Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

Expand Messages
  • Tyra Rankin
    Just plain weird. Tyra _____ From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:24 PM To:
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Just plain weird.

      Tyra

       


      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
      Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:24 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

       

       

      Back when I was doing .mil contracts, I realized what a bizarre world it was when I read the requests for "Environmentally Friendly Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile Fuel."

        



      --- On Fri, 6/8/12, kevin conlin <kevin@...> wrote:


      From: kevin conlin <kevin@...>
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 12:57 PM

       

      In the context of saving lives, you could argue that domestic bio-fuels don’t require an armada of ships to protect them, like our current sources in the Middle East do.

       

      Kevin Conlin

      Heliosolar Design Inc

      PO Box 1938

      Alief, TX 77411

      281-202-9629

      kevin@...

       

       

       

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
      Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:43 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

       

       

      I’m sorry, but am I the only one who sees irony and humor in this quote?

      “It is outrageous that Republicans are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives…”

      (I’ve been working under the delusion that the military tries to take lives!)


      Robert

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Parrott
      Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:44 AM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

       

       

      By Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
      June 6, 2012 | 7 Comments

       

      New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- As a proposed ban on military investment and use of biofuels inches closer to fruition in Washington , several groups are speaking out against the bill.

      Pentagon Budget Bill, H.R. 4310, which recently passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee with a 13-12 vote and the House with a 299-120 vote, blocks the military from purchasing and investing in biofuels if they are more expensive than fossil fuels. The bill also exempts previous restrictions on liquid alternative fuels derived from coal and natural gas, which emit more carbon than traditional fossil fuels.

      A coalition of 13 aviation groups have banded together to protest the decision, claiming in a letter to the Senate Committee that the bill would severely damage the advancement of the biofuels industry and hinder American energy independence. The coalition also argued that further investment in bioenergy will help reach their fuel efficiency and carbon emissions targets, which include a lofty goal of a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 from 2005 targets.

      “We believe the ongoing military and civil aviation efforts must be continued and we strongly advocate that you prioritize and fund investment in aviation biofuels in what we all acknowledge is a difficult fiscal environment. Ultimately, we are convinced that this is an investment that will pay off by saving taxpayers millions through achieving energy security and independence.”

      Liberal-activist group CREDO Action has also started a petition addressed to Republican Senators and Representatives to stop the bill from moving forward.

      “It is outrageous that Republicans are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives and save money. Stop protecting Big Oil's profits at the expense of our troops and our national security,” the petition reads. “Republicans love to talk about ‘supporting the troops.’ We need to remind them that that should mean our soldiers in harm's way, not oil industry lobbyists.”

      U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed his disbelief and frustration with the Committee’s decision during a conference call last week.

      “It's beyond me why we wouldn't help this industry that will create higher farm income, more jobs in rural America, reduce the costs for consumers, satisfy commercial airlines ... and make our military less reliant on a foreign supply of energy,” said Vilsack. “It is just astounding that people don't understand that."

      Vislack explained that the future of the biofuels industry is closely tied with the military, especially the Navy, and investments today will help bring down costs in the future – and costs have already come down. The Navy purchased biofuels in October 2010 at $424 per gallon, but paid $26.67 per gallon in December 2011, which will be demonstrated in a 50/50 blend of biofuel and petroleum that costs $15 per gallon during this month’s Rim of the Pacific Exercise in Hawaii . Though the industry is still very much in the research and development phase, prices cannot drop without continued support.

      Said Vilsack, “Government has a role to work in partnership with the private sector to provide incentives, to provide the right tax policy, to provide assistance to get these industries up and going.”

      Ralph Parrott

      President

      cid:image005.jpg@01CCCB84.4804D6A0

      http://www.txses.org/hreg

       

      IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

       

       

    • kevin conlin
      Hard to beat that oxymoron! Kevin Conlin Heliosolar Design Inc PO Box 1938 Alief, TX 77411 281-202-9629 kevin@heliosolardesign.com From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        Hard to beat that oxymoron!

