IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents what I believe is the most straightforward and best scientific treatment of CO2 Sequestration sources I have discovered. IPCC draws no hard conclusions but does offer great (but cautious) hope for the reliability of CO2 Sequestration.

One has to remember that even though this panel is "independent" the overwhelming majority of scientists studying CO2 Sequestration are funded by the world's largest fossil fuel corporations. IPCC members, by virtue of subject matter, must become rather intimate with petroleum industry principals. Not to necessarily judge the motives of the IPCC one must understand the context of their work, their world.

Although clearly straining to present a rosy outlook for CO2 Sequestration (consider their audience), this IPPC report manages to include a multitude of known problematic issues and is forthright enough to admit the likelihood that unknown issues exist.

Most troubling to me, is the IPPC's rather typical resistance to discuss the most basic (and most certain) physical laws and gas behaviors. These basic and inescapable predispositions of gases cannot be ignored. These are the laws of nature I so often speak of. Gas laws and Thermodynamics should cause scientists to naturally lean toward caution when considering CO2 Sequestration. Yet one rarely reads, hears, sees, or feels an air of caution. When scientists cheer instead of doubt, one must, like it or not, heighten one's own skepticism.

Mandate and Membership of the IPCC

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage

Table of contents
Summary for Policymakers
Technical Summary
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Sources of CO2
Chapter 3 Capture of CO2
Chapter 4 Transport of CO2
Chapter 5 Underground geological storage
Chapter 6 Ocean Storage
Chapter 7 Mineral carbonation and industrial uses of CO2
Chapter 8 Cost and economic potential
Chapter 9 Implications of CO2 capture and storage for greenhouse gas inventories and accounting
Annexes to the Special Report
Annex I Properties of CO2 and carbon-based fuels
Annex II Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations
Annex III Units
Annex IV Authors and reviewers
Annex V List of major IPCC reports
Graphics
Graphics of the special report
END

Below are two comments I posted on a C/NET News.com blog
In response to one claiming CO2 underground storage is the best possible solution to ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 production.

Analysis of the Obvious
CO2 is a gas, as in... not a liquid. How long can even the least porous stone contain a given volume gas? If pressurized? How long can a tightly sealed soda bottle contain CO2? What happens if the seal or bottle breaks or cracks?

CO2 gas can alternate from gas to liquid states. The IPPC seems to assume this a good thing, at least the gas to liquid transition. As far as CO2 gas sequestration goes it may be a good thing. but... is that the end of the story? Of course not. So far little, if any, research has been conducted on the effects of unnatural accumulations of carbonates, acids, and other reactionary responses on subterranean physiography and chemistry.

All other skepticism aside, what mere mortal can guarantee any given spot on earth will not crack or break tomorrow or anytime? Even if earthquakes would cease to occur (and they won't, of course) CO2 gas will not be contained by earth's highly fragmented crust or the oceans' depths.

Concerning CO2 sequestration, this overwhelmingly industry owned and therefore industry biased scientific community is silent on the basic matter of gas laws and gas physics. Entropy and enthalpy cannot be denied yet these ever-present forces are essentially never even mentioned to unsuspecting audiences. Gases will eventually leak from the best manmade containers. This is why gases are considered a "volatile" state of matter relative to liquids and solids. To further confound the empty promise of CO2 sequestration is the fact that CO2 is made about 20 times more soluble in the presence of water. This is realted to CO2's "solubility coefficient." Wet or dry, rocks and minerals cannot reliably contain CO2 gas. Rocks and minerals may break down and absorb an undeterminable proportion of CO2 but under natural conditions this process can take millennia and in the meantime the CO2 gas leaks (undetectably, absent an earthquake) from countless unidentifiable "micro-source points."

If there is a conspiratorial scheme, this is the industry/political scheme behind the CO2 sequestration dream. Remove a single source point (such as a smoke stack) from which CO2 can be accurately measured and the industry is off the hook! CO2 will leak into the atmosphere in minute amounts at any given locus but, collectively, in huge yet undetectable amounts over vast areas of land and/or water. The insidious leakage will be spread so far, wide, and thin it will be virtually impossible to measure.

To make this broad dispersal notion a bit more pedestrian I offer this analogy. Removing the single source point i.e., smoke stack, from which CO2 gas is analyzed and allowing, in effect, an undefinable expanse of landscape and/or water surface area to become CO2's exhaust is the difference between having one's fart collected in a tube and evaluated (sniffed) and trying to evaluate that same fart released randomly in a cave under a 40 acre field across which blows a stiff breeze.

In both cases, essentially the same amount of gas is eventually released to the atmosphere. In the first case the gas is detectable, the latter undetectable.
--
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.

