Sloan Barnett talks about how Green Goes With Everything

This is a well researched, practical guide for 'Going Green'. As Sloan says,"One person can't do everything, but we all can do something".

Time is running out

Subject	Time is running out
From	Ron Paul 2008

 
 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish.  It is downright sinister.  It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect.  It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder.  Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China!  "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T.  And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it.  But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook.  The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

•    The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time.  That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

•    Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government."  This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

•    Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."  Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary."  Sad, yes.  Necessary?  Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people.  The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes.  Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are.  A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short.  Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow.  With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it.  Call them!  Let them hear from you!  Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom?  Do we care about responsibility and accountability?  Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for?  Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government?  Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

 
 

 

Political Advertisement paid for by Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul

 

 
 

You are subscribed to this newsletter as mobienewed@verizon.net. Please click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.

 

Sloan Barnett talks about how Green Goes With Everything

Sloan Barnett shows how you too can detoxify your home, and live a healthier "Green" Lifestyle. Her new book will hit the Bookstores on September 23rd.

ALERT! Stop Predatory Lending Practices

It's about time the government started to look at protecting the people from the "out of control" credit card and banking industry. They now are worse than the Mafia. Their greed caused the sub-prime mess, and has been the major contributor in creating the debtor nation of the United States. Let's work to make these "Proposed Rules" the law of the land. But, remember, this is only a start.

FRB: Highlights of Proposed Rules Regarding Credit Cards and Overdraft Services

Highlights of Proposed Rules Regarding Credit Cards and Overdraft Services
Regulation AA (Unfair Acts or Practices)
The proposal would amend Regulation AA to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices by banks in connection with credit card accounts and overdraft services for deposit accounts.

Credit Cards

* Time to Make Payments. The proposal would prohibit banks from treating a payment as late unless the consumer has been provided a reasonable amount of time to make that payment. There would be a safe harbor for banks that send periodic statements at least 21 days prior to the payment due date.

* Allocation of Payments. When different annual percentage rates (APRs) apply to different balances on a credit card account (for example, purchases and cash advances), banks would have to allocate payments exceeding the minimum payment using one of three methods or a method equally beneficial to consumers. They could not allocate the entire amount to the balance with the lowest rate. A bank could, for example, split the amount equally between two balances. In addition, to enable consumers to receive the full benefit of discounted promotional rates (for example, on balance transfers), during the promotional period payments in excess of the minimum would have to be allocated first to balances on which the rate is not discounted.

* Applying Rate Increases to Existing Balances. The proposal would prohibit banks from increasing the interest rate on outstanding balances unless the increase is due to: (i) the operation of an index (in other words, the rate is a variable rate); (ii) the expiration or loss of a promotional rate (provided the rate is not increased to a penalty rate); or (iii) the minimum payment not being received within 30 days of the due date.

* Two-Cycle Billing. The proposal would prohibit banks from imposing finance charges based on balances on days in billing cycles preceding the most recent billing cycle, a practice that is sometimes referred to as two-cycle billing.

* Financing of Security Deposits and Fees. The proposal would address concerns regarding subprime credit cards by prohibiting banks from financing security deposits and fees for credit availability (such as account-opening fees or membership fees) if charges assessed during the first twelve months would exceed 50 percent of the initial credit limit. The proposal would also require financed security deposits and fees exceeding 25 percent of the initial credit limit to be spread over the first year.

* Credit Card Holds. The proposal would prohibit banks from imposing a fee when the credit limit is exceeded solely because a hold was placed on available credit. This can occur where the final dollar amount of a transaction was not known in advance (for example, when a consumer checks into a hotel, a hold is placed for the expected cost of the stay).

* Firm Offers of Credit. The proposal would require banks making firm offers of credit advertising multiple APRs or credit limits to disclose the factors that determine whether a consumer will qualify for the lowest APR and highest credit limit advertised (for example, the consumer’s credit history, income, and debts). A safe harbor disclosure is provided.

Overdraft Services

* Right to Opt Out. The proposal would prohibit banks from imposing a fee for paying an overdraft unless the bank has provided the consumer with an opportunity to opt out of the payment of overdrafts and the consumer has not done so. The opt-out right would apply to all transaction types. Banks also would be required to provide consumers a partial opt-out for overdrafts resulting from ATM and point-of-sale transactions.

