Comments on: Your Thoughts on Our Transition Report http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/ The blog of the Environmental Defense action community Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:00:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Self Esteem http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-2/#comment-19614 Self Esteem Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:03:57 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-19614 Thank you so much, there aren't enough posts on this... keep up the good work Thank you so much, there aren't enough posts on this… keep up the good work

]]> By: IRA Rules http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-2/#comment-19608 IRA Rules Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:14:14 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-19608 Thank you so much, there aren't enough posts on this... or at least i cant find them. I am turning into such a blog nut, I just cant get enough and this is such an important topic... i'll be sure to write something about your site Thank you so much, there aren't enough posts on this… or at least i cant find them. I am turning into such a blog nut, I just cant get enough and this is such an important topic… i'll be sure to write something about your site

]]> By: Heather Shelby http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-5065 Heather Shelby Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:44:34 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-5065 Ann, I wanted to write back and include a few links that should give you a better idea of EDF's recent policy towards LFGTE solutions. First, here is a link to a press release about a law suit we filed a few months ago with the EPA, related to landfills and LFGTE. http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8714 If you have further questions about that release, there is a list of contacts. Also, here is the letter we sent the EPA announcing our intent to sue: http://www.edf.org/documents/8713_NOILandfillNSPSOct2008.pdf I hope this gives you a better idea about our recent actions to promote LFGTE. Heather Shelby Online Membership Associate Environmental Defense Fund Ann,

I wanted to write back and include a few links that should give you a better idea of EDF's recent policy towards LFGTE solutions.

First, here is a link to a press release about a law suit we filed a few months ago with the EPA, related to landfills and LFGTE. http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8714 If you have further questions about that release, there is a list of contacts.

Also, here is the letter we sent the EPA announcing our intent to sue: http://www.edf.org/documents/8713_NOILandfillNSPSOct2008.pdf

I hope this gives you a better idea about our recent actions to promote LFGTE.

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund

]]> By: Ann Schneider http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4918 Ann Schneider Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:48:27 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4918 Hi To All and specifically to Hawkeye and Dr. Singmaster Re: Pyrolysis and other Conversion Technologies and Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE), and pharmaceutical waste (Pharms). Sorry if I sound a bit like lecturing, please accept my apologies in advance. I am a zero waste, extended producer responsibility advocate. I’ve worked in the solid waste field a bit over 22 years. And I Chair the Sierra Club’s Zero Waste Committee. http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/garbage/ In a Zero Waste World producers are assigned responsibility for waste they generate from cradle to grave. When this happens they have to internalize the costs and that includes disposal whether that means landfilling, recycling/composting/reuse, or energy recovery. When they have to internalize the costs and figure out the way products/materials are handled at end of life, they will in time develop products that operate on a closed loop system (or as closed looped as possible). In time, less and less material is sent to disposal whether that is landfill or incinerators (or other conversion technology). We also accept that materials that enter the marketplace have embodied energy (energy used during extraction of raw materials, all levels of processing, all transportation and all assembly and sale). While any part of the waste stream can be used to recover energy, generally only the available BTUs of that material are recovered and almost all the embodied energy is lost. And new raw materials must be extracted and processed to replace the materials that are “converted using pyrolsis, plasma arc or old fashion burning”. That is one reason why those of us who have worked to create markets for recyclables are leery of getting energy from waste. And especially from mixed solid waste. There are others concerns like the fact that burn plants generally need a contracted waste stream with then locks out recycling options using a mechanism called “put or pay” contracts with waste generators (local governments for residents and businesses). They also usually require public financing. Another reason is extraction industries receive very large federal, state and often local subsidies for virgin materials and for landfilling and incineration operations. Recycling operators do not get these subsidies or if they do the subsidies are very small in comparison. If all subsidies are removed, leveling the playing field on conversion “burn” plants and landfills as well as virgin material extractors (like oil companies and metal miners) help the public see the true costs of these activities. In addition, it allows recyclables and composting operations to complete against them. All that said, given local conditions like air quality, local energy supply options, climate, recycling markets, there may be places where “source separated waste streams” may be potential sources for energy generation. Local examples might be restaurant cooking oil and grease traps that are trucked hundreds of miles a way vs. sending them to the local sewage plant where they can be, in a separate biodigester, turned into biodiesel. I say separate as if this material is mixed with sewage sludge, it will get all the chemicals that people flush down the toilet and sink including pharmaceuticals (ingested or poured down the sewer). Other possible source separated waste streams are clean wood waste, compostables (greenwaste, foodwaste and food contaminated paper) where energy can be recovered AND the end product is still useful as some kind of soil amendment. The key, the critical key, is source separation. Dr. Singmaster talks about pyrolysis for sewage sludge. My committee would agree completely that most sewage sludge is full of contaminants. We are discussing the possibility of recovering energy from sludge before the final residue is landfilled (not land applied). Here is a link to our ZW Policy and our Land Application of Sewage Sludge Guidance http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/policies/ As for collecting landfill gas to energy, the Sierra Club is in the draft stage of a policy on this issue but it is some months away before I can quote from it. It sounds like a great idea to collect methane from landfills. Most landfills are engineered to be “dry tombs” in other words, keep the water out. To maximize methane generation for energy, water needs to be added and most dry tomb landfills are not designed for that. Second, for anaerobic digestion to occur in landfills, oxygen needs to be absent. To create a vacuum to recover methane and other organic gases, pulls oxygen in, too much oxygen creates underground landfill fires. Garbage is not uniform, landfills will have leaks so we are working under a theory that as landfill piping systems are modified to collect methane for energy recovery, not flaring or on site co-generation, more leaks will be created in the landfill increasing the amount of methane leaking into the atmosphere. And since water was added the rate of methane generation has been increased by decades, so rather than slow methane leaks over 100 years, much greater concentrations of methane will leak over a much shorter time period. Sorry, I am still learning how to explain this simply. Soon we hope to role out information on this topic. The US EPA said they think man can recover up to 90% of methane from landfills. We believe that the figure will be more like 20% of methane can ever be recovered from landfills over real time, say 100 years. End result, moving quickly toward landfill collection of methane for energy COULD cause huge increases of fugitive anthropogenic methane at the very time we need to slow this source of greenhouse gases. Precautionary Principle would encourage all of us to move slowly on this. We advocate the removal of all compostable materials from landfills, and if energy recovery can happen at the same time as composting. Then for now that seems like a win for the planet. Far better to capture methane in an in-vessel anaerobic digestion composting system than to hope we can collect methane from a big hole in the ground or a pile in the sky. As for pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in our sewage system, we hope in time EPR mechanisms like making pharmaceutical companies take back expired medications, can help reduce the toxicity of sludge and water effluent. But it will take time and all of us working toward a goal of reducing the toxic materials we’ve come to expect are part of the products we buy. It is on my work plan to check with all the big national environmental groups like ED to see where they stand on garbage to energy whether in the form of LFGTE or other forms of conversion technology. And if they are trying to show a willingness to help the planet find energy solutions by being open to energy from waste, are they, and is ED, being specific about source separated waste streams. I hope Heather can respond. Respectfully, Ann Schneider Hi To All and specifically to Hawkeye and Dr. Singmaster

