Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
United on Climate Change? Obama's Chinese Revolution
Barack Obama is to invite China to join the United States in an effort by the world's two biggest polluters to stop global warming running out of control.
Metal fatigue Capital Iron and Steel on the outskirts of Beijing is one of the country's biggest polluters. (EPA) Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, is to raise the prospect of a "strong, constructive partnership" to combat climate change on a visit to Beijing next week, and the President is seriously considering a proposal from many of his most senior advisers to hold a summit with the Chinese leadership to launch the plan.
Last week, China's ambassador to the US, Zhou Wenzhong, made it clear that his government would welcome "co-operation on energy and climate change" with the US. Such unprecedented teamwork would transform the world's prospects for agreeing radical measures to combat global warming, and - senior Obama administration officials believe - lay the foundation of a new relationship between the two most powerful countries in the world.
For years, progress towards negotiating a new international climate change treaty has been bedevilled by the two superpowers, each refusing to commit itself to action unless the other goes first, and mutual suspicion has been growing. Between them, the US and China produce over 40 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide. About two years ago, China overtook the world's largest economy as the planet's biggest polluter. But Americans still emit more than four times as much of the gas per person as their Chinese counterparts.
Neither country has to reduce its emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. China, like other developing countries, is excused the reduction targets placed on industrialised nations. Former president George Bush rejected the treaty partly because of China's exemption.
The stand-off has dogged negotiations on a new, much tougher treaty as the US has been unwilling to agree to any targets until China commits itself to act on its emissions. China, for its part, has insisted the US act first as it has made a far greater contribution to the crisis, spewing out more than three times as much carbon dioxide over the past two centuries.
The arrival of President Obama - and increasing concern about climate change within the Chinese leadership - has provided an unprecedented opportunity to break the deadlock.
Both the President and Mrs Clinton have made it clear that combating climate change is among their highest priorities, and top Chinese officials are now indicating that their government is ready to work with them. Both countries have included "Green New Deal" measures, amounting to scores of billions of dollars, in their stimulus packages.
Mrs Clinton will visit Beijing for two days on 20 February, on her first overseas tour as Secretary of State, with the climate and financial crises at the top of her agenda.
Todd Stern, her special envoy for climate change, said last week; "Secretary Clinton is keenly aware that the United States, as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, and China, as the largest emitter going forward, need to develop a strong, constructive partnership to build the kind of clean energy economies that will allow us to put the brakes on global climate change. We need to put finger-pointing aside and focus on how our two leading nations can work together productively to solve the problem."
The Chinese ambassador to the US sounded much the same note and appealed to American commercial self-interest in helping his country tackle global warming. "Co-operation between our two countries on energy and environmental issues will enable China to respond to energy and climate change issues more effectively, while at the same time offering enormous business opportunities and considerable return to American investors," he said.
He was speaking at the Brookings Institution launch of one of two important reports on the prospects of a US-China partnership on climate and clean energy - published on Thursday by experts with enormous influence in the new White House - which both called on Mr Obama to hold a summit with the Chinese leadership on the issue.
The Brookings report is written by two of its fellows, David Sandalow and Professor Kenneth Lieberthal, who both worked in the Clinton White House and have been tipped for senior posts in the new administration.
The second report, published by the Asia Society and the Pew Foundation, has an even more impressive pedigree. It was produced by a committee chaired by Steven Chu, the new US Energy Secretary, and John Thornton, tipped as the new ambassador to China, and carries a forward by Richard Holbrooke, appointed as the President's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has contributions from Mr Stern and Professor John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser.
- Posted in
72 Comments so far
Show AllIt strikes me as a marketing schema rather than authentically addressing issues of the climate. Obama's current plan calls for doubling sustainable energy sources. But what he ignores to tell the American people is that sustainable energy currently represents 3.8% of the energy grid. Coal which Obama is married to represents 50% of the consumptive energy grid and coal is the most egregious source of dirty energy on the planet despite the recent marketing campaign of misdirection, obfuscation, and lies. I put this news in the same category: environmentalists call it "green washing."
"Co-operation between our two countries on energy and environmental issues will enable China to respond to energy and climate change issues more effectively, while at the same time offering enormous business opportunities and considerable return to American investors,"......
And "considerable" return to American investors!
