL HAVE BIOGAS UP AND RUNNING BY 2010 The biogas plant, which would be located near the city's wastewater treatment plant, will convert waste to energy that would be used to fuel buses, taxis and police vehicles. Wood said biogas-fueled vehicles should be a reality in Flint by 2009 or 2010.[4]

JUST IMAGINE WE HAVE LEADERS WORKING TIO MAKE FLINT THE CENTER OF A NEW INDUSTRY The hope is that Flint would be a center for the biogas industry in the U.S.[4] "In my wildest dreams, just like Billy Durant hatched General Motors in Flint, maybe the biogas industry in the U.S. will be started in Flint," Wood said.[4] Support biofuel, thank the politicians that brought this to us and bow to theier King.[trb]

POSTED HERE BY Terry Bankert 8/26/08

..SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Terry Bankert is facilitating this blog for State Representative Lee Gonzales who will post regularly to Flint Talk During the convention here. at http://flinttalk.com/

The Lee Gonzales Convention blogg site is at, http://leegonzales.blogspot.com/

------------
sources[1] http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=332433
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofue l
[3] http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080815/COL06/808150421/1081 [4] http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/08/flints_own_ambassador_to_swede.html[trb] Comments of Terry Bankert to include unattributed cap headlines http://attorneybankert.com/

84569/17425

THE WIND THE SUN AND CONGRESSIONAL COMPROMISE

Our Drop, Their Bucket [1]
McCain is confused again...

*****GOOD MORNING FLINT ,
by Terry Bankert 08/14/2008 ,
http://attorneybankert.com/ ,
full article with citations posted,http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/ ,
Summary,REFLECTIONS for discussion at Flint Talk thread Good Morning Flint: http://www.flinttalk.com/viewforum.php?f=2
* * * * *
REFLECTIONS:Your elected will not make alternative fuel a priority unless you force them through political pressure. Democrats in Congress are offering a compromise to break the congressional grid lock and cause some positive action. You need to keep your eyes on them. Scream at your congressman or woman when you see them, anywhere any time any place until they make alternative energy a priority. Most in Congress do not know or cannot act on the fact that this country needs alternative fuel as a policy priority.For congress to act compromise is necessary, it’s a fact of life. Watch closely to see what is traded off. We must force a shift to alternative fuel. The price of gas must go higher to cause an energy supply shift. Off shore drilling is insignificant unless its in your back yard. The wind, sun and nukes belong to us, why not use them.Denmark gets 20% of its energy from the wind. I would not have expected that from a bunch of dumb blondes. I am starting to think Pickens is on to something.All our country needs....is the political will.....[Terry Bankert 8/14/08]
*****

All of us have felt the sting of high fuel costs over the last year. But what are our politicians doing to fix the problem ...?[3]Your elected will not make alternative fuel a priority unless you force them through political pressure. Call me I will tell you how.[trb]Ever since McCain switched—dare I say flip-flopped?—from being one of the loudest opponents of Bush’s demand for more oil platforms off America’s most beautiful coastlines to being its loudest advocate, Democrats have been slamming him for it. That’s good.[1]Democrats are offering a compromise to break the congressional grid lock and cause some positive action.Keep your eyes on them also.[trb]Democratic leaders in the House discussed the possibility on Wednesday of offering a comprehensive energy package when Congress returns in the fall, according to leadership aides.[2] Scream at your congressman or woman when you see them, anywhere any time any place until they make alternative energy a priority.[trb]

SOME DEMOCRATS JUST DO NOT GET IT AND ARE USING THE WRONG ARGUMENTSWhat’s not so good is some of the arguments they’re...Democrats are .... using.[1]It’s a gimmick, the Dems keep saying. But who cares if it’s a gimmick if it brings down energy prices? [1]It won’t produce results for twenty years, they keep saying. But since when are Democrats opposed to long-term solutions?[1]It’s a hoax, because we can’t drill our way out of our energy problems, they say.But why shouldn’t we drill part of our way out?[1]

MCCAIN HAS NO VISION AND NO PLAN HE IS JUST BEING "POLITICAL".Politicians such as Sen. John McCain have promoted lifting the prohibition on offshore drilling in some areas as a way to alleviate our energy crisis. Mr. McCain has even linked Se. Barack Obamac's earlier opposition to expanding offshore drilling to our high oil prices. [3]

AMERICANS WANT ACTION ANY ACTION, LEADERS GIVE ACTION THAT’S MEANINGFUL NOT JUST EXPEDIENT.Distressingly, such ideas have gained traction. According a recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now support increased offshore drilling and 51 percent believe doing so will reduce the cost of gasoline within a year.[3]

TO GET CONGRESS ACTING WE MUST COMPROMISEBut it seems clear party leaders are crafting a comprehensive energy package that would combine a Republican priority to open new offshore sites for oil and gas exploration with Democratic priorities, like tax subsidies for renewable sources of energy or new requirements for energy producers to generate more power from renewables, like wind and solar power.[2]