* Debit Holds. The proposal would prohibit banks from imposing a fee when the account is overdrawn solely because a hold was placed on funds in the consumer’s deposit account.This can occur where the final dollar amount of the transaction was not known in advance (for example, when a consumer purchases fuel at the pump, a hold is placed for the estimated amount of fuel that will be purchased).

Regulation Z (Truth in Lending)
The proposal would also amend Regulation Z to complement the proposed amendments to Regulation AA, including the following:

* Due Dates for Mailed Payments. The proposal would provide that mailed credit card payments received by 5 p.m. on the due date must be considered timely. In addition, if a creditor does not receive or accept mailed payments on the due date (for example, when the due date falls on a Sunday or holiday), a payment received by mail on the next business day would be considered timely.

Regulation DD (Truth in Savings)
The proposal would also amend Regulation DD to complement the proposed amendments to Regulation AA, including the following:

* Disclosure of Aggregate Overdraft Fees. The proposal would extend to all banks and savings associations the requirement to disclose on periodic statements the aggregate dollar amounts charged for overdraft fees and for returned item fees (for the month and the year-to-date). Currently, only institutions that promote or advertise the payment of overdrafts must disclose aggregate amounts.

* Disclosure of Balance Information. The proposal would require banks and savings associations that provide account balance information through an automated system to disclose the amount of the consumer’s funds available for immediate use or withdrawal, without including additional funds the institution may provide to cover overdrafts.

Last update: June 26, 2008

PA Protects the Environment

What can make heeding the call of the environmentalists to save the Planet, different this time around, is taking the time to consider all ramifications of any actions, and collaboration between divergent constituencies. This seems to be going on in this news report from Pennsylvania. We don't have to develop new things all the time, we can take the time to do things right and respect the environment along the way.

Sundance Channel : Blogs : Environmental News : Pennsylvania Lawmakers, Groups Urge Forested Streamside Buffers

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania, June 18, 2008 (ENS) - A proposal that would require all new developments in Pennsylvania to protect rivers and streams on their properties with a forested strip of land at least 100 feet wide was presented today to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, DEP. The Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water launched the proposal under the banner "Buffers 100."

Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, explains, "If we are to protect our communities from flooding, drought and pollution, if we are to provide our communities with high quality drinking water, recreation, and growing businesses, it is critical we protect our streams and rivers with forested buffers that are a minimum of 100 feet wide, and greater where we have more sensitive streams."

The proposal requesting the DEP propose new regulations requiring the buffers has been endorsed by 110 citizens groups, businesses and municipal organizations from across the state, along with 25 legislators from both parties and both chambers of the General Assembly.

A forested streamside buffer zone
in Maine (Photo courtesy Maine DEP)

Environmentalists & Libertarians should join forces

This is a brief excerpt from an article from 1994 which was suggesting that, back then, it would be beneficial if Environmentalists and Libertarians would form an alliance. The situation we find ourselves in today makes that suggestion even more relevant. I strongly believe that attempting to rely on Big Government to solve our problems is a futile and dangerous tact to take. If we build strong Green businesses, and create viable solutions to global warming, and alternative energy as a coalition of concerned individuals, we can force Government to go along with us, instead of depending on them for an Entitlement. Take control of our own destiny, and DON'T depend on the Government to solve our problems for us.

The Big Government Bogeyman

In addition to thinking of the economy as an ecosystem, libertarians should keep a few other things in mind when talking with environmentalists. First, environmentalists are end oriented: they want a cleaner environment. The libertarian argument is that the best means to this end are markets and property rights, not big government.

While environmentalists are suspicious of markets, they are also suspicious of big government. Few feel happy with any of the federal agencies originally created to protect the environment; these agencies have become environmental destroyers, not saviors. The hard part is to convince environmentalists that markets will do any better.

The answer lies in a basic understanding of environmental issues. Every environmental problem consists of a market resource that threatens a non-market resource. The conclusion that environmentalists erroneously reach is that markets caused the problem. The reality, of course, is that non-markets caused the problem. The solution is to create markets for environmental goods. This isn't always possible, but it is possible more often than not.

http://www.ti.org/liberty.html

Green PCs are here to stay

Many computer manufacturers have taken the development of Green PCs seriously. From the design of manufacturing plants to creating bio-plastics, innovative ideas along with recycling programs will save $millions$ and the environment too.

What's in the Future for Green PCs?

Technology Desktop computers, or PCs , are larger and consume much more energy than their smaller, more portable cousin, the laptop. This size differentiation automatically qualifies PCs as the “less green” computing choice.