I discuss CO2 Sequestration in more detail at my REALITICS blog:
~~~
In response to a guy claiming trees thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

Trees need nature's balanced percentage of CO2... not a bunch of hot air.
Trees thrive best in a balanced environment, including a balanced atmosphere... a relatively undisturbed balance they have enjoyed for millions of years... until, that is, the invention of the internal combustion engine. Just one century into the industrial age, the balance is being tilted to produce known and certainly unknown harmful environmental effects.

Rationalization of problems doesn't mean they go away nor does sweeping them under the rug or in this case, hiding them (temporarily) underground.

"Adults who continue to live with a childlike "out of sight - out of mind" mentality are generally considered the latter."
Duane Short - August 12, 2006

Given the thoughtfulness of our society I am not surprised that the public (and even scientists) are accepting the fossil fuel industry's CO2 Sequestration claims at face value.

For reference:
Source:
Age old processes acting sequentially and simultaneously appear to have produced the delicate balance of 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2) we observe today.

PRESENT COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE:
The atmosphere is comprised of gases which are considered to be permanent (gases which remain essentially constant by percent) and gases considered to be variable (gases which have changing concentrations over a finite period of time).

PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:
Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%
(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)

Other permanent gases:
Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%

VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:

Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%

So you see, there is little margin for error in the amount of CO2 we anthropogenically produce and release into the atmosphere.

Demand an Immediate International Criminal Tribunal for Israel to Stop Global War!

sisselnor said...

PLEASE SIGN AND SEND TO YOURS :
Demand an Immediate International Criminal Tribunal for Israel to Stop Global War!

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

Please Sign Your Full Name!

To: The United Nations General Assembly

The brutal bombings and invasion of Lebanon and Gaza are acts of Israeli state terrorism. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the present U.S.-Israeli threat to Syria and Iran indicate their ruthless struggle for hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East, which would escalate into a global war.

At least 900 people have been killed in Lebanon, more than one-third children, and 3,000 wounded. The number of refugees in Lebanon has already exceeded one million. Whole residential areas, roads, bridges, ports, power stations, factories and other infra-structure have been destroyed by Israeli precision bombing. Lebanon’s economic and infrastructure damage tops $2.5B as of 4 August 2006.

In Gaza hundreds have been killed. Homes, greenhouses, bridges, water and sewerage treatment plants and electricity generators have been destroyed in the latest acts of Israeli genocide sadistically code-named ‘Operation Summer Rain,’ which began on 27 June 2006. Israel continues its brutal air strikes on the Gaza Strip almost daily.

Israel must be prosecuted immediately for its war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine to stop the war escalating into a global catastrophe. Frances A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, has asserted the legal framework for The United Nations General Assembly to immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI).

“The United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a ‘subsidiary organ’ under U.N. Charter Article 22. The ICTI would be organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the Security Council.

“The purpose of the ICTI would be to investigate and prosecute Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine--just as the ICTY did for the victims of international crimes committed by Serbia and the Milosevic Regime throughout the Balkans.

“The establishment of ICTI would provide some small degree of justice to the victims of Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine--just as the ICTY has done in the Balkans. Furthermore, the establishment of ICTI by the U.N. General Assembly would serve as a deterrent effect upon Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, Chief of Staff Halutz and Israel’s other top generals that they will be prosecuted for their further infliction of international crimes upon the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

“Without such a deterrent, Israel might be emboldened to attack Syria with the full support of the Likhudnik Bush Jr. Neoconservatives, who have always viewed Syria as ‘low-hanging fruit’ ready to be taken out by means of their joint aggression.

“The Israeli press has just reported that the Bush Jr administration is encouraging Israel to attack Syria. If Israel attacks Syria as it did when it invaded Lebanon in 1982, Iran has vowed to come to Syria’s defense.

“And of course Israel and the Bush Jr administration very much want a pretext to attack Iran. This scenario could readily degenerate into World War III.

“For the U.N. General Assembly to establish ICTI could stop the further development of this momentum towards a regional if not global catastrophe.”

We, the undersigned, demand that The United Nations General Assembly immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a ‘subsidiary organ’ under U.N. Charter Article 22 to prosecute the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, Chief of Staff Halutz and Israel’s other top generals and war criminals for their infliction of international war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned


View Current Signatures

The Demand an Immediate International Criminal Tribunal for Israel to Stop Global War!

Petition to The United Nations General Assembly was created by Members of Creating A Sustainable Future (CASF) and written by Harry Saloor (ictinow@yahoo.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

US Client State Invades Lebanon and Battles the Democratically Elected Government of Hezbollah

The 14-16 July weekend edition of USA Today has as its primary cover story a piece about Israeli terrorism entitled "Mideast nears regional war." From the beginning of the narrative, Israel is portrayed as the protagonist who launches aerial attacks on "enemy strongholds in Lebanon." This was purportedly done in response to Hezbollah attacking Israeli towns with rockets. The initial problem that I have with this rhetorical dichotomy of Hezbollah and Lebanon is that Hezbollah is a democratically elected major party in Lebanon, credited by the Council on Foreign Relations as having 14 seats in Lebanon's 128-member parliament (though I believe it may have more) with 2 ministers in government and a third supported by Hezbollah. So in essence, a reference to Hezbollah is really a reference to the Lebanese government. The US State Department labels Hezbollah as a terrorist group and in March 2005 passed a resolution condemning Hezbollah 380 to 3 (thanks to all the Democrats for their courage in confronting the use of rhetoric to cause misperceptions in pursuing neoliberal/neoconservative foreign policy objectives. Mid East scholar Stephen Zunes contacted and queried congressional offices about the specifics of the terror attacks by Hezbollah in the last decade, no examples could be given. The US does not support Lebanese democracy, because the US only supports democracy that in turn supports neoliberal corporate mercantilism. Hezbollah is actually a politically legitimate group organized in 1982 that was effective in deterring Israel's illegal (declared so by the UN Security Council in its efforts to order Israeli withdrawal) US supported invasion of Lebanon (See Noam Chomsky's Failed States). It is actually not unfair to identify the "nation" of Israel as a giant US military base, thus support for Israel is not really support for the average Jew, purported to be "God's Chosen People." This assertion of Jew's and Israel as chosen by God is really the reason why so many Americans tacitly support the nation of Israel and its illegal, immoral invasion of foreign lands and its historical claim to which is does is not legitimate. This myth has been perpetuated by unscrupulous Christian demagogues such as Pat Robertson, who are really just mouthpieces for the Military Industrial Congressional Complex and their respective neoliberal corporate agenda which far from perpetuates the ideals of the truly pacific faith of Christianity.
The USA Today article mentions that Hezbollah is blamed for a suicide bombing in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 US Marines, perhaps to inflame US hatred of Hezbollah. When I was assigned to HHC Brigade 187 Infantry Regiment I served under the command of one CPL Collins who was a Marine living in the barracks in Beirut when a truck was pulled up to the building and an explosive device detonated. Incidentally, CPL Collins was featured in Michael Moore's Farenheight 911; he was the thin Soldier who mentioned that when returned to his hometown he would become involved in the Democratic Party after years of being a conservative. The article states that Hezbollah seeks the "destruction of Israel." A more appropriate context for this rhetoric may be that Hezbollah and the Lebanese people that they were elected by, seek to reclaim the Palestinian lands that Israel stole illegally in the 1950's in a military takeover. Indeed, Israel's "right to exist" is in fact questionable. Both sides of the conflict present logical plausible arguments, something that should be dealt with, at length, elsewhere...

US and Israeli Governments and Media are Lying About Hezbollah (As Posted on the DFA blog with a Reply and My Response)

The central issue that the American and Israeli governments have at present is that, as they assert, Hezbollah is using Southern Lebanon as a "sanctuary" from which to launch attacks against Israel. This culminated with the incidents which occurred on 25 June 2006 and 12 July 2006 which HR 921 calls "...completely unprovoked attack(s) that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory..." When I questioned Dr. Noam Chomsky of MIT about these issues, he replied about the events of 25 June by saying, "...the current upsurge in hostilities did not begin on 25 June. Rather, the day before, when the Israeli army carried out another attack in Gaza, swooping in to kidnap two civilians, a doctor and his brother. The kidnapping of the soldier the next day was probably retaliation, some Middle East scholars believe." Thus, these so-called "unprovoked attacks" are actually in retaliatory in nature, and the US ostensibly recognizes nations' rights to defend themselves.
So, why does the US not recognize Hezbollah's right to defense. Perhaps it is because the US State Department has identified Hezbollah under the highly nebulous and arbitrary label of "terrorist group." Furthermore, in March 2005, the House of Representatives voted 380 to 3 for a resolution condemning "the continuous terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah." However, before the events of 25 Jun 06 Hezbollah had not been credited with a major terrorist attack since the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center. This means that when the House resolution passed Hezbollah had not been given responsibility for a major terrorist attack in 11 years.