WITH POPULATIONS EXPLODING INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS OUR GOVERNMENT MUST FORCE A CONSUMER SHIFT TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS TO PROTECT AMERICAWhile world oil production has never been higher, vastly increased demand for oil from nations such as China has driven up prices. Unless this demand slows (which is unlikely), we won't see major adjustments in oil costs.[3]

THERE ARE COUNTRIES WITH BETTER ARGUMENTS AND SOLUTIONSA better argument may be found in the same issue of the New York Times Magazine that I rushed to harsh on a few weeks ago. It’s from Deborah Solomon’s crisp mini-interview with Robert Reich. The relevant Q.’s and A.’s:[1]What do you make of the argument that the only way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil is to tap more oil wells here—in Alaska and off the coasts of Florida and California? When you consider that the oil we pump goes into a global oil market, offshore drilling makes no sense. We take the environmental risk, but we’d have to share the negligible price gains with Chinese consumers and every other user around the world.[1]Then why do you think President Bush asked Congress last month to lift the longtime ban on offshore oil drilling? If I had to guess, I would say that President Bush is very close to the oil companies and wants whatever they want.[1]

OFF SHORE DRILLING ....INSIGNIFICANTThe point is easy to understand. We take all the risks. We pay all the costs. But we don’t get all the benefits, such as they are. Once the oil comes out, some time in the far future, it gets sold to whoever’s buying at that day’s price. The impact on price will be spread across the globe—which is why, as even the Bush Administration’s Department of Energy admits, that impact will be "insignificant."[1]

PELOSI WILL BACK THE NONSENSE OF OFF SHORE DRILLING JUST TO NOT LET THE REPUBLICAN TAKE CREDITDemocratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering legislation that would permit new offshore drilling as part of a broad energy bill, a response to growing anxiety within her party that Republicans are gaining traction with election-year attacks that Democrats aren't doing enough to address high gasoline prices.[4]

THERE ARE MANY VIABLE OPTIONS, INCREMENTS OF POLICY BEING DEBATED, WHAT WE NEED IS A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE. WHERE IS AL GORE WHEN YOU NEED HIMThere was also some discussion on the call about including a repeal of tax subsidies for some of the biggest oil companies, one aide said. Democrats kicked off 2007 by passing a measure that would rescind nearly $14 billion in tax subsidies from the biggest oil companies in order to pay for alternative energy projects. Thirty-six Republicans backed that measure, despite strong opposition from the White House and members of the oil industry. It remains stuck in the Senate.[2]

IT IS NOT OUR BUCKET TO DROP INTOIt’s a drop in the bucket, and it’s not even our bucket. It’s China’s, India’s, Europe’s—everybody’s. We get a thimbleful.[1]

OFF SHORE GIVES NO IMPACT FOR 9 YEARSHowever, experts at the Department of Energy have found that it would take about nine years for offshore drilling to increase our oil supply at all and that even then the price cut would be "insignificant."[3]

DRILL IN YOUR BACK YARD NOT MINE. HOW DOES GREAT LAKE OFF SHORE DRILLING SOUND ?Pelosi has long opposed lifting the drilling ban but has come under pressure from members of her own party -- including freshmen in tough reelection campaigns -- to allow a vote on offshore drilling. Adding to that, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama recently said that he would be open to limited offshore drilling if it was part of a broader energy compromise.[4]We need to realize that oil will never be cheap again and other solutions are needed[3]

THE WIND THE SUN THE NUKES ARE OURSBut our wind and our sunlight aren’t going anywhere. Aren’t we better off putting our efforts into encouraging and harnessing them? When we’re thinking long term, when we’re planning for twenty years from now, shouldn’t we be looking to get away from carbon-belching, icecap-melting, coast-destroying oil?[1]The idea of letting states decide whether to permit drilling has gained support in the Senate too. A bipartisan group of senators recently unveiled a compromise that would let Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia decide whether to allow drilling 50 miles off their shorelines.[4]Drilling opponents are stepping up their efforts to preserve the ban.[4]MoveOn.org Political Action, which supports the election of candidates favoring the MoveOn.org agenda, has run radio ads in some GOP-held districts attacking the incumbents for accepting oil industry campaign contributions and calling new offshore drilling a gimmick that wouldn't produce oil for years.[4]

HEY...YOU SUPPLY AND DEMAND NUTS ...INCREASE THE COST OF THE SUPPLY EVEN MORE AND SHIFT THE DEMAND TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY...WHY NOTThe underlying truth, though it may be a little too raw for campaign purposes, is that the price at the pump should be higher, not lower. As Elizabeth Kolbert notes in our current issue, a few months of sharply rising fuel costs have done more to cut our oil profligacy than all the preceding years of high-minded exhortations.[1]

WE SHOULD NATIONALIZE THE OIL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION ARREST THE OIL EXECUTIVES AND HAVE A YEAR OF SHOW TRIALS..IT’S A THOUGHT...A BAD ONE BUT A THOUGHTUnfortunately, all that extra cost is simply a transfer of wealth to the coffers of oil "producers" like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, with a few tens of billions skimmed off the top by ExxonMobil and the like.[1]