I have no doubt that these negotiations will prove to be beneficial to the top 1% income brackets in both countries. Will the slave-wages of the working class in China be reduced even more to satisfy the greedy super-wealthy while energy and environmental issues are finally being addressed?
Problem is environmental issues are not being addressed. If you believe otherwise, my suggestion is to replay films like the Wizard of Oz.
If one tracks the history of new technologies one might discover that, in addition to Gail's 1%'er benefits cited so pessimistically above, there has been a tradition of great new wealth and many, many new jobs created.
If we allow ourselves to be critical of everything, even prior to anything concrete being accomplished, we run the grave risk of being ignored, becoming irrelevant. Certainly the facts bear out the comments of 'elohim' in that the new technologies being discussed will, in the beginning certainly, replace only a negligible number of coal fired energy plants. But then the new automobiles coming off Henry's assembly line replaced only a negligible number of horse and buggies too.
Any agreement with China on this matter is a 100% improvement over the actions of the previous administration and is a step forward, however small that step might look when compared with the journey.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Red Rick
"Any agreement with China on this matter is a 100% improvement over the actions of the previous administration and is a step forward, however small that step might look when compared with the journey."
True, however I would point out that enviornmental issues are a luxury of wealthy nations and I doubt the willingness of emerging economies to give it much more than lip service.
In fact in the absence of scientific proof of one sides view or the other, how do we know where to concentrate our efforts?
Rick, I can certainly appreciate your brave and optimistic call for incremental change; but ignoring the downside is putting one's head in the sand and often referred to in psychological language as "denial." Every authentic environmental voice I know of is speaking with a unified voice telling us the we are at the tipping point of no return. Incremental steps is akin to a fantasy world. Incremental steps will not stop the bus from falling over the precipice. Nor will rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic prevent it from sinking.
But, as sincere and you are, and as convinced as we both are that we face imminent and serious environmental problems, something is better than nothing. I do not suggest that we "put our heads in the sand", nor do I advocate condemning out of hand any progress we can achieve, regardless of how small it may be.
With some sort of framework in place already, perhaps once the environmental collapse has advanced enough to make itself aware even to the most skeptical, we can be a bit more prepared than we are today. I believe we must continue to shout into the darkness about this issue but I also think kudos help occasionally too....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Fair comment.
Red Rick, nothing is better than something when it comes to elite rule. Elite rule is not good for us, not good for the biosphere. The Demoks' little "something" for the biosphere is of course too little too late. What it does accomplish is to further divide the people between those who stand firmly by their principles and those willing to triangulate with the criminal extreme. I suggest those tired of the failure of triangulation join the principled left on high ground, out of the swamp. Up here we are demanding unconditional surrender from the elites, the class war aggressors, perpetrators of genocide, terrorism, plunder and destruction, violators of oaths, charters, laws of the land. The Demok chimps, including O'Bama and Clintok, enabled it all with blank checks for eight years with the goal to take power- a loser's ambition. This is a new day. The people no longer support elites.
I have always stood by the principle that actions beat speeches. What you suggest doesn't get one nail into an edifice. Making demands, however principled, gains you nothing but a further polarized nation. You rhetoric may have the truth on its side, I am in agreement with your assessment in fact, but I am looking for real progress not principled stances that make no such forward momentum.
I might add that your call from the high ground sounds more than a bit like,"if you wont play by my rules Im taking my ball and going home". Im sticking around and screw the rules....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
That is the problem, we really don't know where to concentrate our efforts. And with the uncertainty of climate science, let's do the prudent thing. It is called CONSERVATION.
The economic downturn will do more to boost conservation than any mandate from government. Just like fossil fuels, people's money is finite. When you turn down the thermostat in winter 4 degrees you save lots of money, plus save lots of fuel. When you have the a/c set at 78 in the summer, you save lots of money and lots of fossil fuels.
Same with transportation. Conservation is the key word. Takes allllll of the arguements of competing science out of the equation does it not?
Fair comment.
As an example:
IF you are not sitting at your computer, do you turn it off? I know, it doesn't sound like much, but if EVERYONE turned off their computers when not sitting there, think of the megawatts of energy not used.
As my Grandpa used to say, watch the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves. There is a direct corelation with that thought with energy.