This bit of foreshadowing by Congress is all too appropriate. Irony seems surround respective US and Israeli stances on Hezbollah. The American news has been reporting that Israel may want the Lebanese army to execute a relief-in-place after they have destroyed Hezbollah elements in Southern Lebanon near the Litani River. It is ironic that the Israelis want to fight Hezbollah but not the Lebanese army, though Hebollah is a democratically-elected major party in Lebanese politics, holding roughly 1/5 of the seats in the Lebanese parliament. This can certainly be construed as an attempt to undermine Lebanese democracy, which the US purports to support.
In response to my questions about the events of 12 Jul 06, Dr. Chomsky responded by saying:
"Turning to July 12, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. Two reasons were given, accepted by virtually all serious scholars and journalists (though the White House and Israel have a different story, and the US media toe the line so closely that they are ridiculed even in the business press in England): some support for Palestinians under vicious attack by an invading army, and prisoner exchange. Analysts differ on the relative weight of the two factors, but each is quite plausible. Is it wrong to capture soldiers? Sure. But for the US and Israel to take this stand is possible only because of the remarkable obedience of the educated classes. In most of the world, it's regarded as a sick joke, certainly in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where the facts are not concealed."
It is quite clear that the US and Israel are both being dishonest about their intentions with Lebanon. On a 21 July interview on Larry King Live, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that it was obvious Israeli intentions in Lebanon go beyond the recovery of two soldiers. With Israeli troops deploying to the border an Israeli invasion of Lebanon seems imminent. Perhaps the Israelis are merely inspired by and trying to emulate the actions of their parent state in Iraq. This is all a dangerous and foreboding trend, and one hopes for some honest coverage by the mainstream American media about the issue before uniformed tacit support for violent foreign policy once again leads to the deaths of American troops.
by Nathan Jaco on Saturday, 07/22/06 @ 05:46 AM | Edit post | Avg Rating: -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments

Hezbollah Are Terrorists!

Make no mistake, Hezbollah has been and is a terrorist organization. If the ACLU was responsible for our nation's defense, they would be one as well. The Lebanese government, for whatever reason, is incapable of defending their own country from Israel, Hezbollah, or any other attacking force. The fact that they use Hezbollah for their national defense does not make them okay...it makes them hostages to the will of Hezbollah and extremist factions.

In your article above, you said, "So, why does the US not recognize Hezbollah's right to defense. Perhaps it is because the US State Department has identified Hezbollah under the highly nebulous and arbitrary label of "terrorist group."

Since when does any non-nation have a right to defend itself? They use terror to control the Lebanese government, and are dedicated to the extinction of the Jewish people. They have not and never will ahve a right to self-defense when they carry out military actions against nations. As long as Hezbollah is not part of the Lebanese army (under Lebanese Government control), they do not have rights to self-defense.

If DFA were a military force and attacked Mexico because we insist we represent the government, what would that make us? Terrorists. Hezbollah as a political entity in Lebanon is one thing...a separate military power is another, entirely. Attacking Hezbollah instead of the Lebanese Army is supporting a Lebanese democracy, free of external military forces. 20% government participation does not represent the Lebanese people.

You also quoted, "In most of the world, it's regarded as a sick joke, certainly in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where the facts are not concealed."

Since when are facts not concealed in any governmental system? This is a ridiculous statement. I respect Noam Chomsky, but these quotes from him sound completely out of context.
by David Reiter on Tuesday, 07/25/06 @ 09:46 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________

I am very surprised to read a post like this on a progressive group's website. These sound like the kinds of arguments I get from my conservative acquaintances. I actually expect this though, there are certain systemically implicit things that one just cannot criticize in American society without invoking opposition even in a progressive group, and Israel is one of them. The problem you are having, to use a cliche, is that you are thinking inside the box, a very recently constructed box from a historical perspective. America's standing military and the centralization that went along with it is, in fact, new, it was established after WWII. While the US was developing, there were militia-type minor organizations that were tolerated by the US government because we, as a republic, did not have a standing army. This centralization of military and government authority was a product of our development as an industrialized nation and it is now the way we think of "legitimate" military forces, but that is only a matter of perspective. The fact that Hezbollah is a major political party in Lebanon with a military capability, that it naturally utilizes in ways that aren't repudiated by the other power arrangements in the government, essentially legitimizes Hezbollah's activities from the perspective of the Lebanese government. They simply don't have the degree of sophistication we have in their military powers, and that is to be expected since Britain and the US have been mismanaging and interferring with the Palestinians since 1917, with the Balfour Declaration under the Mandates System. The one highly inexplicable thing (though it is tangential) is the sort of implicit ideological connection you attempt to draw between terrorist organizations and the ACLU. I am highly surprised that a a member of the DFA would be so inclined. Furthermore, I assure you that I did not take Dr. Chomsky's words out of context, especially since he has been a member of the Anti-Zionist movement since he was a college student. I would suggest that you review some of his work if you are unsure. I have met with a great degree of intellectual resistance from many people on the issue of Anti-Zionism and that just serves to demonstrate how far to the right political dialogue in this country has shifted. Even amongst highly progressive groups there is a stark differential in attitudes about neoliberal imperialist foreign policy as it relates to our favorite client state.

My Response to Terror of Psychology and Psychology of Fear

Well, I am not much of a conspiracy theorist. I do believe America has the most free press in the world and that the government does not control the media. However, a clear distinction has to be made. The corporate interests that control the free press also predominate the interests of government. The collusion of business and government has in fact not reached a point of perfect agreeability. That is what is represented when you see the so-called "dissent," for instance CNN may cover a war protest and that is something that the Bush administration does not want you to see, but CNN is aware that many people will tune in to coverage of a war protest and that is good for their sponsors.
Now, as for what you are referring to with the public relations campaign to control people, this began with Fredrick Taylor's Scientific Management of laborers in the work place, trying to automatize human workers, and then it began to be applied to people in their homes. Liberals Ed Bernays and Walter Lippmann in the 1920's, also saw the utility in controlling people through the media. These streams of consciousness eventually emerged into what is called the public relations field, and that is what you see. There is actually a naturally occuring cultural tendency in America toward beligerence and religious fanaticism that cannot be systematically blamed on the "powers that be." I am sure that the powers that be are just as baffled by it, but are determined to use it to essentially forward their interests. The answer, I believe and have asserted for some time, is an emphasis on fine arts and humanities to civilized the American culture. A sort of Second Renaissance for Western Civilization. That is the most plausible method to use: educate the masses. Fortunately, the corporations would jump on board if they thought they could sell people products relating to arts, humanities, and sciences. That is the fundamental weakness of the prevailing institution of our day, a rich man will sell you the rope with which to hang him.

The World's Next Greatest Environmental Hoax

"Past and present logging interests continue to destroy vast expanses of forests above ground. Now, the coal industry proposes to declare an underground war on our forests, prairies, and future."

The Promised Land of CO2 Sequestration

Big Oil and Fossil Fuel moguls do it again. Finally they are recognized as analogs to tobacco purveyors. Fossil fuel executives know they can no longer deny global warming caused by human produced CO2 and other greenhouse gases. In desperation, they have pulled out all ethical stops.

Knowing the general public is genuinely fearful of the effects of global warming, fossil fuel moguls use fear to their advantage. Knowing America's general public is prone to accept magically quick fixes (invading Iraq: case in point), the promise of eco-friendly CO2 underground sequestration is being touted as a magically quick fix.

I detect no serious effort by environmentalists to challenge the promise of safe and reliable underground CO2 sequestration.

Doesn't anyone question anything anymore? This is a very serious hoax and we seem to be ignoring it.

My greatest wish concerning this issue is that this discussion might be forwarded on to students (all levels) and their science teachers.

Don't believe for a minute this horrific myth. CO2 can be stored safely and indefinitely in clay vessels.

Believe this:

The best of collective human ingenuity and creativity has yet to create a container that can contain, in perpetuity, CO2, O2, Helium, Nitrogen, Hydrogen or any other form of gas. It is amazing to me that so few question the promise made by fossil fuel moguls that claims CO2 can be sequestered and stored safely and reliably underground. These are the same cadre of individuals that paid scientists to lie to the public about the dangers of global warming.

The coal industry is successfully persuading powers that be and even sincere environmental advocates that it has devised a protocol that assures ozone depleting CO2 can be reliably "sequestered," i.e., stored underground. Their idea might sound plausible unless one has educated oneself about basic gas law physics.

Before continuing I must emphasize this fact. Bedrock of any kind cannot contain gases. Bedrock made of dense granite cannot contain water, much less gas, in perpetuity. "Why not," you may ask. Well, it's not because liquid water necessarily leaks through it. What does water always do? Even ice does this. Water always evaporates and ice sublimates. The process can be slow (in human time) but not so slow in biological or geological time. In fact the process is not "slow" at all.

As usual, I am NOT writing this in a context limited to the here and now and how this issue might effect me. No. I am thinking of my kids, their kids and beyond. We simply must think very long term when considering an environmental issue such as this.

