James Hansen - the world's leading climate scientist fighting against global warming - told Amy Goodman this morning that cap and trade not only won't reduce emissions, it may actually increase them:
The problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. That’s what happened after Kyoto, and that’s what would happen again, if—as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased...
See also this and this.
Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are also against cap and trade (and see this and this), as is the head of California's cap and trade program for the EPA.
Hansen also told Goodman that (notwithstanding Paul Krugman's assertions) most economists say that cap and trade won't work:
I’ve talked with many economists, and the majority of them agree that the cap and trade with offsets is not the way to address the problem.
As I have previously pointed out:
* The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming
* European criminal investigators have determined that there is a tremendous amount of fraud occurring in the carbon trading market. Indeed, organized crime has largely taken over the European cap and trade market.
* Former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro says that the proposed cap and trade law "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."
* Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this). As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:
Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.
In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.
* One the largest boosters for cap and trade invented credit default swaps - which were supposed to increase financial stability, but instead were a large part of the reason that the world economy crashed last year.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Bacteria Transformed into Biofuel Refineries
Synthetic biology has allowed scientists to tweak E. coli to produce fuels from sugar and, more sustainably, cellulose
The bacteria responsible for most cases of food poisoning in the U.S. has been turned into an efficient biological factory to make chemicals, medicines and, now, fuels. Chemical engineer Jay Keasling of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues have manipulated the genetic code of Escherichia coli, a common gut bacteria, so that it can chew up plant-derived sugar to produce diesel and other hydrocarbons, according to results published in the January 28 issue of Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
"We incorporated genes that enabled production of biodiesel—esters [organic compounds] of fatty acids and ethanol—directly," Keasling explains. "The fuel that is produced by ourE. coli can be used directly as biodiesel. In contrast, fats or oils from plants must be chemically esterified before they can be used."\
Perhaps more importantly, the researchers have also imported genes that allow E. coli to secrete enzymes that break down the tough material that makes up the bulk of plants—cellulose, specifically hemicellulose—and produce the sugar needed to fuel this process. "The organism can produce the fuel from a very inexpensive sugar supply, namely cellulosic biomass," Keasling adds.
The E. coli directly secretes the resulting biodiesel, which then floats to the top of a fermentation vat, so there is neither the necessity for distillation or other purification processes nor the need, as in biodiesel from algae, to break the cell to get the oil out.
This new process for transforming E. coli into a cellulosic biodiesel refinery involves the tools of synthetic biology. For example, Keasling and his team cloned genes from Clostridium stercorarium andBacteroides ovatus—bacteria that thrive in soil and the guts of plant-eating animals, respectively—which produce enzymes that break down cellulose. The team then added an extra bit of genetic code in the form of short amino acid sequences that instruct the altered E. coli cells to secrete the bacterial enzyme, which breaks down the plant cellulose, turning it into sugar; the E. coli in turn transforms that sugar into biodiesel.
The process is perfect for making hydrocarbons with at least 12 carbon atoms in them, ranging from diesel to chemical precursors—and even jet fuel, or kerosene. But it cannot, yet, make shorter chain hydrocarbons like gasoline. "Gasoline tends to contain short-chain hydrocarbons, say C8, with more branches, whereas diesel and jet fuel contain long-chain hydrocarbons with few branches," Keasling notes. "There are other ways to make gasoline. We are working on these technologies, as well."
After all, the U.S. alone burns some 530 billion liters of gasoline a year, compared with just 7.5 billion liters of biodiesel. But Keasling has estimated in the past that a mere 40.5 million hectares of Miscanthus giganteus—a more than three-meter tall Asian grass—chewed up by specially engineered microbes, like the E. coli here, could produce enough fuel to meet all U.S. transportation needs.* That's roughly one quarter of the current amount of land devoted to raising crops in the U.S.
E. coli is the most likely candidate for such work, because it is an extremely well-studied organism as well as a hardy one. "E. coli tolerated the genetic changes quite well," Keasling says. "It was somewhat surprising. Because all organisms require fatty acids for their cell membrane to survive, if you rob them of some fatty acids, they turn up the fatty acid biosynthesis to make up for the depletion."
E. coli "grows fast, three times faster than yeast, 50 times faster than Mycoplasma, 100 times faster than most agricultural microbes," explains geneticist and technology developer George Church at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in this research. "It can survive in detergents or gasoline that will kill lesser creatures, like us. It's fairly easily manipulated." Plus, E. coli can be turned into a microbial factory for almost anything that is presently manufactured but organic—from electrical conductors to fuel. "If it's organic, then, immediately, it becomes plausible that you can make it with biological systems."