Do you turn it off every time you leave? Does every minute make a difference, or is there a lot of energy required for start-up, perhaps more than would justify turning it off if away from the PC a fairly short time. Hmmm... would like to know.
Yes, I turn it off. I've also turned the heat down. I recycle everything that is recyleable (and maybe a few things that aren't just to be sure). I carry canvas bags to the grocery. One of them is from the NRDC and is labelled "Keep the Arctic Wild and Free". I don't use chemical cleaners in the house. If my yard is weedy, it is because I won't use chemical pesticides, etc. I eat organic as much as possible and have become a semi-vegetarian.
Although I'm retired and without much money, I sent some to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Organic Consumers Assn, and to my state environmental council.
You rock :-). I do much the same, minus the chemical cleaners since I'm renting a room in this house, it's not mine. I don't eat organic too much, but there are somethings I will only buy organic, such as lettuce for salads, since the organic kinds I buy seem to last for well over a week instead of the crappy Dole or whatever kind that goes bad, unopened, 2 says after bought. I donated some money to Environment Florida and Link TV last year and will restart my contributions once I finish this internship and start a real job.
Get your produce fresh picked, e.g. at farmers markets, and it lasts a week. "Supermarket" produce has been sitting in warehouses, trucks, shelves for a week so it doesn't last after that. This suits the "superinvestor" just fine - you have to buy more sooner.
The fresh-picked farmer's market produce has plenty more benefits. Among other things, it's much more nutritious when it's fresh-picked because it loses nutrition rapidly over time after it's picked. Also, fresh-picked means that fruit has to ripen on the vine instead of after it's picked, providing another big boost in nutrition/taste. Also, fresh-picking means they can offer heirloom varieties for even better nutrition/taste. But some farmers' market produce may be "supermarket" produce. So you have to ask when it was picked, and ask about the variety. Research varieties and demand the non-commercial heirlooms.
Currently my screen goes dark after 3 minutes, and my computer drops into hibernate mode after 10 minutes. I can't remember to shut off, I'm too distracted, so the computer remembers for me.
Windows users can set their own options in the control panel under "power options" (classic view).
Have you noticed how this Common Dreams "alternative" news source all the sudden has very little negative to say about politics in the US? Has so much already changed? Is it really going to?
Obama gets attention for going to China, seems like such a positive thing, like he really wants to help make this world a better place...
HOWEVER, he also apparently has plans for MORE WAR, now the focus away from Iraq, and back on Afghanistan. He told everybody before he was even voted into office (but had safely taken the Dem. vote) that he was going to divert troops from Iraq and into Afghanistan. Somehow, this was OK with a lot of voters, and though so many claimed they were so sick of war, they voted a man into office, on the premise he was somehow the answer for all our country's woes, knowing full well (but maybe more like refusing to believe it) that he was not the answer for Peace. Not at all.
Yes, they could have voted for Nader.
Instead, we have now have a president whom apparently will in fact NOT lead us in to a beautiful, new, peaceful era. And a VP in cahoots with the credit card industry (any plans for a much-needed overhaul there?). It won't be long before the mass hallucination erodes, one of a saviour for the USA, and a leader for world Peace. Let's hope the rose-colored bell jar is soon lifted from this country's collective awareness, because many innocent victims in the line of fire will surely suffer if we all don't take a stand NOW against more war.
Let Obama know- MORE WAR IS UNACCEPTABLE. If he is so in tune with the People, he will act accordingly. Write or call him now, and should you happen to see him in public SHOUT, "NO MORE WAR". He needs to hear us, needs to know how we feel.
"Let Obama know- MORE WAR IS UNACCEPTABLE. If he is so in tune with the People, he will act accordingly."
From a 2008 Jul 25-27 Gallup poll:
Would you favor or oppose sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist operations in that country?
Favor 59%
Oppose 38%
No opinion 3%
Yes, I have noticed what you mention. The same with Alternet, and others. As time goes on it is becoming increasingly clear there will not be any meaningful change. The only change we'll be getting is in the marketing message from a government now indistinguishable from the corporate world. Hidden within this story is the con job on biofuels from biomass produced from our forests.