I am concerned that environmental advocates and so-called "independent" scientists are taking a "let's wait and see" approach rather than proactively challenging claims made by a coal industry seeking approval to build one or more FutureGen coal-fired power plants. CO2 produced by a proposed coal burning process, commonly referred to as FutureGen, will never be stored successfully and reliably. Won't someone please ask me why I say this? Someone please ask how a layman such as myself can make such a bold claim.

The short answers to the above are: In this universe there is no such a thing as a "closed system." There are "tight systems" but no truly closed systems. Particles of mass escape even our cosmos' most powerful container - "The Black Hole"

Containers are, by natural definition, destined to be cracked, exploded or in a number of ways escaped from by whatever is therein contained. Destructive forces outside the bounds of any given container are ever-present. I ask you to think of just one natural geologic factor that is beyond humankind's ability to predict. This factor, even if we could predict when, where, and how intense it's effects, remains far beyond humankind's ability to prevent or mitigate. While pondering what this factor may be, consider the following.

Gases cannot be contained in thick solid steel and scientifically engineered tanks for very long periods. Tanks, such as oxygen and acetylene tanks can hold compressed gases a time period suitable for human use... but think really long term.

Certainly, clay vessels have never served humanity's need to store gases. Yet, silver-tongued fossil fuel purveyors are successfully convincing a so-called modern, technologically advanced society that clay vessels are suitable containers of compressed CO2 gas. I give these bottom-line oriented coal kings this much. The clay containers they speak of (i.e., earth's underground spaces) are cheap enough.

FutureGen proponents want YOU to believe CO2 gas can be pumped underground and stored reliably and in perpetuity. They are suggesting, in essence, we allow them to store gas in a clay pot. They ask us to believe their grand new plan is safe and reliable.

Please, please, please... Don't believe this lie.

Why would such a lie be told by FutureGen advocates?

To be fair, most FutureGen advocates are simply too ignorant to even question the physics of gas containment. They are paid advocates, not trained scientists. Scientist trained and eventually hired by FutureGen champions have problems all their own. They are paid to NOT really think outside the box (paradigm) they are constrained to operate in.

Thankfully, conventional coal-fired power plants must "scrub" their gaseous byproducts. Gaseous byproducts are channeled into the atmosphere via smokestacks. Smokestacks are, in the following context, the environmentalist's best friend. Smokestacks do more than just provide a place for scrubbers. A smokestack serves as an identifiable "source-point" thereby affording convenient and accurate measurement of pollutants including CO2 emissions that are released into the atmosphere.

CO2 and other pollutants pumped underground will not go into a cosmic "Black Hole." Not even some manmade giant metal, plastic, glass or any other synthetic container will be there to help seal earth's "clay vessels." But the idea sending of CO2 underground elicits a sense of finality. Perhaps this is because humans have a long history of burying their dead. Out of sight out of mind. This psychologically driven practice has been with us as long as we have used tools.

Psychologically, "out of sight... out of mind" goes a long way with infants and an adolescent human race. Folks, it's really hard to bury gas.

Words are insidiously powerful.

bury |ˈberē| |ˌbəri| |ˌbɛri| |ˌbɛri|
verb ( buries, buried) [ trans. ]
put or hide under ground : he buried the box in the back garden | [as adj. ] ( buried) buried treasure.
• (usu. be buried) place (a dead body) in the earth, in a tomb, or in the sea, typically with funeral rites : he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
• figurative lose (someone, typically a relative) through death : she buried her sixty-year-old husband.
• completely cover; cause to disappear or become inconspicuous : the countryside has been buried under layers of concrete | figurative the warehouse was buried in the faceless sprawl of the city.
• move or put out of sight : she buried her face in her hands | with his hands buried in the pockets of his overcoat.
• figurative deliberately forget; conceal from oneself : they had buried their feelings of embarrassment and fear.
• overwhelm (an opponent) beyond hope of recovery : he boasted that socialism would bury capitalism.
• ( bury oneself) involve oneself deeply in something to the exclusion of other concerns : he buried himself in work.

PHRASES

bury the hatchet end a quarrel or conflict and become friendly.

bury one's head in the sand: ignore unpleasant realities.

Yes, words and concepts related to words are quietly powerful.

Another factor adding to our apparent eagerness to accept FutureGen claims is embodied in the fact that we all seem to want to believe in the myth of the "closed system." The fact is, there is none.

Corked clay pots will hold pressurized gas... for a while. FutureGen's pots are not even corked but advocates present bedrock as being analogous to cork. For the moment let's just accept this flawed analogy. If the clay cracks... the earth burps. This burp will be no less desirable than the burp of a glutton. Corked or not, the gas escapes.

Huge volumes of STP gas (a gas collected under Standard Temperature and Pressure) can be stored in a remarkably small space when collected and subjected to increased pressure and in decreased temperature. On the surface, this fact bodes well for the FutureGen hoax. Bedrock will undoubtedly retard the release of CO2 into the atmosphere but I challenge FutureGen advocates to compute how effectively dirt and rock can store this gas.
http://www.shodor.org/unchem/advanced/gas/
The Ideal Gas Law gives rise to a pesky little concept known as "Entropy." I trust this law is understood, to some degree, by most. In it's simplest form, entropy means the world is falling apart. Gases lead the way toward entropy. Gas molecules are natural born loners. They seek to separate themselves from other like gas molecules. No matter how strong or large their "container" they will disperse to fill and eventually exit that container. If only a dozen molecules of gas occupy the space inside a given container a given molecule will move constantly in an effort to distance itself, as far as possible, from the others.

Bedrock, especially damp or wet bedrock, is a lousy container of gas.

It should be noted how gas laws explain entropy better than any other commonly understood form of matter.

It is likely the following set of formulas will not display properly on you monitor.... but it's ok. For this discussion, it is not necessary to see, much less fully understand, the details of the formulas below (unless one wishes to challenge established laws of physics). So I suggest you just scroll down to the words: Entropy happens. Entropy, is the abstract end point of all these laws. Gas is the physical world's most entropy prone form of matter. This is self evident. Yet, I hear few questioning the promise of underground CO2 sequestration.

A law relating the pressure, temperature, and volume of an ideal gas. Many common gases exhibit behavior very close to that of an ideal gas at ambient temperature and pressure. The ideal gas law was originally derived from the experimentally measured Charles' law and Boyle's law. Let P be the pressure of a gas, V the volume it occupies, and T its temperature (which must be in absolute temperature units, i.e., in Kelvin).

Beyond the scope of this discussion but pertinent to the topic are a series of equations that demonstrate how the same physics of the Ideal Gas Law lead to the physcial reality of Entropy.

Entropy is formally defined:

entropy |ˈentrəpē| noun Physics a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. (Symbol: S) • figurative lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder : a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme. • (in information theory) a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information in a particular message or language.

Entropy happens. Physical conditions can effect the rate of entropy. For example, boiling water to create steam increases water's rate of entropy.

Wet or damp bedrock is like moist lung membranes.

The process of respiration in the human (or any) lung best reveals another major flaw in the FutureGen myth. A concept known as "solubility coefficient" becomes an important factor to be considered. CO2 is highly soluble in the presence of H2O.

Henry’s law: Concentration of dissolved gas = pressure x solubility coefficient

Where:
Concentration: Volume of gas dissolved in each volume of water at zero degrees centigrade
Pressure:Atmospheres
Solubility coefficients [37°C]:
Oxygen 0.024
Carbon dioxide 0.57
Nitrogen 0.012
Helium 0.008

Solubility of biological gases dissolved in biological fluids

Concentration of dissolved gas = pressure x solubility coefficient

FOR O2
Concentration of dissolved gas= 1 x 0.024
= 0.024 mls/ml water
= 24 mls/litre

FOR CO2
Concentration of dissolved gas= 1 x 0.57
= 0.57 mls/ml water
= 570 mls/litre

The above means, simply this: CO2 dissolves in water at a rate more than 20 times faster than O2. In the human lung this fact means that CO2 passes 20 times easier than O2 through six layers of cells and connective tissue. In the lung, this a good thing. In simple terms, water turns blood vessels (containers of CO2) into virtual sieves where these vessels contain alveoli (tiny air vesicles that receive CO2 from spent blood). CO2 will pass from blood and into the lungs much more readily because of "water."

Underground, water is pretty much omnipotent. Some areas are wetter than others but water (moisture) is rarely totally absent under ground.

Even if the clay vessel "earth" never cracks CO2 will ooze (diffuse) through its generally moist container's membrane (crust) and into earth's atmosphere.

Questions no one seems to be asking:

On its way up and out, how will CO2 affect root systems of plants that depend on nature's balanced production of nitrogen underground? How will nitrogen-fixing bacteria respond to increasing levels of CO2 oozing up and into their habitat? What about lower forms of animal life? What about higher forms of animal life? What about the proverbial "food chain?"

We continue to destroy vast forests above ground? Must we now inaugurate a subterranean assault on our forests and prairies?

For the Sake of Argument:

Let's assume FutureGen can guarantee "no earthquakes."

Let's assume FutureGen can greatly retard the release of CO2 first into the earth's crust and then into its atmosphere.

Now let's go back and consider the smokestack. Remember, a smokestack provides a specific source-point from which to accurately measure coal-fired power plant emissions. Ask FutureGen proponents where and how they intend to monitor the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. They will tell YOU, "we don't have to measure because the gas will be "reliably" sequestered underground. A most important factor to consider is that CO2 oozing from countless randomly dispersed exit points in the earth's crust will likely remain in undetectable amounts i.e., parts per million (ppm). Sounds great doesn't it?