The idea in this case is to produce a batch of biofuel from a single colony through E. coli's natural ability to proliferate and, after producing the fuel, dispose of the E. coli and start anew with a fresh colony, according to Keasling. "This minimizes the mutations that might arise if one continually subcultured the microbe," he says. The idea is also to engineer the new organism, deleting key metabolic pathways, such that it would never survive in the wild in order to prevent escapes with unintended environmental impacts, among other dangers.
But ranging outside of its natural processes, E. coli is not the most efficient producer of biofuel. "We are at about 10 percent of the theoretical maximum yield from sugar," Keasling notes. "We would like to be at 80 to 90 percent to make this commercially viable. Furthermore, we would need a large-scale production process," such as 100,000 liter tanks to allow mass production of microbial fuel.
Nevertheless, several companies, including LS9, which helped with the research, as well as Gevo and Keasling-founded Amyris Biotechnologies, are working on making fuel from microbes a reality at the pump—not just at the beer tap.
The bacteria responsible for most cases of food poisoning in the U.S. has been turned into an efficient biological factory to make chemicals, medicines and, now, fuels. Chemical engineer Jay Keasling of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues have manipulated the genetic code of Escherichia coli, a common gut bacteria, so that it can chew up plant-derived sugar to produce diesel and other hydrocarbons, according to results published in the January 28 issue of Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
"We incorporated genes that enabled production of biodiesel—esters [organic compounds] of fatty acids and ethanol—directly," Keasling explains. "The fuel that is produced by ourE. coli can be used directly as biodiesel. In contrast, fats or oils from plants must be chemically esterified before they can be used."\
Perhaps more importantly, the researchers have also imported genes that allow E. coli to secrete enzymes that break down the tough material that makes up the bulk of plants—cellulose, specifically hemicellulose—and produce the sugar needed to fuel this process. "The organism can produce the fuel from a very inexpensive sugar supply, namely cellulosic biomass," Keasling adds.
The E. coli directly secretes the resulting biodiesel, which then floats to the top of a fermentation vat, so there is neither the necessity for distillation or other purification processes nor the need, as in biodiesel from algae, to break the cell to get the oil out.
This new process for transforming E. coli into a cellulosic biodiesel refinery involves the tools of synthetic biology. For example, Keasling and his team cloned genes from Clostridium stercorarium andBacteroides ovatus—bacteria that thrive in soil and the guts of plant-eating animals, respectively—which produce enzymes that break down cellulose. The team then added an extra bit of genetic code in the form of short amino acid sequences that instruct the altered E. coli cells to secrete the bacterial enzyme, which breaks down the plant cellulose, turning it into sugar; the E. coli in turn transforms that sugar into biodiesel.
The process is perfect for making hydrocarbons with at least 12 carbon atoms in them, ranging from diesel to chemical precursors—and even jet fuel, or kerosene. But it cannot, yet, make shorter chain hydrocarbons like gasoline. "Gasoline tends to contain short-chain hydrocarbons, say C8, with more branches, whereas diesel and jet fuel contain long-chain hydrocarbons with few branches," Keasling notes. "There are other ways to make gasoline. We are working on these technologies, as well."
After all, the U.S. alone burns some 530 billion liters of gasoline a year, compared with just 7.5 billion liters of biodiesel. But Keasling has estimated in the past that a mere 40.5 million hectares of Miscanthus giganteus—a more than three-meter tall Asian grass—chewed up by specially engineered microbes, like the E. coli here, could produce enough fuel to meet all U.S. transportation needs.* That's roughly one quarter of the current amount of land devoted to raising crops in the U.S.
E. coli is the most likely candidate for such work, because it is an extremely well-studied organism as well as a hardy one. "E. coli tolerated the genetic changes quite well," Keasling says. "It was somewhat surprising. Because all organisms require fatty acids for their cell membrane to survive, if you rob them of some fatty acids, they turn up the fatty acid biosynthesis to make up for the depletion."
E. coli "grows fast, three times faster than yeast, 50 times faster than Mycoplasma, 100 times faster than most agricultural microbes," explains geneticist and technology developer George Church at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in this research. "It can survive in detergents or gasoline that will kill lesser creatures, like us. It's fairly easily manipulated." Plus, E. coli can be turned into a microbial factory for almost anything that is presently manufactured but organic—from electrical conductors to fuel. "If it's organic, then, immediately, it becomes plausible that you can make it with biological systems."
