Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[tangerine dream]

Let us see him absolutely protected and safe from harm.

Protection he certainly does have.   

[Michael]

So now the scenario grows very ugly. I mentioned before the imminent collapse of the Pakistani government, which was stalled by the President capitulating to good sense. That was a flash in the pan. Now begins the real deal.

The military/intelligence in Pak no longer follows orders from the elected government. The gloves are off - the US is not bullshitting to anyone about this anymore, least of all Pakistan.

The game plan is to create a regional security to persuade the Pakistan government to relinquish it's now publicly stated position of using terrorism for defence. A terrorism that is about to consume its sponsor. But the flaw in the soup is that the Pakistan government has no control - the military is the only large organised power, and even they only control a third of the country. George Gittoes is back from filming in the Swat valley - he said while travelling with the elite Pak commando troupes, he observed they were all pro-Taliban. This is a case where convincing anyone in authority of anything, is futile. The avalanche is coming very soon.

And it will be an avalanche that the world will not be able to stand back from. The dangers confronting all countries is overwhelming and frightening - we are not talking bout 10 mill people in Iraq, or 10 mill people in Afghanistan. We are talking 170 million people and shit-loads of nuclear and conventional weaponry. This is big.

My prayers go to those who are struggling to rein in this beast.

[tangerine dream]

Dang!
 

[Firestarter]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090411/wl_time/08599189064600

Cows With Gas: India's Contribution to Global Warming


         
 – This picture taken on MArch 14 shows a farmer watering his cattle in the village of Purushwadi, 140 miles …
 
Confronting Climate Change ABC News By MADHUR SINGH / NEW DELHI

Madhur Singh / New Delhi – Sat Apr 11, 2:00 am ET

Indolent cows languidly chewing their cud while befuddled motorists honk and maneuver their vehicles around them are images as stereotypically Indian as saffron-clad holy men and the Taj Mahal. Now, however, India's ubiquitous cows - of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world - have assumed a more menacing role as they become part of the climate change debate.


By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane - a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide - India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contribute more to global warming than the vehicles they obstruct. With new research suggesting that emission of methane by Indian livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete lesser amounts of the offensive gas. (See pictures of India's largest ruminant: the Asian elephant.)


Last month, scientists at the Space Applications Centre in Ahmedabad in western India published a pan-India livestock methane emission inventory, the first ever, which put the figure at 11.75 million metric tons per year, higher than 9 million metric tons estimated in 1994. This amount is likely to increase as higher incomes and consumption rates put more pressure on the country's dairy industry to become even more productive. (See pictures of China's cow town.)


Already the world's largest producer of milk, India will have to yank up production from the current 100 million metric tons to 180 million metric tons by 2021-22 to keep pace with growing population and expanding disposable incomes. Livestock such as cows, buffalo, goats, sheep, horses and mules are indispensable to India's rural economy - whether yoked to plow land, raised for milk and manure, or harnessed to pull carts to move goods and people. The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that the animals contribute 5.3% to total GDP, up from 4.8% during 1980-81. But, says Dr. K.K. Singhal, head of Dairy Cattle Nutrition at the National Dairy Research Institute in Karnal in northern India, "while livestock plays a crucial role in the economy, global warming is becoming a huge worry. We're trying to find indigenous solutions, because our realities are very different from the West." (See the 10 things you should know about the world's cheapest car: India's Nano.)


For starters, most Indian livestock is underfed and undernourished, unlike robust counterparts in richer countries. The typical Indian farmer is unable to buy expensive dietary supplements even for livestock of productive age, and dry milch cattle and older farm animals are invariably turned out to fend for themselves. Poor quality feed equals poor animal health as well as higher methane production. Also, even when western firms are willing to share technology or when western products are available, these are often unaffordable for the majority in India. For instance, Monensin, an antibiotic whose slow-release formula reduces methane emission by cows, proved too expensive for widespread use in India. So the emphasis for Indian scientists is on indigenous solutions. "We know we cannot count on high quality feed and fodder," says Singhal, "No one will be able to afford it. What we have done instead is develop cheaper technologies and products." One example is urea-molasses-mineral blocks that are cheap, reduce methane emission by 20%, and also provide more nutrition so they're easier to sell to illiterate farmers who don't know a thing about global warming but want higher milk yields.