Even if detected, these amounts will certainly be considered negligible and/or insignificant by our EPA and other so-called official governmental watchdogs.

The problem is that CO2 escaping earth's crust and into the atmosphere will do so in minute volumes at any given monitoring site (should monitoring be done at all). FutureGen advocates want the public to "leave it at that." What futureGen is doing is simply turning the earth's crust into a smokestack with an invisible orifice of colossal proportion. An undetermined, but huge, area around the point at which CO2 is forced into the earth will become an enormous, yet invisible, smokestack. Diffusion of CO2 will occur and spread over many square miles of space before reaching the earth's surface. A smokestack with an opening diameter of hundreds or thousands of square miles will predictably yield undetectable or very low readings from specific point monitoring devices. No matter where the measurement(s) is.are taken, the measured amount will likely be negligible. This will create a new battle for environmentalists similar to the one we are so accustom now. Cumulative effects on the health of our planet are sometimes difficult to predict when measurement of minute impacts is difficult or impossible to document.

This is the goal of FutureGen. By making measurement of CO2 emissions next to impossible to measure they achieve their goal. Their claim will be this: "Cumulative effects" too are negligible and they will demand environmentalists prove them wrong. How convenient for FutureGen. FutureGen is a project designed to disperse and thereby hide emissions from a coal-fired power plant that still produces just as much CO2 as a conventional plant.

If FutureGen plants materialize, CO2 emissions measurements will not offer environmentalists any support but an understanding of basic science and gas law physics will. Our best hope, remains however in preventing FutureGen from becoming a reality. This one case where an ounce of prevention is truly worth a ton of cure.

The reality of CO2 escape is complicated but not beyond the lay person's ability to think through. What FutureGen proponents have done (successfully so far) is to distract most would-be skeptics from what I will call "The Fog Effect." A dense fog represents an enormous amount of H2O. Yet, meteorologists don't bother to measure it as rain. Yet, both are H2O.

CO2 from FutureGen storage sites will enter the atmosphere but only after permeating earth's crust, including it's top-soils. Gas does NOT behave like water. Gas does NOT flow. Gas spreads. Gas will move from areas of high concentration to low concentration and will generally follow a path of least resistance but gas will always spread rather than flow.

"Out of site - out of mind" must not be our attitude. I am not comfortable that CO2 oozing up from the earth's depths will have no impact on subterranean life. CO2 permeating earth's crust will have implications on subterranean life from bacteria, to earthworms, salamanders, cave and den dwellers, and root systems of plants. Who can guarantee those implications will not adversely affect this cryptic, but very important, ecosystem.

Surely by now, we already know the serious effect and side effects increasing levels of CO2 impose on our atmosphere. We pollute our atmosphere with CO2. Do we now condone polluting the depths of our planet with CO2?

The industry is presenting their "big idea" of safe and reliable CO2 underground sequestration as a "given" and therefore will not discuss the physics, chemistry, biology, or ecology of the CO2 it intends to "sequester" underground. However, the industry is careful to refer to project as an "experiment," a term they will remind the courts of when lawsuits begin to appear in the future. They will claim FutureGen has no responsibility for an experiment that in their words, "did not produce the desired results." But then it will be too late.

So-called scientists supporting FutureGen, in my view, are no less responsible for the future liabilities of FutureGen than Marlboro scientists are for their past and present efforts to hide the effects of cigarette smoking.

Should FutureGen succeed in its campaign, and sadly I believe it will, the future will repeat history. As forests and prairies begin to demonstrate presently unknown, but likely harmful, effects of a CO2 fog slowly saturating the ground, lawsuits will commence. I am afraid this will become yet one more case of "too little too late." Once CO2 is pressurized far beneath the earths surface it will have been released into an "open system" and recovery i.e., mitigation will likely be impossible. Geologists and oil explorers locate oil. They do not identify and map the literally millions of finger-like cracks and channels that become an extended network of more millions of hair thin, root-like projections reaching unknown distances and into unknown places in our earth's crust.

These hair thin, root-like projections will be the conduit CO2 utilizes to spread underground and eventually shuttle its molecules through a porous system of bedrock and on to earth's surface. Gases need a space only as large as the size of one of its molecules to escape from one space to another. To illustrate: The microscopic spaces between seemingly solid (cohered) grains of sand in sandstone bedrock provide adequate passageways to gases like CO2. The fog of CO2 will simply do what gases do... gases always expand to fill their containers and in the case of FutureGen, there is no container. This rule is basic in gas law physics. The teaching of an adjunct to this law is often neglected, however. Gas cannot be contained in perpetuity. If a black hole has leakage... so will any container nature and/or man can devise.

One can search the internet and find very little discussion or scientific examination of the behavior of pressurized CO2 stored underground. At the web site below, FutureGen proponents clearly demonstrate the extreme measures they will go to avoid an actual meaningful scientific discussion about CO2 underground sequestration and "How it Works."

The collection of five paragraphs (How it Works) below is typical of information one will find concerning how FutureGen will protect the environment. The common thread in articles like this is that they never even attempt to address obvious questions, like those I presented above. Attached in this email message is a graphic illustration that shows the essence of a FutureGen coal-fired power plant and CO2 sequestration. While contemplating the graphic, focus on the CO2 sequestration pathway and its "supposed" final destination, below some bedrock shelf an into a space vacated by liquid petroleum. Remember there is no such thing as a gas tight container. Bedrock will slow but not stop CO2 escape to the surface and into our atmosphere.

FutureGen contradicts itself when it boasts that "sequestered" and pressurized CO2 will be used to force liquid petroleum out of the ground. I'll spare detailed explanation here but just consider this. Your carbonated soft drink goes nowhere when under pressure of CO2 unless there is an opening somewhere or i.e., the lid is loosened or removed. The earth has no lids... only openings. Sure, stubborn liquid petroleum will be forced, using pressurized CO2, into wells where it can be collected. Half truths, however, are just that. While CO2 is forcing liquid petroleum into desired spaces underground, CO2 is constantly escaping it's tomb via nearly an infinite source of escape routes. This undesirable and undetectable escape of huge volumes of CO2, collectively speaking, will continue as long as there are two molecules of CO2 left underground.

FutureGen's "so-called explanation" of how CO2 sequestration supposedly works includes a graphic that can be seen online.
---

How it works (according to FutureGen advocates)

The prototype plant will establish the technical and economic feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal (the lowest cost and most abundant domestic energy resource), while capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide generated in the process.

The project will employ coal gasification technology integrated with combined cycle electricity generation and the sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions. It will be supported by the ongoing coal research program, which will also be the principal source of technology for the prototype.

The initiative is a government/industry partnership to pursue an innovative show- case? project focused on the design, construction and operation of a technically cutting-edge power plant that is intended to eliminate environmental concerns associated with coal utilization. This FutureGen plant will act as a living prototype,? with future technology innovations incorporated into the design as needed.

The FutureGen project will require 10 years to complete. DOE would fund $800 million and the National FutureGen Alliance consortium of private utility and coal-mining companies would invest about $200 million in the plant.

In the operational phase, the project will generate revenue streams from the sales of electricity, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The revenue will be shared among the project participants (including the federal government) in proportion to their respective cost-sharing percentage, according to the DOE.

End
-----

So... FutureGen is pretty thorough in their explanation of "How it Works," eh? I hope you notice they don't even begin to discuss the process of CO2 sequestration or explain how bedrock is supposed to contain the gas. All they do is provide a great sounding title to a collection of paragraphs and count on no one reading or contemplating the five paragraphs containing absolutely no explanation of" how it works." Instead they lead the reader into a discussion of "how the effort to win a FutureGen power plant works."

...and sadly, work it does.

Do you recall words exactly or quite similar to these? "Please fill out the following survey (questionnaire) so that we may better serve you."

The absolutely most powerful science in today's society is the science of psychology. Corporate giants employ the vast majority of these scientists and practitioners. Some are called marketing strategists. Don't kid yourself. These so-called strategists are well-trained in the corporate hi-jacked science of psychology. Corporate psychology seeks to know what you are thinking and how best to shape your thinking to their advantage. How many surveys have you filled out since discovering the internet? How many so-called independent polls? How many commercially generated questionnaires?

Familiar?

How much do you typically spend on your vacation? How many miles are you willing to drive? Do you prefer to bank online? How did you hear about us? What kind of pet(s) do you have?

You know there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these questions posed to you in the course of a year. Hopefully you avoid answering them. Many, however, feel important and honored when they are asked to complete such questionnaires. Now consider the fact that you and/or others are categorized among literally thousands of categories with millions of others with similar habits and attitudes.

Compile GM, Ford, GE, Sony, ExxonMobil, BP, Wal-Mart, ConAgra, Procter & Gamble, and countless other databases and predicting how the "masses" will respond to words, phrases, ideas, and outright propaganda is an elementary task.

"Sequestration." Don't you just love the word? It's been a favorite word of mine ever since I first it learned years ago. CO2 Sequestration.... it's almost poetic!

I dare say, the largest data bank on the planet is about you and me and how we think, behave, and respond to "words."