Take the throwaway line, "The second report, published by the Asia Society and the Pew Foundation, has an even more impressive pedigree. It was produced by a committee chaired by Steven Chu, the new US Energy Secretary ..."
Chu (DOE), has been working on biomass projects and programs funded by DOE, which has been focused on the disaster of corn ethanol and now is in a full court press to shift into the next environmental/social catastrophe: lignocellulosic ethanol from our national forests into wood chips. Simple, only one problem, the forests also happen to serve other necessary functions, and will cease those functions so we can keep driving our shiny metal boxes to work.
Vilsack (USDA),"... is keenly aware of the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, and the role that science and
innovation can play in helping farmers grow more food in a more environmentally friendly manner," the Biotechnology
Industry Organization stated. "He is a strong proponent of ethanol production, and we are confident he will work to further
diversify our nation's biofuels supply" (Biomass Magazine)
Salazar (DOI) "He has supported the creation of a clean and renewable energy economy, having successfully
pushed for the passage of the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, and the
introduction of a tax measure to support cellulosic biofuel producers." (Biomass Magazine)
Anybody have a problem with the same Wall Street-insiders who created our collapse being tapped to "fix it"?
I could go down a long list, but won't.
We have been conned, yet again, the important difference being -- this here's "Last Chance Texaco" for climate change and there is no indication Obama's picks aren't going to propel the planet to its demise in the desert of capitalism.
Hate to say this but bio fuels are just as harmful to the climate as are fossil fuels. Moreover, as more land transitions away from food crops to bio fuel crops, food prices will soar and world wide starvation increase. Obama pays lip service to the problem while not understanding the solution.
Thats the truth. You may have hated to say it, but at least you did.
Start up energy on a pc is about the same as a running pc. The blower motor will draw an increase in amps for approx .2 seconds as it starts. Otherwise, power usage will be flat.
So if you are away from your puter for more than 10 mins, turn it off.
And if you are asleep, turn it off. Sure, doesn't sound like much, but collectively, it is megawatts. A no brainer.
Thanks!
Yeah, and if you're on a laptop you can also select an option for it to use less energy, and it'll run perfectly fine until you have to run video or a new computer game. Same goes for turning off lights when not needed, or in some cases, unscrewing several bulbs from those multi-bulb ceiling fan/lights...hell you only need one, not four.
Thank you President Obama. Please stay away from cancer forever and atom bomb producing, uninsurable, hugely expensive nuke plant terrorist targets and push for geothermal, a non-polluting, widely available, relatively inexpensive, permanent and inexhaustible source of all the energy we can use, as well as other green energy alternatives. Also push for decentralized home co-generation. You did good. Keep it up.
ezeflyer:
Would you be so kind as to post the costs of geo-thermal electric generation?
How much does geothermal energy cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh)?
Answer: At The Geysers, power is sold at $0.03 to $0.035 per kWh. A power plant built today would probably require about $0.05 per kWh. Some plants can charge more during peak demand periods.
What does it cost to develop a geothermal power plant?
Answer: Costs of a geothermal plant are heavily weighted toward early expenses, rather than fuel to keep them running. Well drilling and pipeline construction occur first, followed by resource analysis of the drilling information. Next is design of the actual plant. Power plant construction is usually completed concurrent with final field development. The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S., probably $3000 to $5000/kWe for a small (<1Mwe) power plant. Operating and maintenance costs range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can run at greater than 90% availability (i.e., producing more than 90% of the time), but running at 97% or 98% can increase maintenance costs. Higher-priced electricity justifies running the plant 98% of the time because the resulting higher maintenance costs are recovered.
more at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html
Interesting, thanks.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf
A part in climate change.
Sustainable technologies were discovered over 100 years ago that had the inventor, Nikola Tesla (inventor A/C power transmission; designed Niagra Falls generating station), not been blacklisted by the movers-shakers- the "robber barons- of his time (JP Morgan, to be specific) not only would our great-grandparents quite likely could have had computer technologies back then, we also would not have the degree of pollution and environmental degradation we have today (his technology used electro-magnetic energy from the atmosphere/Earth, was CLEAN, and could have been basically FREE, needing very cheap, easy to install equipment; Telsa had a vision of lifting the burden of poverty from mankind, with free energy).