Most dietary interventions work by checking methogens - microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments such as cows' guts, where they convert the available hydrogen and carbon (byproducts of digestion) into methane, a colorless, odorless gas. "We encourage well-to-do farmers to use oilseed cakes which provide unsaturated fatty acids that get rid of the hydrogen," Dr. Singhal says. Another solution is herbal additives. Some commonly used Indian herbs such as shikakai and reetha, which go into making soap, and many kinds of oilseeds contain saponins and tannins, substances that make for lathery, bitter meals but block hydrogen availability for methogens. Dr Singhal says they are used in small quantities and the cows don't seem to mind the taste. "Imagine how much potential they'd have in the international market," he says. (See pictures of India's biodegradable dishware.)


Several other institutions, such as the National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (NIANP) in Bangalore, are also researching herbs. "We're studying the effect of tannin compounds from various easily-available sources like tealeaves. We're also studying prebiotic and probiotic feed supplements," says Dr K.T. Sampath, director, NIANP. Other institutes, such as the New Delhi-based The Energy Research Institute (TERI), are working on methane capture strategies. One long-running project has been biogas production - cow dung is utilized to make biogas for use in kitchens and even compressed biogas for use in vehicles. "Biogas plants have been very successful," says R.K. Rajeshwari, a fellow at TERI, "Farmers are able to use biogas in their kitchens, to light lamps and to even drive vehicles." Such projects, she says, have been particularly successful at gaushalas, cow shelters supported by donations from the devout and by government grants, of which there are 4,000 across India now. Most gaushalas are for abandoned, dry and aged cattle, of which there are many since killing cows is illegal in all but two states (the communist-ruled West Bengal and Kerala). "This way they are put to some use at least," says Rajeshwari, "And by replacing conventional sources of energy, they help prevent global warming."

[Firestarter]

About 300 million people live in the US. Out of that - since there is a high rate of obesity (and I fell into this realm thanks to meds but its temporary lol), we also contribute to the farts like the cows.

Imagine that tho, the cow population of india, close to the human population of the USA. Amazing trivia!

~~editing my goofy math

[Firestarter]

Rioting follows state of emergency in Thai capital

 BANGKOK – Swarms of anti-government protesters attacked the prime minister's car, seized control of major intersections in the capital and commandeered buses, bringing new chaos to the Thai capital as the country's ousted leader threatened to return from exile to lead a revolution.

The government declared a state of emergency Sunday but, without the intervention of security forces, it was unclear how any bans could be enforced.

In front of the city's biggest luxury mall, demonstrators danced atop two armored personnel carriers they had forced to a stop, waving flags and shouting "Democracy." The red-shirted crowd swarmed around the vehicles and demanded the keys from the unhappy soldiers inside.

"Sorry, can't find them," came a muffled reply. The protesters drifted off, and the vehicles left.

The uncertain encounter — and others like it across Bangkok, where security forces stood by while protesters ran rampant — reinforced that three years of turmoil between alternating governments and protesters opposed to them seemed ready to peak again. As night fell, demonstrators demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva controlled many streets in the city center. Police vans at some intersections were abandoned and looted.

Outside the Interior Ministry earlier in the day, a furious mob attacked Abhisit's car with poles, stones and even flower pots as it slowly made its escape. At least six people were injured, including two security guards for the prime minister, and one of Abhisit's top political aides and his driver. Police in riot gear nearby did nothing.

Protests were also reported in areas of northern and northeastern Thailand, with one group threatening to blockade the main bridge linking Laos and Thailand across the Mekong River.

Ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, regarded by most of the protesters as their leader, called for a revolution and said he might return from overseas exile to lead it.