The idea in this case is to produce a batch of biofuel from a single colony through E. coli's natural ability to proliferate and, after producing the fuel, dispose of the E. coli and start anew with a fresh colony, according to Keasling. "This minimizes the mutations that might arise if one continually subcultured the microbe," he says. The idea is also to engineer the new organism, deleting key metabolic pathways, such that it would never survive in the wild in order to prevent escapes with unintended environmental impacts, among other dangers.
But ranging outside of its natural processes, E. coli is not the most efficient producer of biofuel. "We are at about 10 percent of the theoretical maximum yield from sugar," Keasling notes. "We would like to be at 80 to 90 percent to make this commercially viable. Furthermore, we would need a large-scale production process," such as 100,000 liter tanks to allow mass production of microbial fuel.
Nevertheless, several companies, including LS9, which helped with the research, as well as Gevo and Keasling-founded Amyris Biotechnologies, are working on making fuel from microbes a reality at the pump—not just at the beer tap.
Past President of CIOT doesn't understand his tax code?
If you were one of the most highly respected and experienced tax advisers in the country you'd probably know something about tax codes. And that's certainly true of Richard Mannion. He's head of the National tax function at accountants Smith & Williamson, a Past President of the CIOT and a recipient of the LexisNexis Taxation Lifetime achievement award.
AccountancyAge is reporting that Richard recently called an HMRC helpline as he'd noticed his tax code was incorrect. Imagine his astonishment to be told that he didn't understand the coding system!
I'm sure Richard stood his ground in his normal polite, gentle but firm way and that his tax code is now correct. But what chance the unrepresented taxpayer?!
AccountancyAge is reporting that Richard recently called an HMRC helpline as he'd noticed his tax code was incorrect. Imagine his astonishment to be told that he didn't understand the coding system!
I'm sure Richard stood his ground in his normal polite, gentle but firm way and that his tax code is now correct. But what chance the unrepresented taxpayer?!
FASB, IASB Agree on Something
The Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board finally agreed on something after a number of public differences of opinion over the last year. They have agreed to define fair value as an exit price, as a result of a recent joint meeting.
Both the FASB and the IASB have been controversial recently as they have come under pressure to revise fair value and “mark to market” standards to give financial institutions more flexibility in valuing assets that became difficult to trade during the crisis.
The two boards have decided to meet on a monthly basis, to resolve outstanding issues in areas such as fair value, revenue recognition, leases and consolidation.
The agreed-upon definition provides that when markets become less active, the two boards tentatively decided that an entity should consider observable transaction prices unless there is evidence that the transaction is not orderly. If an entity does not have enough information to determine whether the transaction is orderly, it should perform further analysis to measure the fair value.
The boards also decided (tentatively):
* that a transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or liability at initial recognition if, for example, the transaction is between related parties, the transaction takes place under duress or the seller is forced to accept the price in the transaction, the unit of account represented by the transaction is different from the unit of account for the asset or liability measured at fair value, or the market in which the transaction takes place is different from the market in which the entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability.
* to confirm that a fair value measurement is market based and reflects the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Market participants should be assumed to have a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all the available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary. A price in a related-party transaction may be used as an input to a fair value measurement if the transaction was entered into at market terms.
Both the FASB and the IASB have been controversial recently as they have come under pressure to revise fair value and “mark to market” standards to give financial institutions more flexibility in valuing assets that became difficult to trade during the crisis.
The two boards have decided to meet on a monthly basis, to resolve outstanding issues in areas such as fair value, revenue recognition, leases and consolidation.
The agreed-upon definition provides that when markets become less active, the two boards tentatively decided that an entity should consider observable transaction prices unless there is evidence that the transaction is not orderly. If an entity does not have enough information to determine whether the transaction is orderly, it should perform further analysis to measure the fair value.
The boards also decided (tentatively):
* that a transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or liability at initial recognition if, for example, the transaction is between related parties, the transaction takes place under duress or the seller is forced to accept the price in the transaction, the unit of account represented by the transaction is different from the unit of account for the asset or liability measured at fair value, or the market in which the transaction takes place is different from the market in which the entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability.
* to confirm that a fair value measurement is market based and reflects the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Market participants should be assumed to have a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all the available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary. A price in a related-party transaction may be used as an input to a fair value measurement if the transaction was entered into at market terms.
Do You Understand Chinesse Accounting?
Sir David Tweedie had some interesting remarks after urging the FASB to converge to IFRS.
"Do you understand Chinese accounting? Do you understand Indian accounting? The answer is no. But you will when they use IFRS, and you will invest when you know where the answers are," Tweedie added.