But don't toss out your dream of an eco-friendly desktop workstation just yet! There are greener PCs out there that can lessen your environmental impact and spare your body the burden of toxin-laced tech components.

The Sky's the Limit for the Future of Eco-friendly Tech

High energy consumption is not the only reason that PCs are considered not-so-earth-friendly, however. As you seek out a truly green computing machine, consider factors such as PC components, constituent materials, packaging, and the ability to upgrade or recycle an old computer.
Let's examine the various factors and take a peek at what the future holds for green PC technology...

* PC Components
* Wood Works
* Greener Constituents
* Energy Efficiency
* Tech Recycling
* The Future of Green PCs

PC Components

When you’re talking about PCs, you’re not just talking about one piece of equipment. At the very least, the basic PC consists of:

* a central processing unit (CPU), more commonly known as the tower
* a monitor
* external accessories (mouse, speakers, printer unit, etc.)

Because they require so many separate pieces of equipment, desktops contain more material than laptops, especially plastic, which is used for casings and many other parts of the computer.

To minimize the wastefulness of their PCs, several manufacturers are now using recycled plastics in their tower and monitor casings. Another recent trend is the development of bioplastics (plastics derived from plants rather than petroleum), which means less toxins and a more sustainable source of plastic. HP, for instance, has been toying with a bio-degradable corn-based plastic case for its printers since 2004, but the material has yet to catch on for green PC manufacturing.
The Green Electronics Council established the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)—a registry for green consumer electronics—to help environmentally conscious consumers make informed decisions. EPEAT’s highest rating is given to products that contain at least 25% postconsumer recycled plastic, renewable plastics, or bioplastics.

At least two companies, Enano and Zonbu, have made desktop computers that are a fraction of the size of the average PC, which means that a significantly less materials go into its construction. As they boast at least decent computing power, a smaller PC like the Enano or Zonbu could be the way to go if you aren’t looking for something like a high-powered gaming machine.


Wood Works

Some companies are getting a bit more creative by fashioning their tower and monitor casings, as well as various peripheral items, from wood. Proponents claim that wood is the most renewable material out there, but others are raising legitimate questions about whether or not wood is the best alternative, since computers get hot and wood burns. Still, some companies are pushing full-steam ahead:

* Swedish company Swedx and German company Holz Kontor are ready and willing to take your order for a wood-encased desktop computer tower, monitor, or mouse

* Taiwanese company Asustek Computer, Inc. has been doing the same with bamboo, which—because it is technically a grass and therefore grows much more quickly than trees—could be the greener alternative.

Of course, the packaging your PC is shipped in makes an impact on the environment as well. Finding sustainable packaging solutions is not currently a top priority on the list of many corporations, though HP has been packaging its printers in more recycled plastics and recycled content paper board. The company also packages its ink and toner cartridges in air cushioning rather than molded end caps, as air cushioning can later be reused when used cartridges are sent back to HP for recycling.


Greener Constituents

It’s not just the desktop's outside that makes it hazardous to the environment: The constituents of a computer’s “guts” are often the most toxic and environmentally harmful PC parts.

Here are just a few of the toxic chemicals found in your average desktop:

* Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in plastic casings
* Cadmium and selenium in circuit boards
* Cathode ray tubes (CRT) in monitors
* Lead in solder
* Mercury in LCD screen backlights

Due to new research and growing public awareness about the effects of these hazardous materials, many companies are finding ways to build green PCs that do not make use of these dangerous chemicals. As far back as 2002, NEC’s PowerMate Eco used a lead-free solder, came packaged in a fully-recyclable case, and used no toxic flame retardants.
In 2003, the European Union adopted the Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, which restricts the use of many of the primary hazardous materials used in electronics manufacturing. This directive is pushing many major desktop computer manufacturers to search for new ways to build their machines. Apple and Dell, for instance, have pledged to eliminate all toxic flame retardants from their products by 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Most companies have eliminated CRT monitors from their catalogs altogether, since they emit toxic radiation and can contain many toxic phosphors. LCD screens are currently the new industry standard for desktop computers, but even these contain toxic materials.

It looks like the LCD monitor’s days may be numbered: As the more energy efficient and toxin-free OLED technology becomes more advanced and more cost effective to manufacture, LCD screens may eventually occupy the dustbin along with our old CRTs.


Energy Efficiency

The average PC consumes anywhere from 150–250 watts of power simply during the process of computing. Following the lead from laptops, most PCs now include power-management software. Going into a sleep mode during periods of non-usage is a huge power-saver for PCs, but the average desktop computer still consumes between 5–10 Watts of power even while idling.