DENMARK GETS 20 % OF ITS ENERGY FROM THE WINDTom Friedman pointed out the other day that the Danes are paying ten dollars a gallon for gasoline. It’s not a problem for them. That’s because most of what they pay goes for taxes that have financed an energy policy so effective that Denmark now gets 20 per cent of its electricity from wind (we get one per cent) and zero per cent of its fuel from the Middle East (down from 99 per cent twenty-five years ago). Now the Danes are getting ready to jack up gasoline taxes even more and use the proceeds to cut personal income taxes. They have this crazy idea that they should tax things they want to discourage, like gas guzzling, and ease up on taxing things they want to encourage, like people working. [1]

I WOULD NEVER EXPECT THAT FROM A BUNCH OF BLONDSBut what do they know. They’re just a bunch of foreigners. European socialists, too, probably.[1]Last month, former Vice President Al Gore called for 100 percent of our energy to be generated by clean, renewable sources within 10 years. A witness before Congress recently testified that there are no significant technological or engineering hurdles to making this happen.[3]All our country needs to do so is GET the political will.[3]
—ENDPosted here by Terry Bankert 8/14/08
* * * * * For more on alternative Energy:
http://energyalternativesadvisor.blogspot.com/
Also see Blogging for Michigan: http://bloggingformichigan.com/ *****
—SOURCES
[1]The New Yorkerhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/08/our-drop-their.html

[2]CBS Newshttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/13/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4349413.shtml
[3]Baltimore Sunhttp://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters140aug14,0,4517662.story

[4]The Los Angeles Timeshttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,4495703.story

[trb]Comments of Terry Bankert to include unattributed CAP headlineshttp://attorneybankert.com/
73490/16983

WILL YOUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN STARVE?

WHAT IF THIS IS TRUE? THE WORLD CANNOT FEED ITS POPULATION!

*****
GOOD MORNING FLINT ,by Terry Bankert 08/10/2008
,http://attorneybankert.com/ ,
full article with citations posted, http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/ ,

Summary for discussion at Flint Talk thread Good Morning Flint: http://www.flinttalk.com/viewforum.php?f=2

* * * * *
REFLECTIONS:What if it were true that the world cannot feed its population? History shows this is not a problem unique to today. But if true and its world wide the stakes are much higher. What if Globalization is followed by a return to Economic Localization? What if it is true that throughout human history food collection was a primary societal organizational objective? Well, we cannot feed our world population mush less the new number 10 years from now. Globalization as an organizing economic theory will collapse when populations are starving. We want to eat before we" text message". Our economic organizing principals, in emergening localization, will change but really only return that tried and true paradigm... we will to anything to survive. We must eat to survive. This paradigm shift has already begun world wide and in America. We are running out of time to avoid famine.

I looked to what is happening now in the world , The Sudan ,to understand what may happen to America in 10 years. My thoughts , observations and question, follow:

1. THE RICH WILL RAID THE LAND RESOURCES OF THE POOR, PEOPLE AND COUNTRIES.

2.WHY DO WE HAVE A CRISIS? IT BASED ON ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OVER PEOPLE’S LIVES?

3.BIG MONEY WILL GRAVITATE TO BIG FARMING

4.BIG MONEY WILL FEED THE WORLD MARKET AND LET THE HOST COUNTRY STARVE.

5. WE MUST CAUSE A MASSIVE INCREASE IN FOOD PRODUCTION.

6.LIKE THE INHABITANTS OF A RESORT ISLAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ALL THE FOOD HAS TO BE IMPORTED?WE BECOME ECONOMICLY VULNERABLE.

7.THERE IS A FUTURE IN AGRIBUSINESS FOR THE NEW GRADUATES

8.WE FEED THEIR POOR ,THERE RICH FEED THE WORLD.

9.CORPORATIONS BECOME IMMORAL... HEARD THAT BEFORE REGIMES BECOME PARASITIC AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

10.STARVATION BECOMES PART OF PLANNED GENOCIDE, JUST TOO MANY OF ....THEM.


11.HOW MANY CHILDREN WILL DIE, GREAT NATIONS STAY SILENT BREADBASKET OR PROFIT CENTERS...

12.WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF FARMING?

13.THE HUNGRY AT ONE TIME ATE THEIR BELTS AND SHOES NOW THEY EAT MUD IN HAITI.

14.GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL DENY THEIR PLUNDERING.

15.THE GOOD, ( AMERICANS STAND SILENT), THE BAD (SUDANES CREATE A NEW FOOD HOLOCAUST),THE UGLY WORLD ( CHILDREN STARVE AS THE WORLD WRENCHES ITS HANDS).

16.THE SUDANESE ARE NOT THE ONLY POOR BEING PLUNDERED.

17.TIME OUTS, ALLOWANCE TAKEN AWAY OR WILL THEY BE GROUNDED, JUST WHAT WILL THESE SANCTIONS BE?