In the United States, the IASB has held talks with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) for years to bring international accounting rules close together.
"Ultimately, we have to speak for the international community. If we disagree with FASB, we have to do what we think is right," Tweedie said. "We can't converge at all costs. At present, they wish a much (less rigid concept of) fair value than we believe the rest of the world would accept or even think is appropriate."
At the same time, he said he expects the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will produce a statement in the next few weeks saying what the United States will do about moving toward international accounting standards. "I think they will confirm they will make a decision next year."
"We have all the major economies signing up for IFRS except the United States... I think if they decide they don't want to use the standards, there will be a resistance in the world. I don't think the United States wants to be isolated," he said.
"Do you understand Chinese accounting? Do you understand Indian accounting? The answer is no. But you will when they use IFRS, and you will invest when you know where the answers are," Tweedie added.
In the United States, the IASB has held talks with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) for years to bring international accounting rules close together.
"Ultimately, we have to speak for the international community. If we disagree with FASB, we have to do what we think is right," Tweedie said. "We can't converge at all costs. At present, they wish a much (less rigid concept of) fair value than we believe the rest of the world would accept or even think is appropriate."
At the same time, he said he expects the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will produce a statement in the next few weeks saying what the United States will do about moving toward international accounting standards. "I think they will confirm they will make a decision next year."
"We have all the major economies signing up for IFRS except the United States... I think if they decide they don't want to use the standards, there will be a resistance in the world. I don't think the United States wants to be isolated," he said.
Water!!!
Another crisis in my life is averted! Monday morning my RO system (Reverse Osmosis) which provides our drinking water went out. When I say it went out, it quit providing potable water. This happens when it is time to change the filters. So on the way to Albuquerque I called them, and they said a service man would be out on Tuesday. He would call me in the morning to see where he could work me into the schedule. Cool. I bought a two gallon container on the way home from Albuquerque.
Tuesday morning I got the call, but I was told they couldn't come out because there was a "big job scheduled for the last week." WHAT?? Then I was told that they would be out Wednesday "if there was not too much snow." HELLOOO???? Two gallons of water lasts me and the dogs a little over a day. So I had a hissy fit! I spoke to the person who talked to me on Monday, and he said the big job was "an emergency." I confronted him .... was it pending for a week or was it an emergency? Anyway, this conversation went on for a while, and I was furious. I won't bore you with it, but it further infuriated me.
They offered me free water if I would come get it (over 30 miles round trip), then offered to drive some to me, "if they could work it in." Good grief! No, I called a friend who drove some to me. I knew I would get it that way.
I was miffed. I didn't even get a real apology, just some mumbled excuses.
In the future, my plumber will replace the filters for me, guaranteed within 24 hours. I will go buy the filters and have them on hand from now on. I know this man, and he cares about ME, not just the big jobs.
Well, this morning I got a call, and to my surprise, the service man was coming out. IN THE HEAVILY FALLING SNOW! Their regular trucks might not make it to my house but the owner was sending him in his (the owner's) personal vehicle with 4WD. Mind you, no call from the owner, but at least he was doing something about it.
It took the guy almost an hour and a half, but he got here, replaced the filters, and we are back in business!! I will say, he apologized for the miscommunication on their part. Lawdy mercy.
It is snowing again, and I'm at an elevation that will probably see about six inches or more. Now that I have drinking water, I'm OK. A couple more days of sitting tight and letting the body heal is a good thing. My biggest concern for getting out is my need to buy seed for the wild birds. I used up the last this morning, and the poor little critters are gonna need it as the ground is completely covered once again.
The appointment in Albuquerque on Monday went very well. The drain tubes were removed (Hallelujah!!), and I'm reasonably comfortable again. The doctor is very pleased with how I'm doing, and I don't have to go back for another month! A WHOLE MONTH!!! I'm ecstatic!! Let it snow!!
Meanwhile, if my strength is back to normal, I may plan a trip to Tucson in a couple weeks. Some friends are going to be showing in the Tubac Art Show, and I'd love to go see them. The Tubac section of my previous trip was cut short, so it will be a chance for me to see it fully. Jim seems to be eager to go, also, so if I'm able, I'll go. Then right after my next and final :) checkup, Linda and I are driving to Florida! Her parents live in Pennsicola, so I'll drop her off there and continue across the state to Melbourne and visit Terri and her family. I'm really excited about that!
YAY!!! Normalcy rocks!!