Corporate America knows or has access to how you think. To think not is to deny (bury) volumes of information Corporate America maintains about you. If they choose to know you... they will know you.

One thing they know for sure about the lot of us... if it's "out of sight...." it's "out of mind."

When is the last time you witnessed... live coverage of our troops in Iraq? In Afghanistan? "Out of sight... out of mind."

When is the last time our news media showed its viewing audience a mangled, lifeless little Iraqi or Afghan boy or girl who happened to be in the way of U.S. shock and awe? There are now hundreds of Iraqi and Afghan little girls and boys who have met this fate? Out of sight... out of mind?

See how well it works?

Water Wars in Wet Williamson

Marion, Illinois - Williamson County

Marion's reservoir plan hits obstacle

BY NICOLE SACK, THE SOUTHERN

MARION - Marion's 17-year dream of constructing a new water supply reservoir has hit a new bottleneck as the Army Corps of Engineers has determined the city's proposal does not comply with guidelines of the Clean Water Act.

In a letter sent to Marion Mayor Robert Butler, the corps said Marion has better water source alternatives available than the construction of a reservoir on Sugar Creek, located near Creal Springs.

"Based on the available information, we have concluded that the alternative to obtain treated or raw water from the Rend Lake Conservancy District is an option available to both Marion and the Lake of Egypt Water District," wrote Col. Raymond Midkiff of the Corps of Engineers.

"Raw water from Cedar Lake is an option available to LEWD. I recommend that Marion and LEWD together and alone enter into good faith negotiations with these water supply entities to determine if these alternatives remain feasible," Midkiff wrote.

Butler said the city of Marion has been pursuing a new water source for the growing town since 1989. Marion has selected and purchased roughly 1,500 acres - at a cost of nearly $3 million - as the site of the future lake. When asked when he would like to see a resolution to the water issue, Butler responded, "yesterday."

Meanwhile the city will follow the suggestion of the Army Corps of Engineers and begin talks with officials at Rend Lake.

"That is what they want us to do, so that is what we will do," Butler said. "But of course we would prefer to have our own water supply."

Marion Water Commissioner Robert "Dog" Connell said he opposes the Rend Lake option because it would make too many communities dependent on one water source.

"It's not good policy to keep all your eggs in one basket," Connell said.

Connell contends a disruption to the supply line would leave multiple Southern Illinois residents in jeopardy of being stranded without an alternative source, which he said a new Marion reservoir could provide.

Gary McKay, project manager at the Louisville Army Corps of Engineers said, there is still an opportunity for Marion to offer a more compelling reason as to why it needs its own new water source. But as the cards are stacked now, the corps would not rule in the city's favor.

McKay said adverse effects on aquatic life and wildlife also were considered during the review.

The Sugar Creek reservoir would inundate 6.2 miles of Sugar Creek, 1.1 miles of tributaries and 3 miles of Maple Branch. Additionally, more than 40 acres of wetlands would be lost to the damming of the area, according to the Army Corps of Engineers.

By contrast, obtaining water from Rend Lake or Cedar Lake would result in temporary disturbances from pipeline crossings, with minimal wetland impacts.

"Essentially this is a balancing act between the project goals and the environmental consequences," McKay said.

nicole.sack@thesouthern.com

(618) 529-5454 ext. 5816 Published on: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:04 AM CDT TheSouthern.com encourages readers to interact with one another.

The comments below are from readers of TheSouthern.com and in no way represent the views of The Southern Illinoisan or Lee Enterprises.

Julie wrote on August 11, 2006 8:44 AM: "If someone is truly concerned about the children in Marion, they should make sure that these kids are taught better than to believe "As far as wetlands, they are breeders of mosquitos,ticks and other insects that are harmful to humans." Wetlands are the kidneys of our planet, which cleanse and purify our natural water supply, not to mention support an amazing array of species, all of which are important to natural functioning ecosystems. Anyone who is interested in Mayor Butler's record can contact the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation and find out why he was disbarred as an attorney. It has to do with disgraceful, dishonest actions to enrich himself at the expense of others. Do you know how hard it is for an attorney to get disbarred? This is not an offensive or inappropriate comment to anyone interested in the truth. It is a matter of public record."

Duane Short wrote on August 10, 2006 8:20 PM: "As Marion's residents and businesses consume water, plant and animals species, including Lampetra aepyptera, face extinction. Illinois’ water storing and filtering wetlands have all but disappeared along with their natural inhabitants. Water conservation measures and sharing water is a much more sensible, far less expensive, and environmentally sound solution than building a reservoir that would negate all the aforementioned benefits. Gary McKay states the Corp’s case quite well. Marion's water commissioner seems not to understand hydrology, biology, ecology and the fact that water and eggs are, altogether, two quite different things. Was his argument when Wal-Mart came to town... “We should not have all our consumers eggs in one retail store’s cooler.” I doubt it and I just bet Mayor Butler did not warn Wal-Mart about Marion’s “perilous” water shortage woes. One should not kill the truth, plants, or animals just to get one’s way. Science is the best tool humans have to cool otherwise hot and biased heads. Science indicates a reservoir that would destroy Sugar Creek and its associated wetlands is simply not wise or needed."

Barb McKasson, Sierra Club Shawnee Group Chair wrote on August 10, 2006 1:53 PM: “For nearly two decades, local Sierra Club members and property owners have worked to promote alternatives to the proposed Marion dam. If built, the dam would destroy Sugar Creek, one of the last free-flowing streams in the region, and habitat for endangered wildlife. The recent letter from the Army Corps to the City of Marion makes clear that the destruction of Sugar Creek is unnecessary, given alternative water supply options, and that the harm to our Southern Illinois environment would be substantial. In a July 14th letter to Marion Mayor Robert Butler, the Corps wrote: “water from the Rend Lake Conservancy District is an option available to Marion alone or available to both Marion and Lake of Egypt Water Reclamation District (LEWD). Also, raw water from Cedar Lake is an option available to LEWD. I recommend that Marion and LEWD together and alone enter into good faith negotiations with these water supply entities to determine if these alternatives remain feasible.” And “These pipeline alternatives would result in substantially smaller impacts to aquatic resources.” We applaud the Army Corps for their honest analysis, and common-sense recommendation. Rend Lake and Cedar Lake are among the existing impoundments in our region that could potentially supply Marion with water at substantially lower cost, without displacing landowners, and without destroying Sugar Creek, a unique Southern Illinois natural resource. Sierra Club is committed to working with the City of Marion and regional leaders to plan for Marion’s water supply to provide reliable, quality drinking water at reasonable cost, while protecting the natural beauty and heritage of our region.”

Bob wrote on August 10, 2006 11:29 AM: "This Marion Lake project was never about securing water for Marion. It was always about making a recreation lake to benefit developers who are cronies of Mayor Butler. Check the record: First they acquired property and tried to get a Permit to build the recreation lake. When they could not obtain a Permit, they teamed up with Butler and began the chorus for the very same lake, but as a municipal water supply. They have since manipulated the water quality in Marion along with the minds of its citizens. Hooking up to Rend Lake has always been the most sensible solution."

Not Surprised wrote on August 10, 2006 7:24 AM:"It's amazing that the federal government decided that the Centennial Tank Farm (a break-out storage facility for the pipeline mentioned in the article)built on one of the highest hills near Creal Springs will have no ill effect on the environment (they say, "Don't worry about the New Madrid Eartquake Zone, the toxic fumes, or the eyesore"), yet they have determined that a new LAKE near Creal Springs will be detrimental to our clean water supply! I'm not surprised that the big oil companies always win their environmental impact decisions while small municipalities are "dying of thirst" in red tape. If you haven't seen the Tank Farm, I recommend a drive by.....certainly not a southern Illinois gemstone and certainly not the beneficial economic machine it was claimed to be. "

Bill Crabtree wrote on August 10, 2006 1:32 AM: "Still no solution to the water problem. We end up driving around in dirty cars every year because the car washes are forced to close due to the lack of water. You think Simmons will be told he can't water the grass at his baseball stadium though? Nope, it will use the water we already don't have, while the citizens who actually pay taxes get stiffed again. Still think there isn't a problem with the priorities of Butler and his cronies?"

"Not surprised" wrote on August 09, 2006 7:38 PM: "I could have told you back in 1989 that this was never going to happen. The only person who ever really wanted to see this thing done was Mayor Butler. They're may have been a few people who backed this, but overall, it never really had a large amount of support. "

Donna Hudgens wrote on August 09, 2006 2:20 PM: "Have these powers that be tasted our Marion water? It not only tastes bad but stinks as well. No wonder stores are selling bottled water like crazy. As far as Rend lake water , it tastes just as bad. How can it be healthy to drink such water? Where is the concern for the health of our children instead of crawdads. How can you compare the contribution of humans to the world to the contribution of crawdads. As far as wetlands, they are breeders of mosquitos,ticks and other insects that are harmful to humans. It seems like the ones that are opposed to the lake have an ax to grind with Mayor Butler and don't care who they hurt in the process."

Down in Egypt wrote on August 09, 2006 10:14 AM: "You're forgetting that up until a few years ago the Rend Lake Conservancy Board operated more like a criminal organization than a public body interested in doing the public good. The history of corruption associated with the RCLD has barely been scratched by the local news media. That by itself is one of the major reasons why Butler has never trusted RLCD. But the other question is whether Rend Lake actually has enough water to add another 30,000 customers, plus the new ethanol plant, plus the new coal mine/power plant slated near Johnston City, plus any new industry, etc. Cedar Lake? Come on, it makes no sense for Marion to bow down to Carbondale's anti-Marion city manager. This is the city that's sued Marion over the mall and is about to sue Carterville. It's Carbondale's way or the highway. It would be stupid for Marion to give them any leverage that would be used against them. I'm not being paranoid. Read the recent report by the Jackson County industrial group. All they do is lament the fact that Jackson County is losing its leadership position to Marion and Williamson County, and all would be better if somebody would provide them with more funding. Both Marion and Carbondale built industrial parks around 1976. Since then Marion has built three more industrial parks while Carbondale still hasn't filled theirs. Right now Marion is the county seat of the largest county in Southern Illinois outside the MetroEast. It's the largest retail trade center even surpassing Carbondale. This is where the major job growth is occurring. For Marion to place its future in the hands of small-minded politicians in neighboring no-growth counties is ridiculous."