18.BAD POLICY, BAD RESULTS

19.WE WANT TO SELL THEM OUR STUFF RATHER THAN GIVEN THEM AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BUY FROM THEIR OWN FARMERS AND GROW THEIR OWN PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES.

20.SUDANESE OFFICIALS GET MONEY ,ARABS GET FOOD, OIL MONEY AT WORK.

21.WE ARE MANY AND THEY ARE FEW, BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE ARE FEW AND THEY ARE MANY?

******

In 2006, before the food crisis hit, there were 850million people who were hungry at some point during the year. Of those, seven out of ten were women. Today, the number of hungry people is closer to a billion[4]When will you care? What if it were an undisputed fact that your grandchildren will face starvation in America unless you act today, would you act?[trb]

THIS IS NOT A NEW PROBLEM, JUST A NEW ERA WITH HIGHER STAKES.Hanging in the Newseum in Washington, DC, is a photo that is about as heart-rending an image as you’re likely to find anywhere. Taken by Kevin Carter for The New York Times in 1993, the photo depicts a starving Sudanese toddler crumpled on the ground, as if her stick-like legs could no longer bear the weight of her large head and swollen stomach, bloated from the malnourishment disease called kwashiorkor. While that alone is disturbing, what makes the tableau truly haunting is the vulture patiently waiting just a few feet behind the emaciated child. This photograph earned Carter a Pulitzer Prize and epitomized the toll famine is taking on developing countries around the world.[5]

GLOBALIZATION REPLACED BY LOCALIZATION." Our American economy will become intensely local and smaller in scale. It will do so steadily and by degrees as the amount of cheap energy decreases and the global contest for it becomes more intense. The scale of all human enterprise will contract with the supply of energy......The downscaling of America is the single most important task facing the American people....Producing food will become a problem of supreme urgency."[1 at 239]

IN MOST OF THE HUMAN HISTORY CULTURES WERE ORGANIZED AROUND FOOD PRODUCTION, THIS WILL RETURN."The U.S. economy of the decade to come will center on Farming, not High-Tech, or " information" or service or space travel or tourism or finance. All other activities will secondary to food production which will require much more human labor....Americans will be compelled to radically reorganize the way food is produce or starve.[1 at 239]

ITS ALREADY STARTING IN AMERICAEven in America, there are reports of middle-class women skipping meals so their children can eat. The food crisis is hitting everywhere. [4]

WE ARE SIMPLE CHILDREN NOT DEALING WITH ADULT REALITIESPerhaps the Great political question of the years ahead is how do we become a reality- based nation." [1at 324]

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIMESO what if it is true, we are running out of oil out populations are increasing middle class consumer consumption demands take resources from food production. Seen the price of rice lately and did you pay attention to the news items about Africa starving. So then what if it is true that in the life times of our children American will struggle to feed itself? WHAT DO WE DO TODAY?[trb]Darfur Withers as Sudan Sells Food [2]

TO DEFINE OUR FUTURE PROBLEM I PROPOSE WE LOOK TO THE CHAOS AROUND US AND SAY "What if we are next what can we learn, plan for and act on? [trb]

THE RICH WILL RAID THE LAND RESOURCE OF THE POOREven as it receives a billion pounds of free food from international donors, Sudan is growing and selling vast quantities of its own crops to other countries, capitalizing on high global food prices at a time when millions of people in its war-riddled region of Darfur barely have enough to eat. [2]And, on top of this, price speculation and collusion within the food industry have added another layer to the cost of food. In Britain, Spain and South Africa, price-fixing enquiries are under way to see whether supermarkets have used the crisis to overcharge consumers. [4]Perhaps, we might think, there just isn't enough food. But the world's food production has been growing faster than the population every year since the Sixties. [4] Has it gone to applications that do not feed people?[trb]

WHY DO WE HAVE A CRISIS? IS IT BASED ON ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OVER PEOPLE’S LIVES?So, a quarter of the world food-price crisis is because we think it's a better idea to burn food than eat it. [4]There's a fistful of reasons why prices are so high. [4]First, the price of oil is connected to our food. It's not just through the energy used to bring food to our door. On the average American farm, the greatest use of energy is on fertilizers, which require tremendous amounts of fossil fuels to manufacture. More expensive oil means pricier fertilizer which, in turn, means dearer food. [4]Another reason prices are high is because of the boom in 'biofuels'. In 2006, the American government spent $12billion (£6billion) to turn maize into ethanol, which was mixed with petrol and sold as 'flexible fuel'. [4]This made farmers think they'd be better off growing maize rather than wheat. So the supply of wheat was cut and the price rose. Speculators saw the boom in the maize market and bet the price of white maize, grown in Mexico, would go up. The price soared. With it, so did the price of the Mexican staple, tortillas. That's why there were 'tortilla riots' in Mexico City last year. [4]