         

        Kevin Conlin

        Heliosolar Design Inc

        PO Box 1938

        Alief, TX 77411

        281-202-9629

        kevin@...

         

         

         

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
        Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:24 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

         

         

        Back when I was doing .mil contracts, I realized what a bizarre world it was when I read the requests for "Environmentally Friendly Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile Fuel."

          



        --- On Fri, 6/8/12, kevin conlin <kevin@...> wrote:


        From: kevin conlin <kevin@...>
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 12:57 PM

         

        In the context of saving lives, you could argue that domestic bio-fuels don’t require an armada of ships to protect them, like our current sources in the Middle East do.

         

        Kevin Conlin

        Heliosolar Design Inc

        PO Box 1938

        Alief, TX 77411

        281-202-9629

        kevin@...

         

         

         

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
        Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:43 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

         

         

        I’m sorry, but am I the only one who sees irony and humor in this quote?

        “It is outrageous that Republicans are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives…”

        (I’ve been working under the delusion that the military tries to take lives!)


        Robert

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Parrott
        Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:44 AM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

         

         

        By Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
        June 6, 2012 | 7 Comments

         

        New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- As a proposed ban on military investment and use of biofuels inches closer to fruition in Washington, several groups are speaking out against the bill.

        Pentagon Budget Bill, H.R. 4310, which recently passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee with a 13-12 vote and the House with a 299-120 vote, blocks the military from purchasing and investing in biofuels if they are more expensive than fossil fuels. The bill also exempts previous restrictions on liquid alternative fuels derived from coal and natural gas, which emit more carbon than traditional fossil fuels.

        A coalition of 13 aviation groups have banded together to protest the decision, claiming in a letter to the Senate Committee that the bill would severely damage the advancement of the biofuels industry and hinder American energy independence. The coalition also argued that further investment in bioenergy will help reach their fuel efficiency and carbon emissions targets, which include a lofty goal of a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 from 2005 targets.

        “We believe the ongoing military and civil aviation efforts must be continued and we strongly advocate that you prioritize and fund investment in aviation biofuels in what we all acknowledge is a difficult fiscal environment. Ultimately, we are convinced that this is an investment that will pay off by saving taxpayers millions through achieving energy security and independence.”

        Liberal-activist group CREDO Action has also started a petition addressed to Republican Senators and Representatives to stop the bill from moving forward.

        “It is outrageous that Republicans are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives and save money. Stop protecting Big Oil's profits at the expense of our troops and our national security,” the petition reads. “Republicans love to talk about ‘supporting the troops.’ We need to remind them that that should mean our soldiers in harm's way, not oil industry lobbyists.”

        U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed his disbelief and frustration with the Committee’s decision during a conference call last week.

        “It's beyond me why we wouldn't help this industry that will create higher farm income, more jobs in rural America, reduce the costs for consumers, satisfy commercial airlines ... and make our military less reliant on a foreign supply of energy,” said Vilsack. “It is just astounding that people don't understand that."

        Vislack explained that the future of the biofuels industry is closely tied with the military, especially the Navy, and investments today will help bring down costs in the future – and costs have already come down. The Navy purchased biofuels in October 2010 at $424 per gallon, but paid $26.67 per gallon in December 2011, which will be demonstrated in a 50/50 blend of biofuel and petroleum that costs $15 per gallon during this month’s Rim of the Pacific Exercise in Hawaii. Though the industry is still very much in the research and development phase, prices cannot drop without continued support.

        Said Vilsack, “Government has a role to work in partnership with the private sector to provide incentives, to provide the right tax policy, to provide assistance to get these industries up and going.”

        Ralph Parrott

        President

        cid:image005.jpg@01CCCB84.4804D6A0

        http://www.txses.org/hreg

         

        IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

         

         

      • Philip Timmons
        It was because they have already poisoned the drinking water. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102352.html  Our Cold
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          It was because they have already poisoned the drinking water.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102352.html 

          Our Cold Warriors -- Keeping US Safe . . . from all their fears.