Like Tesla, there are starving sustainable energy scientists out there today, folks. Look 'em up online. They have the technology, all they lack is the funding, because, as JP Morgan snarled at Nikola Tesla 100 years ago, "Where's the money in THAT"? (and just before withdrawing more financial support for Tesla's research, the edifice of his barely-used laboratory a neglected, still-standing testament to this totally under-discussed, historic event).
In truth, there is money to be made with sustainable development, as author, Paul Polack has proven. Polack has helped 17 million out of poverty because the investors he encouraged were willing to help develop the technologies needed- and these companies still made LOTS of $$$. Problem is, those "robber barons" (of then and now), whom basically run this world through their financial scheming/control, don't want just some of the money, they want ALL the money, and FOREVER (which is why the Oil Machine rolls one, to the destruction of our poor, old Planet Earth, even though many have been freaking out about this fact for DECADES).
FYI: did you know that vehicles made with these technologies will not wear out like the ones we now use? That's right- they will last a LONG time- you night never have to buy more than one car your entire life! Same old reason the Money People don't really want to let us have sustainable technologies: There's just "no" money in it, which is why people still have to replace their high-maintenance, gas-driven car every so many years with another one with the same basic technology as cars have had for like, FOREVER...
Tesla --- Started tower in Long Island to pull electricity out of atmosphere. Had a car that ran on some unknown power involving adjusting rods. And had a pocket sized metronome like device that caused a mini-earthquake when placed on a large buildings steel support.
Environmentalism is no longer a spectator sport people. And deferring to Obama as savior, a prescription for extinction.
My electric motor scooters are from China - which I understand can be commonly seen in Chinese cities. I recently upgraded them to battery pack using "Thundersky" lithium iron phosphate cells, greatly increasing the range per charge and battery pack life. The batteries are also exclusively from China. Nothing like them is available from US companies - unless I order a few million of them.
---USAn---
"The batteries are also exclusively from China. Nothing like them is available from US companies - unless I order a few million of them."
Then I hope you will join me in asking for fair and equitable trade policies and changing our tax laws to favor American manufacturing.
The reason these batteries aren't available from US manufacturers has nothing to do with trade policies or taxes - it has to do with corporate power-grabbing - particularly with respect to patent law. A corporation in Canada - Phostech Lithium, has taken complete control of the manufacture of LiFePO4 cells through legal patent law tricks. They weren't the inventor, but by buying out the inventor and preparing incredibly broadly worded patent descriptions, which the corporate-shill filled US Patent Office approved, they have developing complete control over this important green technology. They hope to sit on the patent until they can get massive multi-billion license agreements from the major car manufacturers.
Similar tricks were done with Nickel-Metal hydride battery technology - the patent was bought up by Cobasys Corp. - a division of Chevron-Texaco, and they have been refusing to license the manufacture of cells larger than AA size (NiMH "D" cells are actually just AA cells in a fake larger case). This is why GM so frantically ordered the seizure and crushing of all their NiMH powered EV-1 electric cars - they were afraid of getting sued. (see the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car")
And, at any rate, even if the these companies (who don't actually manufacture anything - they just employ lawyers to buy, sell and write patents) did broaden their licensing it is doubtful that they would sell any kind of battery to individual garage-inventor schmucks like me. Before facing lawsuits from Phostech, Valence Technologies was making a LiFePO4 battery in standard 12-volt lead acid battery sizes, but I had to be a corporation for them to even considering returning phone calls or e-mails.
Thankfully, Chinese manufacturers don't worry about US patent law so much, so they continue to make LiFePO4 cells and they are available through several dealers to small users like me. US corporation have no interest in this market - or consider us homebuilders a threat. The only suitable batteries for my application come from these potential patent-cheaters, so I hope they continue to cheat away.
"Intellectual Property" holders and their lawyers are the biggest enemies of a lot of green technology right now.
---USAn---
The things I learn here! Thanks. In actuallity, I believe there are plenty of things we can import rather than manufacture here for various reasons. Aside from which, you can't have trasde if there aren't at least two people involved.
I'm sure that you support my interest in reindiustrializing our country though.
You are a homebuilder? I hope you aren't in the California or Florida markets.
I meant people who invent and build things at home. There is a whole small cottage industry around supplying the components to convert cars and motorcycles to electric power. Building electric power-assist bicycles are especially popular.