BIG MONEY WILL GRAVITATE TO BIG FARMINGHere in the bone-dry desert, where desiccated donkey carcasses line the road, huge green fields suddenly materialize. Beans. Wheat. Sorghum. Melons. Peanuts. Pumpkins. Eggplant. It is all grown here, part of an ambitious government plan for Sudanese self-sufficiency, creating giant mechanized farms that rise out of the sand like mirages.[2]

BIG MONEY WILL FEED THE WORLD MARKET AND LET THE HOST COUNTRY STARVEBut how much of this bonanza is getting back to the hungry Sudanese, like the 2.5 million driven into camps in Darfur? And why is a country that exports so many of its own crops receiving more free food than anywhere else in the world, especially when the Sudanese government is blamed for creating the crisis in the first place?[2]

A GOVERNOR SPEAKS OUT TO SURVIVE WE MUST CAUSE A MASSIVE INCREASE IN FOOD PRODUCTION.Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan of Delta State has stressed the need to deploy the energy and creative minds of youth in the State in massive food production. Uduaghan said this on Monday while inaugurating a committee on youth agricultural programme in Asaba. According to the governor, it would help to stave off imminent starvation that stared the nation like others in every part of the world in the face. [3]

LIKE THE INHABITANTS OF A RESORT ISLAND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ALL THE FOOD HAS TO BE IMPORTED?African countries that rely on donated food usually cannot produce enough on their own. Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger and Zimbabwe are all recent examples of how war, natural disasters or gross mismanagement can cut deep into food production, pushing millions of people to the brink of starvation. [2]

THERE IS A FUTURE IN AGRIBUSINESS FOR THE NEW GRADUATESBut here in Sudan, there seem to be plenty of calories to go around. The country is already growing wheat for Saudi Arabia, sorghum for camels in the United Arab Emirates and vine-ripened tomatoes for the Jordanian Army. Now the government is plowing $5 billion into new agribusiness projects, many of them to produce food for export.[2]


WE FEED THEIR POOR THERE RICH FEED THE WORLDTake sorghum, a staple of the Sudanese diet, typically eaten in flat, spongy bread. Last year, the United States government, as part of its response to the emergency in Darfur, shipped in 283,000 tons of sorghum, at high cost, from as far away as Houston. Oddly enough, that is about the same amount that Sudan exported, according to United Nations officials.[2]

CORPORATIONS BECOME IMMORAL... HEARD THAT BEFOREThis year, Sudanese companies, including many that are linked to the government in Khartoum, are on track to ship out twice that amount, even as the United Nations is being forced to cut rations to Darfur. [2]

REGIMES BECOME PARASITIC AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLEEric Reeves, a professor at Smith College and an outspoken activist who has written frequently on the Darfur crisis, called this anomaly "one of the least reported and most scandalous features of the Khartoum regime’s domestic policies." It was emblematic, he said, of the Sudanese government’s strategy to manipulate "national wealth and power to further enrich itself and its cronies, while the marginalized regions of the country suffer from terrible poverty." [2]

STARVATION BECOMES PART OF PLANNED GENOCIDE, JUST TOO MANY OF ....THEMAid groups gave up long ago on the Sudanese government helping the people of Darfur. After all, the nation’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has been accused of masterminding genocide in Darfur. United Nations officials have said that if they do not bring food into the region, the government surely will not.[2]

HOW MANY CHILDREN WILL DIE, GREAT NATIONS STAY SILENTThat leaves the United Nations and Western aid groups feeding more than three million Darfurians. But the lifeline is fraying. Security is deteriorating. Aid trucks are getting hijacked nearly every day and deliveries are being made less and less frequently. The result: less food and soaring malnutrition rates, particularly among children.[2]

BREADBASKET OR PROFIT CENTERS...WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF FARMING?On top of this is the broader problem of trying to find affordable grains on the world market when prices are higher than they have been in decades. United Nations officials in Sudan say that the fact that they have to import some of the same commodities that Sudan not only produces but exports is a source of constant frustration. [2]"Sudan could be self-sufficient," said Kenro Oshidari, the director of the United Nations World Food Program in Sudan. "It does have the potential to be the breadbasket of Africa."[2]

THE HUNGRY AT ONE TIME ATE THEIR BELTS AND SHOES NOW THEY EAT MUD IN HAITIVisitors to the shanty towns of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, will find something unusual in the markets. It's a dry, yellow, round food product, about the size of a digestive biscuit. They're mud cakes, made from clay, salt, oil and water. Eat one, and you'll keep hunger at bay for a few hours. In Haiti, the market for mud cakes is booming. With the price of food soaring, but with wages static or falling, the poor are forced into desperation. Haiti finds itself at the whip end of a food crisis that stretches around the world.[4]

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL DENY THEIR PLUNDERINGSudanese officials say that is precisely their goal, and they deny that Sudanese agribusiness is being built at the expense of their own people. They reject accusations that they are neglecting far-flung areas like Darfur, much less waging a war of hunger and deprivation against them. [2]