          --- On Fri, 6/8/12, kevin conlin <kevin@...> wrote:

          From: kevin conlin <kevin@...>
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 3:05 PM

           

          Hard to beat that oxymoron!

           

          Kevin Conlin

          Heliosolar Design Inc

          PO Box 1938

          Alief, TX 77411

          281-202-9629

          kevin@...

           

           

           

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
          Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:24 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

           

           

          Back when I was doing .mil contracts, I realized what a bizarre world it was when I read the requests for "Environmentally Friendly Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile Fuel."

            



          --- On Fri, 6/8/12, kevin conlin <kevin@...> wrote:


          From: kevin conlin <kevin@...>
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 12:57 PM

           

          In the context of saving lives, you could argue that domestic bio-fuels don’t require an armada of ships to protect them, like our current sources in the Middle East do.

           

          Kevin Conlin

          Heliosolar Design Inc

          PO Box 1938

          Alief, TX 77411

          281-202-9629

          kevin@...

           

           

           

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
          Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:43 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

           

           

          I’m sorry, but am I the only one who sees irony and humor in this quote?

          “It is outrageous that Republicans are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives…”

          (I’ve been working under the delusion that the military tries to take lives!)


          Robert

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Parrott
          Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:44 AM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hreg] Military Biofuels Ban Moves Forward, Ignites Criticism, Backlash

           

           

          By Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
          June 6, 2012 | 7 Comments

           

          New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- As a proposed ban on military investment and use of biofuels inches closer to fruition in Washington, several groups are speaking out against the bill.

          Pentagon Budget Bill, H.R. 4310, which recently passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee with a 13-12 vote and the House with a 299-120 vote, blocks the military from purchasing and investing in biofuels if they are more expensive than fossil fuels. The bill also exempts previous restrictions on liquid alternative fuels derived from coal and natural gas, which emit more carbon than traditional fossil fuels.

          A coalition of 13 aviation groups have banded together to protest the decision, claiming in a letter to the Senate Committee that the bill would severely damage the advancement of the biofuels industry and hinder American energy independence. The coalition also argued that further investment in bioenergy will help reach their fuel efficiency and carbon emissions targets, which include a lofty goal of a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 from 2005 targets.

          “We believe the ongoing military and civil aviation efforts must be continued and we strongly advocate that you prioritize and fund investment in aviation biofuels in what we all acknowledge is a difficult fiscal environment. Ultimately, we are convinced that this is an investment that will pay off by saving taxpayers millions through achieving energy security and independence.”

          Liberal-activist group CREDO Action has also started a petition addressed to Republican Senators and Representatives to stop the bill from moving forward.

          “It is outrageous that Republicans are working to block the military from developing biofuels that will save lives and save money. Stop protecting Big Oil's profits at the expense of our troops and our national security,” the petition reads. “Republicans love to talk about ‘supporting the troops.’ We need to remind them that that should mean our soldiers in harm's way, not oil industry lobbyists.”

          U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed his disbelief and frustration with the Committee’s decision during a conference call last week.

          “It's beyond me why we wouldn't help this industry that will create higher farm income, more jobs in rural America, reduce the costs for consumers, satisfy commercial airlines ... and make our military less reliant on a foreign supply of energy,” said Vilsack. “It is just astounding that people don't understand that."

          Vislack explained that the future of the biofuels industry is closely tied with the military, especially the Navy, and investments today will help bring down costs in the future – and costs have already come down. The Navy purchased biofuels in October 2010 at $424 per gallon, but paid $26.67 per gallon in December 2011, which will be demonstrated in a 50/50 blend of biofuel and petroleum that costs $15 per gallon during this month’s Rim of the Pacific Exercise in Hawaii. Though the industry is still very much in the research and development phase, prices cannot drop without continued support.

          Said Vilsack, “Government has a role to work in partnership with the private sector to provide incentives, to provide the right tax policy, to provide assistance to get these industries up and going.”

          Ralph Parrott

          President

          cid:image005.jpg@01CCCB84.4804D6A0

          http://www.txses.org/hreg

           

          IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

           

           

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.