The Intel Core 2 Duo processors are a big step towards addressing this problem, as they only draw power for those parts of the chip that are actually in use. The Core 2 Duo is a relatively standard feature in desktop PCs today. Most of the major PC manufacturers—such as Apple, Dell, Gateway, and HP—incorporate these processors to make their machines more energy efficient. Many of the machines using the Core 2 Duo processor have achieved Silver and Gold ratings from EPEAT.

There are new power-saving chip technologies in the works, too. A company called Marvell has developed a processor chip that uses power factor correction (PFC) to determine the amount of power any given application will require and then optimize its power usage for maximum efficiency. Marvell’s chip will be deployed to the market in 2008.

Energy Star, of course, is your best bet for finding a PC that doesn’t gobble gluttonous amounts of energy. The new Energy Star 4.0 specifications include the 80 PLUS standard. 80 PLUS is an incentive program for motivating PC manufacturers to start using power supplies that convert at least 80 percent of the electricity drawn from the wall outlet into actual computing power for the machine. In the past, many power supplies only used about 50 to 70% of the electricity they drew. Needless to say, any PC that meets the Energy Star 4.0 criteria is much more energy efficient than its predecessors.


Tech Recycling

In this era of rapidly paced computer technology development, a desktop computer can be considered "obsolete" in no time. When these machines are sent to landfills, the toxic materials used in their construction present a serious hazard.
Some estimates show that electronics make up nearly three-fourths of all hazardous waste! Recycling desktop computers could have a huge impact on the way we’re treating the earth.

The simplest way to recycle a computer, of course, is to upgrade it and continue using it or donate it to a school or charity. Most major PC manufacturers don’t make their machines readily upgradeable, however, as they’d prefer you shell out for a whole new system rather than buy relatively inexpensive components for an upgrade.

This hasn’t stopped some people, such as French organizations Communautique, Héberjeune, and the Parc-Extension Éco-quartier, from creating a community project that teaches young people how to disassemble and rebuild computers. The participants may not be building top of the line PCs, but they come out of the program with valuable skills and a machine that lets them surf the web, check email, and perform other basic computing tasks. Many small computer repair and refurbishment shops are also on the forefront of the computer recycling movement.

While they aren’t keen on making it easy for you to upgrade, major computer manufacturers are starting to see the value in recycling their computers—most of them now have free take-back programs. This not only cuts down on hazardous waste—it cuts back on manufacturing costs:

* various parts of the dismantled computers can be refurbished and reused
* the plastics can be recycled
* the hazardous materials can be disposed of properly

The savings factor is prompting many manufacturers to start designing their computers with recycling in mind—after all, the more parts they can reuse, the less they have to spend on raw materials.


The Future of Green PCs

Perhaps in the future, desktop computer manufacturers will be able to reuse or recycle every single part of their computers, leaving absolutely zero waste... but that’s a long way off. In the meantime, smaller computers, like Enano and Zonbu, might just catch on as the best way to minimize the waste we produce in the pursuit of ever-more-powerful computing machines.

There are bolder ideas out there, too. One of the most interesting is the notion that keystrokes, mouse movements, and the light from your monitor could eventually produce all the power a computer needs to operate.

Less radical ideas include the networking of several old computers into one processing unit that can be accessed by a number of smaller devices. A company called NComputing is working on just such an arrangement for schools: One computer hosts all of the memory and processing capability, and up to 30 students can connect to the host computer via a small device that consumes far less energy than a desktop computer (or even a laptop).

Smaller devices with no processing power of their own are called “thin clients.” Sun Microsystems is a big proponent of the thin client system, which has some basic user interface programs (email, chat, word processing, etc.) and a very fast Internet connection for communicating with a central processing server. Sun Microsystems is a big proponent of the thin client system. Which is to say: Perhaps the desktop computer of tomorrow won’t be a computer at all.

But in case the personal computer doesn’t go out of style, many companies are experimenting with new manufacturing methods. Because we do not actually see it, most of us are unaware that the manufacturing process is a very energy-intensive part of a computer’s lifecycle.

In 2004, Texas Instruments designed a greener circuit board fabrication plant that saved them so much money in water, power, and other construction costs that it was more cost effective than outsourcing the project overseas, where the price of labor is much lower than in the U.S. If this kind of thinking is applied to every step of the desktop computer manufacturing process, coupled with a no-waste recycling program, we will make huge strides towards a future of sustainable technologies and completely green PCs.