No Brain Water wrote on August 09, 2006 7:46 AM: "Marion residents have been putting up with this type of kimchee for a long time. Butler has been told time and again that he wasnt gonna be able to use sugar creek. Yet this man stubbornly holds out for 17 years, and then says he will indeed open talks with rend lake. This couldve and shouldve been done years ago. Butler is an egotisical outdated spoiled man with no real concern for what others want, or deem to be true. Hopefully next time im in marion i can get a good glass of tap water. New blood in marion govt is whast is really needed. THAT would be a boon to marion!!!!! "

Terror of Psychology and Psychology of Fear

Before going on I must remind everyone... today is the day Israel was to "ramp up" its military incursion and intensity of fighting in Lebanon. I have CNN tuned in as I write. There's been very little coverage, in hours now, about the events happening in Lebanon. A lighthouse was hit with a missle. That is about all the news that has come in to CNN. Where is Anderson Cooper today? For two days, Cooper has been building up the hype on Israel's announced military buildup. Now that the day of reckoning is here... nada, nothing, zilch! There is no "front-line / on the ground" coverage to be found. CNN has been bragging on its ability to be there on the spot. Today CNN is spotless.

I have been warned a hundred times today not to take my liquid or gel toiletries to the airport. Folks, don't you see, it is not enough to have new terror threats. Run-of-the-mill terror threats were beginning to wear on U.S. citizens. Terror threats had to become bigger, better, fresh, and more interesting... at least long enough to get the incumbents through the next election. Everyone is now intrigued with the prospect of "liquid" explosives. This new interest will surely carry through the mid-term elections. But CNN has told me next to nothing about the atrocities occurring in Lebanon although they do report how many missles have hit Israel. Apparently, hundreds of dead kids just don't matter.

My guess is, the powers that be have decided we mere John and Jane Qs are not to know (in real time or ever if they can manage it) the atrocities happening right now in Lebanon. This is not the intended point of my message but it certainly could be the very reason we have this great terror threat plastered over every mainstream news media's TV screens and front pages. This pre-election, terror threat coverage is, however, related to my original and primary point of this message.

My original point is that the number and frequency of terror threats correlate neatly with election cycles BECAUSE of the psychological effects these threats produce. This is the point I hope to address here.

Watch the number and frequency of terror threats rise as major U.S. elections approach. What, do you suppose, is the explanation for the repeated correlation between terror threats and elections since 9/11/01?

Remember, I am one who understands the scientific notion that "correlation does not imply causation." This axiom is a valuable tool used by scientists to retard the human tendency to "jump to conclusions." I am not jumping to conclusions. I am presenting some sobering food for thought.

Coincidence? You decide. Before dismissing this as just another conspiracy fantasy consider this. Never before, in the history of humanity has there been such a perfect storm of circumstances that would allow "powers that be" to exert such precise military, civil law enforcement, social, cultural, religious, and political forces upon the masses.

Human communication has, in the blink of an eye, been catapulted from the paltry effectiveness of "Ye ole Towne Criers" to the ubiquitous power of mass communications. Perhaps the masses are not as psychologically prepared to deal with this new mass communications capability as the creators and controllers of it are prepared to manipulate its use to help achieve their own agendas.

A flea biting the tip of the tail of a dog can jerk the dog's head 180 degrees and shake its entire body... and even make it fall down in the process. Such is the case with today's multinational news media and its supporting communications networks.

Every time I say "Bush" or "W" please remember these are just convenient ways to reference neo-conservatism and its hypa-like tentacles.

Precursor to George W. Bush making everyone keenly aware and fearful of the "evil doers," Bush affiliated global powers utilize the somewhat obscured but real and powerful advances of modern psychology to shape these events and the reporting of them. And remember, "W" is just a dumb and mean spoiled-brat sort of puppet in all of this.

Corporate marketing and polling has advanced, beyond imagination, the science of psychology. The predictability of human thought and behavior has never been more precise. One might compare it to the incredible advances in the science of meteorology. Just as ever-sophisticating global communication capabilities, radar, doppler, and satellite imaging have advanced the science of forecasting weather, technology has advanced the predictability of human thought and actions.

Coca-cola, for example, can at will learn and in a day's time collect data on how a million people respond to a given stimulus, choice, set of choices and etc. Coca-cola can discover for, eventual governmental utility, what makes people tick. Desires, fears, and habits of millions are profiled daily and endlessly by large corporations, universities, churches, government agencies and many other data collecting entities. Every time one fills out and returns some sort of questionnaire or poll (no matter how benign it might seem) one is contributing to a collective data bank somewhere. Don't think, for one minute, that there is not an entire industry of data trading. Governments, of course, have access to any of this "essentially psychological profiling data" they might desire to study.

Even issues like the "timing" of responses to stimuli and the length of residual effects of stimuli are studied. In politics and human behavior control, "timing (as they say) is everything."

So here we are about 90 days in front of all important mid-term elections, elections that find the majority and incumbents in severe political distress. Incumbents, regardless of party, love this atmosphere of fear. Fear is money in the bank and votes in the ballot box for incumbents.

Communications are ubiquitous, i.e., global. Britain's intelligence "discovers and thwarts" another terror threat, a threat that included flights from Britain to the U.S. The recent terror threat in Florida bombed, pardon the pun. The incumbents (whether or not they actually had in any part in the strategizing of this latest threat) benefit from this fresh new wave of fear! All western and pro-western "powers that be" benefit from widespread fear.

George W. Bush, in less time than he actually did anything following 9/11, today comes on TV and says, "see I told ya so."

Mass media obliges Bush's propagation of fear by failing to remind "W" and their viewers, immediately, but Mr President, you said invading Iraq would make us more safe? Instead the media activiely avoids opportunities to expose the holes in this adnministration's stories, claims and recollections of events. All the media contributions to mass confusion about equating Iraq to 9/11 and its resultant hysteria aside, lets look closer at the incongruent "psychological character" of these alleged terror threats.

Our high level security officials say, "be afraid... be very afraid!" In the very next breath, they say, "oh but go ahead and fly you'll be ok."

I just have to ask, "now which is it?" If there is danger don't tell me to "ah go ahead and fly, you'll be okay." I might be a bit crazy but I am not psychotic and I do not suffer from multiple personality... so stop telling me to believe opposing messages delivered in the same breath from the same "official" source!

It seems millions have opted for insanity rather than to ask tough and dreadfully unpopluar questions.

I know I am not alone but this is how I feel. "Am I the only one that sees a fundamental and essentially bizarre flaw in their dichotomous message?" The insane believe and insanely selfish choose to believe reality can be "both ways." These terror threats cannot be both real and dismissible... as in "FEAR for YOUR LIVES!!! " oh, but... "go ahead and fly!"

Powers that be are really just beginning to discover the limits of power at their disposal. They behave somewhat like a kid that has discovered the power and control he has over his new remote control airplane. The sky is the limit.

It is incredibly convenient for governments when the masses, brain-dead from fear and confusion, allow them to have it both ways. These governments also thrive when their masses are greedy enough to self-deceive themselves into believing contradictory messages are acceptable. Who doesn't desire to have "it" both ways? By this I mean, government can control the masses with fear while preserving the economic security of the huge aviation industry. Fear can be propagated among greedy or selfish masses while government picks pockets at airports in the name of security. "Powers that be" encourage everyone to keep flying... i.e., keep spending your hard-earned money because it is really safe to fly. These powers scream FEAR and in an almost insane twist, remind you, "oh but don't stop flying... you are safe."

More insane is the fact that people just don't get it. I have listened to dozens of airline customers waiting for delayed flights or to connect to new flights go on camera and say how scary all this is and yet they stand in line... waiting for hours to get on the first flight they can get. Think about the insanity of this kind of thinking. Are these real and sane people CNN is interviewing?

A quote from an otherwise intelligent looking older gentleman:

Responding to a reporter he says, "this whole airline terror is frightening and despicable.. a silly chuckle... and I hope I have a safe flight." The man then turns and pulls his travel bag a step forward as the mile long line to the counter inches forward.

Maybe my definition of fear is distorted but if I am truly fearful that a terrorist might blow me up on a plane I will not suffer in long lines to catch the first flight I can get. Now, somebody is insane here. Maybe it's me. But if I truly fear a grizzly bear... I don't lock myself inside a cage that I have been warned the bear could occupy. Some would argue, "but maybe the guy has to get to a business meeting. Maybe he has to get home. Maybe his wife is having a baby. I say so what. Yes, so what.

Friends, would this same guy walk through a tunnel that he has been warned a grizzly bear might occupy to get to his meeting, home, or to his pregnant wife knowing she is under no threat from the bear and that she and the baby will be okay (without him being there)? Call me a coward but I don't want to be caged with a grizzly bear under any circumstance.