THE GOOD, ( AMERICANS STAND SILENT), THE BAD (SUDANES CREATE A NEW FOOD HOLOCAUST),THE UGLY WORLD ( CHILDREN STARVE AS THE WORLD WRENCHES ITS HANDS)Instead, Sudanese officials say they are simply trying to build up their economy. They say they know what it is like to be vilified, having been squeezed by American sanctions for more than a decade. And it could get worse, with Mr. Bashir facing genocide charges at the International Criminal Court in connection with the massacres in Darfur.[2]

THE SUDANESE ARE NOT THE ONLY POOR BEING PLUNDEREDGlobally, food prices rose 55 per cent from June 2007 to February 2008. In March alone, the price of rice went up 87 per cent - and rice accounts for one fifth of all calories eaten on Earth. The prices of all staples have soared and are set to rise for the next decade[4]

TIME OUTS, ALLOWANCE TAKEN AWAY OR WILL THEY BE GROUNDED, JUST WHAT WILL THESE SANCTIONS BE?"Sanctions are never far from our mind," said Al-Amin Dafa Allah, chairman of the National Assembly’s agricultural committee. "We’re trying to minimize our reliance on the outside."[2]

BAD POLICY, BAD RESULTSIn fact, part of the reason relief agencies bring their own food into Sudan stems from the American policy of giving crops, not money, as foreign aid. [2]But there are things we can do to beat it. When it comes to food aid, the United States has one of the most destructive policies: the food has to come from American farms and be delivered by American ships. [4]Many European countries, by contrast, just give the World Food Program cash, which can be used to buy food locally. Last year, the program bought 117,000 tons of Sudanese sorghum. United Nations officials said they would like to buy more, but they had run-ins with Sudanese suppliers who could make more money with exports.[2]Tragically, of course, hunger has only become an even graver issue in the last 15 years -- a point made clear in a report released July 29 from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Recommending urgent action for long-term relief, the CSIS report calls for "a strategic U.S. approach to the global food crisis." [5]

WE WANT TO SELL THEM OUR STUFF RATHER THAN GIVEN THEM AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BUY FROM THEIR OWN FARMERS AND GROW THEIR OWN PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES"We don’t get discounts," said Emilia Casella, a spokeswoman for the World Food Program. Sudanese officials say they want to sell more crops to the United Nations, but lost in this discussion about buying and selling food is whether the Sudanese government should be donating food to its own needy people. [2]The answer is for donor countries to buy food as close as possible to where it's needed. [4]

SUDANESE OFFICIALS GET MONEY ARABS GET FOOD, OIL MONEY AT WORKFor now, Sudanese officials seem more interested in doing business with their new partners in the Middle East. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, nearly one million square miles. It has 208 million acres of arable land, with less than a quarter being cultivated. The Sudanese government is striking deals left and right with Arab countries just across the Red Sea: the Arab countries bring the money, the soil scientists and the $200,000 tractors. Sudan supplies the land.[2]...The last time the government gave the World Food Program any food for Darfur was in 2006. It was 22,000 tons of Sudanese-grown sorghum. It was a fraction of what the people needed, United Nations officials said, and some of the grain was rancid and infested with weevils.[2]

WE ARE MANY AND THEY ARE FEW, BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE ARE FEW AND THEY ARE MANY?The United Nations estimates that 854 million people -- nearly 13 percent of the world’s human population -- go hungry every day. And the problem is only getting worse. Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN’s World Food Program, says, "The world’s misery index is rising."[5]But certain hunger-beating policies simply don't fit the current fads in international development economics. Perhaps that's the greatest tragedy here. It's not a lack of food that is causing this crisis - it's a lack of political will. [4]

—END—

Posted here by Terry Bankert 8/8/08, full article and cites at link above For more on alternative Energy: http://energyalternativesadvisor.blogspot.com/

Also see Blogging for Michigan: http://bloggingformichigan.com/

–sources-

[1]"The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler 2005 Grove Press ISBN: 10:0-8021-4249-4From the author " Surviving the End of Oil, climate change, and other converging catastrophes of the 21st Century.See:http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

[2]The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/africa/10sudan.html?em

[3]The Tide onlinehttp://www.thetidenews.com/article.aspx?qrDate=08/08/2008&qrTitle=Food%20production:%20Uduaghan%20inaugurates%20youth%20agric%20programme&qrColumn=BUSINESS

[4]Mail onlinehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043125/Tortilla-riots-mud-cakes-food-expensive.html

[5]OENhttp://www.opednews.com/articles/Feast-or-Famine-Meat-Prod-by-Mark-Hawthorne-080808-523.html

[TRB]Comments of Terry Bankert to include CAP headlineshttp://attorneybankert.com/

72692/16860

Stop the oil addiction in U.S.A.