"Now that they have tanks on the streets, it is time for the people to come out in revolution. And when it is necessary, I will come back to the country," he said in a telephoned message broadcast on loudspeakers to followers who surrounded the prime's minister office.

Political tensions have simmered since Thaksin was ousted by a military coup in 2006 for alleged corruption and abuse of power. He remains popular for his populist policies in the impoverished countryside, while his opponents — many in urban areas — took to the streets last year to help bring down two pro-Thaksin governments, seizing Bangkok's two airports in November for about a week.

The pro-Thaksin demonstrators, calling themselves the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, say Abhisit's four-month-old government took power illegitimately and want new elections. They also accuse the country's elite — the military, judiciary and other unelected officials — of undermining democracy by interfering in politics.

The emergency decree bans gatherings of more than five people, forbids news reports considered threatening to public order and allows the government to call up military troops to quell unrest.

"The government can't do anything. There are too many of us. We will show them what tens of thousands of unarmed civilians can do. The people will finally rule our beloved Thailand," said Lada Yingmanee, a 37-year-old housewife at one of the protest sites.

Army spokesman Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd said soldiers and police were being moved to more than 50 key points in the city, including bus and railway stations. He said the military presence was not a sign of an imminent coup — a common feature of Thai political history.

Abhisit, in an address televised just before midnight Sunday night, called on the public not to panic and to cooperate with the government to end the crisis.

Sitting at a meeting table with Cabinet ministers and top military and police officers, he declared that "the military and the police are friends of the people. They do not want to use violence. They are simply enforcing law and order."

"In the next three to four days, the government will keep working to return peace and order to the country," he said, without detailing what measures would be employed.

Abhisit earlier vowed swift legal action against protesters who stormed the venue of an East Asian Summit in the beach resort of Pattaya on Saturday. Thai authorities had to evacuate the Asian leaders by helicopter. He said five arrest warrants have been issued for leaders of resort protest.

A protest leader who spearheaded Saturday's demonstrations, Arisman Pongruengrong, was taken into custody Sunday and flown by helicopter to a military camp for questioning, said police spokesman Maj. Gen. Suport Pansua.

Tourism Council of Thailand Chairman Kongkrit Hiranyakit predicted that the country would lose at least 200 billion baht ($5.6 billion) as foreign tourists shunned the country as they did after the airport take-overs. Tourism is Thailand's major foreign currency earner and one they can't afford to ignore as it grapples with the shock of the global economic crisis.

At Saturday's summit, more than 1,000 demonstrators broke through a wall of unarmed soldiers, smashed through the convention center's glass doors and ran through the building, blowing horns, waving Thai flags and shouting demands for Abhisit to resign.

They declared victory after Abhisit canceled the summit, where leaders of regional powers China, Japan and India, and the U.N. secretary-general and president of the World Bank, planned to discuss the global financial crisis.

Analysts say it will now be difficult for Abhisit to regain control — if he is even the one running the country.

"It remains to the seen if the security forces can control the situation. It is unlikely anyone can because there are so many splits and so many power brokers," said Charnvit Kasetsiri, one of Thailand's most prominent historians. "No one seems to be in charge within the establishment, the government and the military."

[Michael]

About 3 million people live in the US.

My my, what a tiny population you have there.

[Firestarter]

My my, what a tiny population you have there.

Oh I meant 300 mil, sorry LMAO

[Firestarter]

Maybe they eat a lot of beans at barbeques like americans, I feel gassy with the potluck we had at work lol, I got an hour to go guys, for those who didnt have to work today *rasberries to you*

[erik]

So now the scenario grows very ugly. I mentioned before the imminent collapse of the Pakistani government, which was stalled by the President capitulating to good sense. That was a flash in the pan. Now begins the real deal.

The military/intelligence in Pak no longer follows orders from the elected government. The gloves are off - the US is not bullshitting to anyone about this anymore, least of all Pakistan.