Either these suspiciously well-timed terror threats are exaggerated tremendously (possibly choreographed for political reasons) or they are real but the powers that be value an uninterrupted airline economy more than the actual lives they claim they are protecting.

I do not pretend to know the truth... I just question those claims presented as truth.

When journalists corner officials into describing they how sure they are that they have all the facts they always, without exception, say there is much they don't know. More often than not these officials are proud to inform the public there are even contradicting bits of information about the alleged threats. Yet these officials encourage people to continue flying.

I certainly hope my point is being made clearly enough. This topic is exceedingly difficult to dissect and discuss even when exercising the most articulate abilities one possesses. A simple "written equivalent to a verbal Slip O' the Tongue" leaves a writer vulnerable to accusations of all sorts. I trust you understand my cause for pause at this point in my message.

Continuing. There is an element of insanity in this post 9/11 terror alert phenomenon. Fear of fear itself and fear of the unknown make for strange mental bed-partners. Mass insanity and even mass suicide can be the result. I am convinced we are presently immersed in mass insanity. Just look around friends.

If one man named Jim Jones can lead 913 of his 1100 Jonestown people into mass suicide imagine what a coordinated effort of the most technically and psychologically sophisticated and most powerful "men" on earth can do. Psychologists have learned much from the like of "Reverend" Jim Jones... so have others who possess insatiable appetites for mass control. I strongly suggest one reads the Jonestown story. How he operated and how George W. Bush is operating bear striking resemblances. There is much more politics to the Jonestown Massacre story than one may recall. Mind control has been a human quest since humanity first realized it possessed a mind that another individual could influence. I promise, reading the Reverend Jim Jones "official" story at the URL shown will leave you speechless... but hopefully not forever.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/jonestown/index_1.html

Here is but one excerpt from a very detailed account of the Jonestown Massacre. It would be extremely enlightening to learn a bit or refresh your memory about California Representative Leo J. Ryan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ryan

As Ryan’s delegation was preparing to board their aircraft, Jim Jones called the “Jonestown” community together. He explained to them, as if it were a premonition rather than foreknowledge, that someone on the plane was going to kill Ryan. The consequences of this action would be that those political forces that had been trying to destroy the People’s Temple for years would attack the people at "Jonestown". The “enemy” would descend upon them and kill them mercilessly. This was not a new threat to the community at “Jonestown," they had lived in fear of an unnamed enemy and destroyer for many years, nor was Jones’s solution new to them. He had been preparing them for what he termed “revolutionary suicide” for some time.

George W. Bush is famous for his belief that he was dubbed U.S. President by God himself. In fact, Bush believes, as a result, he is infallible. I am reminded of one of Senator Joe Biden's finer moments. Author and NY Times writer, Ron Suskind, recalls:

Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!"

Bush, much like the now infamous Reverend Jim Jones leads by his self-proclaimed God sanctioned instincts laced with his unrelenting purveyance of fear. Name one other tangible leadership quality George W. Bush possesses other than his ability to turn every discussion on its head and into a discussion about terrorism. According to George W. Bush one should support his plan to privatize social security because.... "if you don't support his plan TERRORISTS WILL ATTACK YOU... and perhaps, at his bidding, they will!"

Fear, it is rumored, can cause horses to run into burning barns from whence they are trying to be rescued. This is a bit of a myth but such incidences have happened. Fear, sometimes, causes people, too, to run into what they have, for a time, perceived as their safe haven. Bush and his international cabal present their ideology as a safe haven. Their ideology is no safe haven. The Bush regime is a barn on fire. Yet some people, like some horses, will run back into the deadly burning barn.

Karl Rove and his growing international team of linguists and psychologists are but cogs in the complex machine of terror. Machiavellian psychological terrorists need physical terrorists as much as the physical terrorists need them.

There is no terror greater than psychological terror. Disagree?

Visit an insane asylum. Then get back to me. The insane don't mutilate and/or kill themselves and/or others because they are having such a wonderful time here on planet earth.

Can the whole world go crazy? You bet it can.

The definition of insanity is for one to believe everyone in the world but himself or herself has gone crazy. Folks, call me crazy. But before you lock me up, consider this. If all or even one-half of all travelers literally stopped traveling when a terror threat as serious as this present one supposedly is, would we be alerted at all?

Remember, the US shut down all flights only "after" a terror attack occurred on 9/11. This after-the-fact shut down cannot be compared to subsequent "threats of terror." These threats will continue to serve the "powers that be" and will accommodate their desire to "have it both ways" as long as travelers continue to spend money and travel in complete dismissal of their terror alerts. As long the masses do not actually heed their warnings and keep flying and continue to vote for those that they otherwise ignore, these incumbent powers are as happy as they can be. As far the powers are concerned it's "Mission Accomplished" and without significantly disrupting the airline industry's economy.

These insane travelers will fly and then on election day validate their insanity by voting for those who tell them in one breath, "you are in danger, but not really... so go ahead and fly."

Once on a plane one is committed. Somehow, I just don't think the world is "getting it."

Either there is a grizzly in the cage or there isn't. It cannot be both ways.

Duane Short
August 10, 2006

p.s. Five continuous hours of CNN and nothing, apparently, has happened in Lebanon.

Rich Whitney for Illinois Governor 2006!

Update: Green Party Candidate for Illinois Governor, Rich Whitney

Dear Friends,

I’ve got some good news and some not-so-good news – although, with your help, we can make the not-so-good news go away.

The good news is that, thanks to the hard work of Phil Huckelberry, Christina Tobin, David Sacks, Eric Much, Jennifer Rose, dozens of hard-working volunteers too numerous to mention, and attorney Andrew Spiegel, who donated hours of valuable legal services on our behalf, we are certain to defeat the Democratic Party machine’s challenge to our petitions to get on the ballot. Our campaign team overturned the vast majority of the machine’s groundless objections. While it won’t be official until the State Board of Elections issues a final ruling, we are winning! The Green Party State Slate, including yours truly, will be on the November 7th ballot, giving the people of Illinois a real choice in the 2006 election!

The not so-good-news is that this effort has really taxed us, diverting a lot of time, energy and money. Therefore, we now need your financial help if we are going to take this campaign to the next level and be truly competitive.

I’m not talking about a few people giving thousands and thousands of dollars. That is not the Green way. This is a grass-roots, movement-based campaign. What we really need are lots of people donating $10, $20, $50 or $100. Of course, if some of you can afford to give more than that, that would be wonderful. But whatever you can donate, now is the time to step up to the plate.

Now that I will be on the ballot, all bets are off as to who will win the election in November. Of course I don’t expect to raise the millions of dollars that my corporate-sponsored rivals have raised. I don’t need to. If I can raise enough get my message out, we can win this election!

Look, the people of Illinois are sick and tired of politicians who assume that voters they can be bought! They are sick and tired of the daily dose of news about political corruption, patronage hiring and other influence peddling by the candidates of the two corporate-sponsored parties. They are sick and tired of a "campaign" that mainly consists of two candidates spending huge sums of money to blast each other’s lack of ethics.

The latest polls show that Democrat Rod Blagojevich and Republican Judy Baar Topinka had "unfavorable" ratings of 49 and 50 percent, respectively. The majority of voters would vote for a third candidate if they can be persuaded that such a candidate would do a good job and has a chance of winning. As word of our campaign spreads, we can win over those voters. In a tight three-way race, we could win with 34 percent of the vote.

We can win over these voters because I am the only candidate in this race that actually has well-thought out, positive proposals for:

- dealing with our state budget crisis, getting adequate funds for our schools, paying our Medicaid bills on time, and funding state workers’ pensions;

- knocking down property taxes and making our tax system more fair and equitable;

- combating global warming, cleaning up our environment, cutting soaring energy prices – and creating tens of thousands of new jobs in the process;

- enacting universal health-care, through a single-payer system, and

- moving us toward the goal of full employment, at living wages or better.

These proposals have not come from big business, big banks and insurance companies. My proposals come from real citizens’ advocacy groups – from groups like the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, A+ Illinois, Voices for Illinois Children, the Better Funding for Better Schools Coalition, AFSCME, Repower the Midwest, the Apollo Alliance, Environment Illinois, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, the Illinois Environmental Council, the Illinois Stewardship Alliance, the Illinois Farmers Union, the Campaign for Better Health Care and Good Jobs First.

These are the kinds of groups and causes I support – not because any of them have "bought" support, but because these are the kinds of organizations that are truly fighting for the public interest, the kinds of organizations and causes that the Green Party is fighting for in the electoral arena.

Please help support our fight to restore government of, by, and for the people.

Please help us make political history in Illinois.

Remember, because the Green Party does not accept corporate contributions, donations from civic-minded concerned citizens like you are crucial. You can donate online through this site, via PayPal, or you can send your donation to "Whitney for Governor," at P.O. Box 3803, Carbondale, IL 62902. Illinois law requires you to include your full name and mailing address with any donations over $20, and, for donations over $500, you must also list your occupation and employer. Whatever donation you can make today will be greatly appreciated.


Sincerely,

Rich Whitney

Green Party Candidate for Governor of Illinois