GOOD MORNING FLINT ,
by Terry Bankert 08/04/2008 ,http://attorneybankert.com/ ,full article posted, http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/ , Summary for discussion at Flint Talkthread Good Morning Flint: http://www.flinttalk.com/viewforum.php?f=2

* * * * *REFLECTIONS:
We must ,as a country, get on a 12 step program to end our dependency on oil. Not being able to meet our energy needs as a country is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced."After one president, Bush, as stayed in the pocket of big oil, we can’t afford another, McCain is just another Bush he cannot be trusted. Obama’s windfall profits tax on big oil will give families a $1,000 rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you. Big Business will be held accountable. Obama is now putting together his coalition to tackle this countries energy needs . Will you be part of it. Obama also backs a policy to get Americans into ultra efficient cars. Our energy crisis is too urgent to allow partisan bickering. We must adopt a responsible but aggressive set of policies to get our country on the right track. We must set as a priority getting new energy from renewable sources.[trb 08/04/08]* * * * *

UNITED STATED MUST STOP ITS ADDICTION TO OILSpeaking before a crowd in Lansing, Michigan, the senator from Illinois said the country's "addiction to oil ... is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced."[7]"After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can’t afford another," the announcer says. "Barack Obama, a windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a $1,000 rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you." [8]

OBAMA ENERGY PLAN WILL HOLD BIG BUSINESS ACCOUNTABLEObama unveiled his energy plan, which includes a windfall profits tax on big oil corporations that would be used to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs.[7]

OBAMA BEGINS TO FORM A PRO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY COALITIONSenator Barack Obama on Saturday said a shift in his stance on offshore oil drilling is a necessary compromise with Republicans to gain their support for his broader goals of energy independence. [1] Real leadership understands this.[trb] The different paths John McCain and Barack Obama have taken to support expanded offshore drilling for oil demonstrate how each would govern as president, their supporters said Sunday.[3] McCain is occupied protecting big business while Obama seek a commitment to developing alternative energy.[trb]He said, 'Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long term about the future of the country,' " Obama said.[6]

OFF SHORE DRILLING TRADED FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY POLICYOn Friday, Obama indicated a willingness to support an effort by five Democratic senators and five Republicans to break Congress's energy impasse with legislation that would allow expanded offshore oil exploration and embrace ambitious energy efficiency and efforts to develop alternative fuels. [1] Obama's supporters argued that his willingness to consider a bipartisan proposal including more drilling showed how the Illinois Democrat would pursue compromise to achieve results.[3]

MCCAIN ATTACKS OBAMA WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE OBAMA COMPROMISE PROPOSALObama and his party have come under attack from the White House and Republican presidential contender John McCain for blocking moves to free up thousands of miles (kilometers) of US coastline for drilling for oil, which the Republicans say would help ease high fuel prices, a major worry for voters.[4]

OFF SHORE DRILLING WILL HAVE LITTLE EFFECT AND NONE FOR YEARSRepublicans have seized on the drilling issue, hoping to finally get political traction amid soaring gasoline prices. Democratic leaders have done everything possible to stand in their way. [1] That is until Obama promoted his compromise proposal.[trb]Obama's supporters repeated their argument that new offshore oil exploration would take nearly a decade to produce any oil, thus not affecting gasoline prices today. They also said oil companies should first start drilling in the millions of acres for which they already hold leases.[3]\

OBAMA BACKS POLICY TO GET AMERICANS IN ULTRA EFFICIENT VEHICLESObama said on Saturday that it is time to compromise. The proposal by the Senate's "Gang of 10" has "some of the very aggressive elements that I've outlined in my plan," he said here, including a goal in 20 years of having 85 percent of cars no longer operating on petroleum-based fuels and to provide $7 billion to help the U.S. auto industry retool to build ultra-efficient vehicles. [1]

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS TOO BIG FOR PARTISAN BICKERING SAYS OBAMA"What I don't want is for the best to be the enemy of the good here, and if we can come up with a genuine, bipartisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don't like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like, in exchange for moving us in the direction of energy independence, then that's something I'm open to," Obama said. "I wanted to send a strong signal that we can't allow partisan bickering or the desire to score political points to get in the way of providing some genuine relief to people who are struggling." [1]"If we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, in which I have to accept some things that I don't like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of actual energy independence, then that's something I'm open to," the Illinois Democrat said.[2]Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., appearing with Lieberman, said Obama remains opposed to drilling but is prepared to "break America's gridlock by honoring a bipartisan effort, if that is the only way to move us towards alternative and renewable fuels and an energy policy that's comprehensive."[3]Republicans seized on Obama's shift, accusing the presumptive Democratic nominee of inconstant and politically motivated policy stands. The Republican National Committee sent out a news release noting that on Wednesday in Missouri, Obama declared, "I want to be absolutely clear to everybody about this. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas prices by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey . . . if I thought that by drilling offshore, we could solve our problem, I'd do it." [1]

IT TAKES A FRACTION TO GET THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION, IT TAKES CENTRIST POSITION TO WIN THE COUNTRYSince securing the Democratic nomination in June, Obama has taken a series of steps toward the political center, embracing a bipartisan compromise on warrant less wiretapping, accepting a Supreme Court decision against a District handgun ban, decrying another decision banning the death penalty for child rapists and hinting at limits to late-term abortions for those who have diagnosed mental health problems. [1]