The game plan is to create a regional security to persuade the Pakistan government to relinquish it's now publicly stated position of using terrorism for defence. A terrorism that is about to consume its sponsor. But the flaw in the soup is that the Pakistan government has no control - the military is the only large organised power, and even they only control a third of the country. George Gittoes is back from filming in the Swat valley - he said while travelling with the elite Pak commando troupes, he observed they were all pro-Taliban. This is a case where convincing anyone in authority of anything, is futile. The avalanche is coming very soon.

And it will be an avalanche that the world will not be able to stand back from. The dangers confronting all countries is overwhelming and frightening - we are not talking bout 10 mill people in Iraq, or 10 mill people in Afghanistan. We are talking 170 million people and shit-loads of nuclear and conventional weaponry. This is big.

My prayers go to those who are struggling to rein in this beast.

A few years ago there was a bit of news somewhere that the US Special Forces and a few other branches practised precision strike scenarios against Pak nuclear installations with the aim of preventing them from falling into wrong hands. But the nukes themselves are only the tip of the iceberg.

[erik]

It will be interesting to see what Obama will do. Kennedy launched the Bay of Pigs. Obama has been enthusiastic about withdrawing from Iraq and even Afghanistan. Yet he has sanctioned 'top secret' flights of unmanned bombers to Pak. Will he let Pak go under and do nothing?

[erik]

Obama seems to be enthusiastic about getting into fight.

Barack Obama vows to 'dismantle' al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan

President Barack Obama set out a bold new strategy to "disrupt, defeat and dismantle" al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan on Friday by raising the US military force in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 personnel.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 11:59PM GMT 27 Mar 2009

In his first major announcement as America's new commander-in-chief, Mr Obama said the situation in Afghanistan was "increasingly perilous" and required an extra 4,000 soldiers to join the additional 17,000 combat troops the United States had already committed to tackle the most dangerous provinces in eastern Afghanistan, and Helmand and Kandahar in the south.

The US President sent a mesasge to extremists as he promised to rout out the "cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within" by increasing aid to the country to $1.5 billion (£1 billion) a year over five years.

Britain was likely to be pressed to send up to 2,000 more combat troops, bringing its force levels to 10,000 in southern Afghanistan. Mr Obama was expected to appeal directly to Gordon Brown when they meet at the G20 summit in London next week.

Mr Obama resisted sending in the 30,000 reinforcements initially recommended by military commanders and said he would reassess troop levels over the next year.

It marked the moment when Mr Obama took "ownership" of the war in Afghanistan and responsibility for its end, but he did not repeat an earlier reference to finding an "exit strategy". Some on the Left feared that it could doom his presidency in the way that Vietnam affected President Lyndon Johnson's. Mr Obama said the 4,000 extra troops would be deployed in a training role with the Afghan police and the national army, which the US wanted to double in size to 134,000 men in the next two years.

But the scale of the challenge in building an indigenous professional fighting force was underlined when an Afghan soldier shot and killed two coalition troops before killing himself.

Violence in Pakistan – the problems of which Mr Obama said must be tackled for progress to be made in Afghanistan – also raged with a suicide bomber killing 50 people at a mosque.

Mr Obama insisted that "this is not simply an American problem". Appealing to America's allies for a greater commitment to Afghanistan, and justifying the extra troops to his domestic audience, he described the region as "an international security challenge of the highest order" and said that the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the most dangerous place in the world".

"attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in ­Islamabad and Kabul," he said.

"If there is a major attack on an Asian, European or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan."

The announcement was part of a comprehensive new policy to deal with both Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

"Al-Qaeda and its allies, who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Mr Obama said in ominous tones, telling Americans that the Afghan war was not an overseas adventure "of choice" like Iraq but directly linked to protecting the US.

"Intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.

"And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for te r r orists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

He announced the setting up of a regional group on Afghanistan that would include Iran, whose nuclear ambitions and desire to eradicate Israel led to it being ostracised by the US.