Tuesday morning I got the call, but I was told they couldn't come out because there was a "big job scheduled for the last week." WHAT?? Then I was told that they would be out Wednesday "if there was not too much snow." HELLOOO???? Two gallons of water lasts me and the dogs a little over a day. So I had a hissy fit! I spoke to the person who talked to me on Monday, and he said the big job was "an emergency." I confronted him .... was it pending for a week or was it an emergency? Anyway, this conversation went on for a while, and I was furious. I won't bore you with it, but it further infuriated me.
They offered me free water if I would come get it (over 30 miles round trip), then offered to drive some to me, "if they could work it in." Good grief! No, I called a friend who drove some to me. I knew I would get it that way.
I was miffed. I didn't even get a real apology, just some mumbled excuses.
In the future, my plumber will replace the filters for me, guaranteed within 24 hours. I will go buy the filters and have them on hand from now on. I know this man, and he cares about ME, not just the big jobs.
Well, this morning I got a call, and to my surprise, the service man was coming out. IN THE HEAVILY FALLING SNOW! Their regular trucks might not make it to my house but the owner was sending him in his (the owner's) personal vehicle with 4WD. Mind you, no call from the owner, but at least he was doing something about it.
It took the guy almost an hour and a half, but he got here, replaced the filters, and we are back in business!! I will say, he apologized for the miscommunication on their part. Lawdy mercy.
It is snowing again, and I'm at an elevation that will probably see about six inches or more. Now that I have drinking water, I'm OK. A couple more days of sitting tight and letting the body heal is a good thing. My biggest concern for getting out is my need to buy seed for the wild birds. I used up the last this morning, and the poor little critters are gonna need it as the ground is completely covered once again.
The appointment in Albuquerque on Monday went very well. The drain tubes were removed (Hallelujah!!), and I'm reasonably comfortable again. The doctor is very pleased with how I'm doing, and I don't have to go back for another month! A WHOLE MONTH!!! I'm ecstatic!! Let it snow!!
Meanwhile, if my strength is back to normal, I may plan a trip to Tucson in a couple weeks. Some friends are going to be showing in the Tubac Art Show, and I'd love to go see them. The Tubac section of my previous trip was cut short, so it will be a chance for me to see it fully. Jim seems to be eager to go, also, so if I'm able, I'll go. Then right after my next and final :) checkup, Linda and I are driving to Florida! Her parents live in Pennsicola, so I'll drop her off there and continue across the state to Melbourne and visit Terri and her family. I'm really excited about that!
YAY!!! Normalcy rocks!!
Dedicated Server Hosting at Web Hosting Geeks!
A billiards buddy of mine sent a short email asking for help in finding a dedicated server website. My pool player friend wants to determine the best web hosting providers serving the Internet community. You see, he is planning to put up an online business and knowing his options with regards to dedicated server opportunities would really help him – both in the short and long term.
I quickly activated my ever-dependable online search tools from the United States. My software highlighted a number of interesting dedicated server sites, including that of Web Hosting Geeks.
Web Hosting Geeks features independent reviews of the best web hosting providers, which include cheap professional web hosting services. Some of the sites mentioned at Web Hosting Geeks feature an under $10 a month fee! And get this, such integrate webhosting plans with at least one free domain name registration and a 30 day money back guarantee! Wow! It doesn’t get any better than this, friends!
Moreover, Web Hosting Geeks ranks each site according to a criteria, e.g., best price-value ratio, host reliability, uptime, key features, bonus features, customer support, past and current customer feedbacks, user-friendliness, and hosting awards! You definitely couldn’t go wrong with finding the best dedicated server sites on the planet! And I kid you not!
For those looking for dedicated server sites and reviews, do try Web Hosting Geeks! And realize countless opportunities for your niche markets – now!
I quickly activated my ever-dependable online search tools from the United States. My software highlighted a number of interesting dedicated server sites, including that of Web Hosting Geeks.
Web Hosting Geeks features independent reviews of the best web hosting providers, which include cheap professional web hosting services. Some of the sites mentioned at Web Hosting Geeks feature an under $10 a month fee! And get this, such integrate webhosting plans with at least one free domain name registration and a 30 day money back guarantee! Wow! It doesn’t get any better than this, friends!
Moreover, Web Hosting Geeks ranks each site according to a criteria, e.g., best price-value ratio, host reliability, uptime, key features, bonus features, customer support, past and current customer feedbacks, user-friendliness, and hosting awards! You definitely couldn’t go wrong with finding the best dedicated server sites on the planet! And I kid you not!
For those looking for dedicated server sites and reviews, do try Web Hosting Geeks! And realize countless opportunities for your niche markets – now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)