---USAn---
Gotcha...thanks.
I used to have an electric power-assist bicycle, from Tidalforce I believe. Wasn't nearly as good or lasting as we had been told...but once we had the electronics stripped from the bike, it was a beautifully balanced bike, even after it had been modified to support my weight.
This thread being about the environment let's also point out that stuff made in China is a lot cheaper as they do not have have to comply with the stringent environmental laws in the US.
Let's just look the the lead in child's toys stories from not too long ago. Do you really think that law exists in China?
The QA process is probably minimal too.
I too ride a scooter. The first one I got was chinese made. Big mistake. Did about 1000mi on it and had nothing but problems. I am pretty handy at fxing stuff so it was more of hassle for me. I dumped it after that. Right now ride a Korean one. Have about 16,000mi on it. No issues whatsoever.
Is it electric?
I agree Chinese QC is terrible, but unless you shell out $11,000 for a Vectrix, there are no other alternatives for an affordable electric vehicles - 2 wheel or otherwise.
There is a larger LiFePO4 powered Chinese electric maxi-scooter being imported under several names (XM5000, RMartin among others) Owners so far have commented that it's fit, finish and performance are much improved over earlier Chinese stuff. But it still lacks a battery management system (BMS), without which it's expensive battery pack will likely fail prematurely. There is a good BMS kit available for those with a bit of electronic assembly skills, so at this point I would still only recommend it for someone mechanically and electronically inclined.
---USAn---
Nope. It's a gas powered 50cc. Got it for $2000 brand new. gets about 65mpg. I might be a right winger but at least i do my part for the environment.
I switched to low consumption fluorescent lights 5 years ago and my trash only contains maximum two small shopping bags at the end of the week.
I've heard lot of "progressives", including Gore, yakkig about saving the planet. I still have to see one of them on a scooter.
Regarding electric scooters or cars, I do not think any purely electric vehicle is ready for prime time yet. let's be realistic here, who is going to buy a vehicle that goes less than 100mi and then has to be recharged for a few hours.
Israel is overcoming that by setting up battery changing stations, much like gas stations...pull up, get your depleted battery swapped for a fresh one.
How far do you need to drive or ride? If you are riding or driving more than 100 mi a day, you are living in the wrong kind of community of making some rather high impact lifestyle choices.
Even with the current 35 mile range. My current scooters gets me to work and back up to 2 to three days on a charge, or it will take to several destinations within Pittsburgh and it's southern suburbs, and back, on a charge.
There is plenty of charging time at night and if needed, while at work. Occasionally, charging can be also done from various electric outlets found around town while doing erands or eating somewhere.
Overall, when the weather cooperates, the scooters are suitable for 95% of my transportaton needs.
The scooters get the economic and energy equivalent of about 400 miles per gallon. Assuming 50% coal generated power, it's the carbon emissions are about 160 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.
But with regard to purely electric cars, I agree they are limited by their high cost and the need for an IC car anyway for out of town trips. Many people may find it more practical to rent an IC car for these purposes.
Of course, better yet, it is a simple matter to design communities where we don't need cars at all. We can walk, or take a trolley or bus everywhere we need to go. Abolish suburbia!
---USAn---
I got about 12mi to work. Leisurely ride on surface streets.
Another reason i cannot use an electric scooter is that i have a heated jecket for the winter time when temps here might dip in the hi 30s lo 40s sometimes. jacket uses about 4 amps which also drains the battery on my gas scooter. I keep thinking to add a better alternator to it but I never have enough time.
Ugh, every new thing I learn about corporations makes them more and more disgusting.
They are becoming more and more popular for those who can afford them and have a place to plug them in.
Another interesting thing in China is that almost every motorbike, infact every bmotorbike I saw was only 125cc no matter how big and tough it looked . Most people though still take public transport, bike or feet. And though electric bikes clean the city air, they do not stop coal mines or uranium mines.
Ruth:
You sound like me. I have a monitor and old puter that will go to the recycle site next May. I refuse to put it in the landfill.
House is set at 68 in the winter, my wife has used the canvas bags longer than they have been available. I grow spuds, so I made a couple for her out of burlap. Got tired of the plastic bags all over.
I am a conservative. One of the old fashioned ones I guess.