[Michael]

he doesn't have a choice
it's more odd that Europe still doesn't get it

[erik]

he doesn't have a choice
it's more odd that Europe still doesn't get it

I'd say Europe gets it, but does not want to bother for two reasons:
1) it gets bloodier and bloodier there, Taliban is coming from Pak with vengeance (last year coalition losses grew by 40% and in the front line British units the loss rate is claimed to be as high as 11% which is as high as in World War II)
2) the US had in Iraq almost no idea about what counterinsurgency means (after Vietnam they said in Pentagon: 'No more such wars - from now on we do only clean big wars!' Then they pretty much sank into a voluntary institutional Alzheimer's and preferred to forget all their experience from small wars). Thus, being their ally means also getting into a long-term trouble.

All in all, one can choose: either get in trouble with the US or without the US. The second option seems more attractive as nobody knows when and if Al-Qaeda will strike and there is no need to argue for sending and paying for troops in Afghanistan. Thus, uncertain danger against the certain mess. Which one is preferable in short-term (till next elections)? Politics as usual.

[erik]

Green fuels produce twice as much carbon as fossil fuels

Green fuels could produce twice the carbon emissions of the fossil fuels they replace, environmentalists claim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/5153781/Green-fuels-produce-twice-as-much-carbon-as-fossil-fuels.html

Last Updated: 9:34PM BST 14 Apr 2009

Friends of the Earth said rules introduced a year ago which require a certain percentage of UK transport fuels to be made up of the "green" fuels could, instead of cutting emissions, have created an extra 1.3 million tonnes of CO2.

The emissions could have come from the "indirect" impacts of biofuels, for example the cutting down of forests for food production which had been displaced from land turned to growing crops to make ethanol or biodiesel.

But supporters of biofuels said that in the first year of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), the industry had shown it was possible to produce sustainable fuels in the UK.

The Renewable Energy Association also warned against the Government's policy of slowing down the planned increases in the levels of biofuels in the fuel supply over concerns about their impact - as it must meet an EU target of 10 per cent renewables in transport by 2020.

And the REA criticised the rules brought in on reporting how sustainable biofuels are - because they allow companies to say the origins and sustainability of the fuels are "unknown".

Today, a year on from the introduction of the RTFO, the amount of biofuels required in fuels rises from 2.5 per cent to 3.3 per cent, a smaller increase than originally planned following concerns over their effects.

Friends of the Earth claimed that rather than reducing climate change emissions, the RTFO could be producing the equivalent emissions to putting an extra half a million cars on the road.

The environmental group's executive director Andy Atkins said: "Until ministers can do their sums properly and prove that growing crops for fuel actually cuts carbon, the Government should stop biofuels being added to UK petrol and diesel.

"Trying to cut emissions by adding biofuels to petrol is like trying to cut down on beer by lacing your pints with vodka.

"One year on, it's clear the biofuels obligation is a failure. Investing in first class public transport is a much better way to reduce emissions on our roads."

But Clare Wenner, of the REA, said: "We really have been able to demonstrate that UK biofuels can make the grade on carbon savings and being produced sustainably.

"It can be done and we are doing it, in the face of competition from Brazil and everywhere else."

But she said a mistake in the drafting of the rules, which reduced the amount of biofuels actually needed in the system, had been an "absolute disaster" for the industry, pushing UK businesses to the wall and leading to job losses.

She said the Government should show greater support for the UK industry, because the country was having to rely heavily on imports - with less control over how sustainable the products were.

She said the rules which allowed companies to say it was "unknown" how sustainable the products were were "completely unacceptable".

And while she welcomed signals that the Government wanted to boost the production of electric cars, because "transport needs everything thrown at it", she said their contribution would be small - and only "green" if the power came from renewable sources.

She said the Government planned to use the EU average for renewable electricity generation - 15% of total electricity - to calculate the contribution of electric vehicles, which is permitted under European rules.

But in the UK the amount of power generated from sources such as wind was only a third of that, some 5%, so the carbon savings of such vehicles would be over-egged, she warned.