OBAMA STRESSES THE NEED FOR A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH TO OFF SHORE DRILLINGThe drilling issue may offer Obama the strongest reason yet for compromise. New polls suggest that opposition to offshore drilling is easing under the weight of $4-a-gallon gasoline. Obama left open his options Saturday, saying that the Senate compromise's "drilling provisions are about as careful and responsible as you might expect from a drilling agenda," but that he remains skeptical. [1]"We can't drill our way out of the problem," he said. But, he added, "I also recognize that in the House and the Senate, there are Republicans who have very clear ideas about what they want, and at some point people are going to have to make some decisions. Do we want to keep on arguing, or are we going to get some things done?" [1]

MCCAIN TAKES CREDIT FOR THE OBAMA POSITIONThe campaign of Sen Jonn McCain at once claimed credit for leading Obama to his new position and questioned whether he ultimately would support additional drilling. McCain also opposed expanded offshore drilling until switching his position in June. [1]

SOME WANT MORE ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES. THEY ARE CORRECT ITS NEEDEDIt is not clear how far Obama's endorsement will get the Senate compromise. Environmentalists decried the deal as badly slanted toward oil production. Daniel J. Weiss, an energy and environmental expert with the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, said most of the drilling provisions are mandatory, while the key energy conservation measures are voluntary. The push to have 85 percent of future cars powered on non-petroleum fuel is merely a nonbinding sense of the Senate resolution. And the compromise does not include a long-sought environmental provision that would mandate that a certain percentage of electricity generation come from renewable energy sources. [1]"This deal is like swapping your home for somebody's car," Weiss said. "Sure, the car is nice, but is it worth your house?" [1]

PELOSI SENDS CONGRESS HOME TO TALK TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT IT.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shut down the chamber and sent lawmakers home for a five-week August recess Friday rather than have a vote on expanded drilling. [1]Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid(D-Nev.) has been slightly less ardent, and signaled on Friday that he will entertain using the Gang of 10 deal as grounds for compromise when Congress returns in September. [1]

ELIMINATING THE TAX BREAKS FOR BIG OIL SOUGHT, THAT’S A GOOD THINGThe Senate package would repeal tax breaks for oil companies that Democrats have opposed, fund more research into fuel efficiency, help consumers buy plug-in hybrid vehicles or convert existing hybrids to plug-ins, and extend tax breaks for renewable electricity sources for eight years. States would have the final say in approving drilling plans on the Outer Continental Shelf, no closer than 50 miles from the shore. [1]

BUSH WAKES UP A DELIVERS A CHEAP SHOTPresident Bush chastised Democrats on Saturday for refusing to allow a vote on whether to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling before lawmakers departed for their summer recess. [1]"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home," Bush said in his weekly radio address. [1]"What Sen. Obama said is what we want a president to say," Pelosi said on "This Week" on ABC. "Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply, protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single-shot thing that does none of the above."[3]Pelosi suggested that she might be open to a vote on a broader energy bill that includes some offshore drilling in areas now off limits. As far as a vote being scheduled, she said: "Well, maybe it will, as it's part of a larger energy package." [3]The platform drafting committee of the Democratic Party finished composing their blueprint of the most important issues to their Party today. Included are planks on alternative energy policies.[5]Both major political parties produce a platform as a statement of principles each presidential election year. The Republican platform committee meets in late August to develop a draft to present to the GOP convention beginning Sept. 1 in St. Paul, Minn. [6]The Democratic presidential candidate said he wants to eliminate the need for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years."To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next decade ... and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates 5 million new American jobs," he said.[6]Obama outlined three steps he'd take to meet that goal:Build fuel-efficient cars and have one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on the roads within six years [6]Require that 10 percent of the country's energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first term [6]Call on businesses, government and the American people to meet the goal of reducing the demand for electricity 15 percent by the end of the next decade. [6]"So there is a real choice in this election -- a choice about what kind of future we want for this country and this planet," Obama said.[6]Obama reiterated his charge that McCain has ties to big oil -- saying "he raised more than $1 million from big oil just last month."[6]

-end—
Posted here by Terry Bankert

--[1]The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201538.html?hpid=topnew



[2]Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-campaign-obama-mccainaug03,0,1925095.story


[3]AP
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iY5Iq85I8_StpjYzMpSTJXR_AZBgD92ATUDG4



[4]AFP
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBqC0S7jBKjPedSobzVmamojnvZQ

[5]Fox News
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/03/democratic-party-finishes-drafting-platform/


[6]AP
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCJokRL-4bIUMbN5goV0WMHUsJJAD92B0ER80



[7]CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/04/campaign.wrap/?iref=hpmostpop
[8]BOSTON.COM
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/before_boston_s.html

[TRB]Comments of Terry Bankert to include unattibuted CAP headlineshttp://attorneybankert.com/


For more on alternative Energy: http://energyalternativesadvisor.blogspot.com/

Also see Blogging for Michigan: http://bloggingformichigan.com/

70714/16544