Time for a Moratorium on Coal

Now that I am nearing the end of my Masters program in Strategic Leadership, I will be changing the focus of my blog. I'm on a mission to get involved with helping increase awareness of the seriousness of Global Warming, along with impending Energy Crisis. We are approaching the Perfect Storm. We now need to stop exploiting the finite resources of the Earth, and join as true Stewards of the Planet.

I will begin this refocus by introducing a recent article from Co-op America, discussing one reason why we need to focus on electric utilities developing truly alternative energy sources, such as wind power and solar, as opposed to continuing the expedient path of using fossil fuels to generate electricity. Even if sequestration of coal was perfected, it is still a dangerous, dirty, and
environmentally destructive process for producing electricity. I hope this article will shed some light on the path we must take.


Co-op America: Time for a Moratorium on Coal

Time for a Moratorium on Coal
May 22, 2008

CoalIn March of this year, a Midwestern power company canceled a new Missouri coal plant, and in April, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed two more for her state. Each cited rising concerns about carbon emissions and climate change in their explanations.

“We’re already a very heavy carbon state,” Sebelius told the Wichita Eagle. Benefits of low-cost electricity “are really less significant than the harm that carbon would do and potentially the financial risk that puts those ratepayers and taxpayers in.”

Sebelius is not alone, with former Utah governor Olene Walker, a Republican, protesting a proposed coal-fired power plant in Nevada, and Democratic Lt. Gov. Beverly Purdue of North Carolina (daughter of a former coal miner) calling for a moratorium on new coal-fired power in her state.

These government and company officials are simply catching up to the public.

According to a 2007 poll, nearly 90 percent of Americans surveyed said they favor a moratorium on coal plants, and agree that it’s time for “a new industrial revolution, one that is characterized by the orderly phasing out of fossil fuels and the phasing in of clean, renewable energy sources.”

Despite rhetoric from those pushing coal-fired power on a nation ready for a clean energy future, most Americans realize coal is not clean.

First, coal-mining exacts a huge environmental toll on local communities and health toll on miners. Mountaintop removal mining clear-cuts forests to expose the tops of mountains, which are then detonated with explosives. With the coal extracted, unused soil and rock are dumped into adjacent valleys. The process destroys the ecosystem, and sends toxic waste downhill into slurries, which can poison local communities. With its numerous on-the-job hazards, coal mining is, simply put, one of the deadliest professions for workers.

Secondly, even if the processes used to extract the coal weren’t so dangerous and disruptive, there is no remotely “clean” process for burning coal. According to a Department of Energy statement last year about a coal-plant intending to sequester carbon emissions underground, such a process is not yet “a reasonable option because sequestration technology is not sufficiently mature.” The actual cost of permanently storing coal-plant pollution underground is prohibitive (according to some estimates, it’s more expensive than building a nuclear plants), and no studies can predict the long-term effects of carbon sequestration.

Third, the price of coal is skyrocketing. An Ohio coal plant under construction now was proposed to cost just over $1 billion, and instead has cost over $3 billion with costs rising. And that’s just the cost to build the plant – not to run it, sequester the carbon, or to pay for coal. Meanwhile, the cost of coal has quadrupled since last year, triggering utility rate increases around the country. For example, Dominion, in Viriginia, has prposed an 18 percent rate hike, just to pay for the cost of coal. Solar energy starts to look pretty good – at about the same price to install as coal, with no fuel costs (free power from the sun), and almost no operation and maintenance costs.

Finally, according to the Clean Air Task Force, pollution from coal-fired power plants causes 30,000 deaths per year in the US – more than drunk driving, AIDS, or homicides. Plus, fine particles and gases from coal plants are linked to asthma, heart disease, emphysema, and lung cancer, and mercury pollution from coal plants can cause birth defects.

All of this is on top of coal’s climate-change causing effects.

With little leadership at the national level on this issue (the Bush administration’s most recent proposals cut research into solar power while increasing research on carbon sequestration and coal power), we need all state leaders to follow the examples of Kathleen Sebelius, Olene Walker, and Beverly Purdue.

In 2007, nearly 60 coal-fired power plants were canceled across the country. This year, 8 more plants, including the two mentioned above, have been canceled, but there are plenty still planned. It’s time to tell your governor that your state is ready for a major push on energy efficiency and renewable power -- and that it’s time to close the door on coal.

--Andrew Korfhage