Re: Pyrolysis and other Conversion Technologies and Landfill Gas-to-Energy (LFGTE), and pharmaceutical waste (Pharms).

Sorry if I sound a bit like lecturing, please accept my apologies in advance. I am a zero waste, extended producer responsibility advocate. I’ve worked in the solid waste field a bit over 22 years. And I Chair the Sierra Club’s Zero Waste Committee. http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/garbage/

In a Zero Waste World producers are assigned responsibility for waste they generate from cradle to grave. When this happens they have to internalize the costs and that includes disposal whether that means landfilling, recycling/composting/reuse, or energy recovery. When they have to internalize the costs and figure out the way products/materials are handled at end of life, they will in time develop products that operate on a closed loop system (or as closed looped as possible). In time, less and less material is sent to disposal whether that is landfill or incinerators (or other conversion technology).

We also accept that materials that enter the marketplace have embodied energy (energy used during extraction of raw materials, all levels of processing, all transportation and all assembly and sale). While any part of the waste stream can be used to recover energy, generally only the available BTUs of that material are recovered and almost all the embodied energy is lost. And new raw materials must be extracted and processed to replace the materials that are “converted using pyrolsis, plasma arc or old fashion burning”. That is one reason why those of us who have worked to create markets for recyclables are leery of getting energy from waste. And especially from mixed solid waste. There are others concerns like the fact that burn plants generally need a contracted waste stream with then locks out recycling options using a mechanism called “put or pay” contracts with waste generators (local governments for residents and businesses). They also usually require public financing.

Another reason is extraction industries receive very large federal, state and often local subsidies for virgin materials and for landfilling and incineration operations. Recycling operators do not get these subsidies or if they do the subsidies are very small in comparison. If all subsidies are removed, leveling the playing field on conversion “burn” plants and landfills as well as virgin material extractors (like oil companies and metal miners) help the public see the true costs of these activities. In addition, it allows recyclables and composting operations to complete against them.

All that said, given local conditions like air quality, local energy supply options, climate, recycling markets, there may be places where “source separated waste streams” may be potential sources for energy generation. Local examples might be restaurant cooking oil and grease traps that are trucked hundreds of miles a way vs. sending them to the local sewage plant where they can be, in a separate biodigester, turned into biodiesel. I say separate as if this material is mixed with sewage sludge, it will get all the chemicals that people flush down the toilet and sink including pharmaceuticals (ingested or poured down the sewer). Other possible source separated waste streams are clean wood waste, compostables (greenwaste, foodwaste and food contaminated paper) where energy can be recovered AND the end product is still useful as some kind of soil amendment. The key, the critical key, is source separation.

Dr. Singmaster talks about pyrolysis for sewage sludge. My committee would agree completely that most sewage sludge is full of contaminants. We are discussing the possibility of recovering energy from sludge before the final residue is landfilled (not land applied). Here is a link to our ZW Policy and our Land Application of Sewage Sludge Guidance http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/policies/

As for collecting landfill gas to energy, the Sierra Club is in the draft stage of a policy on this issue but it is some months away before I can quote from it. It sounds like a great idea to collect methane from landfills. Most landfills are engineered to be “dry tombs” in other words, keep the water out. To maximize methane generation for energy, water needs to be added and most dry tomb landfills are not designed for that. Second, for anaerobic digestion to occur in landfills, oxygen needs to be absent. To create a vacuum to recover methane and other organic gases, pulls oxygen in, too much oxygen creates underground landfill fires. Garbage is not uniform, landfills will have leaks so we are working under a theory that as landfill piping systems are modified to collect methane for energy recovery, not flaring or on site co-generation, more leaks will be created in the landfill increasing the amount of methane leaking into the atmosphere. And since water was added the rate of methane generation has been increased by decades, so rather than slow methane leaks over 100 years, much greater concentrations of methane will leak over a much shorter time period. Sorry, I am still learning how to explain this simply. Soon we hope to role out information on this topic.

The US EPA said they think man can recover up to 90% of methane from landfills. We believe that the figure will be more like 20% of methane can ever be recovered from landfills over real time, say 100 years. End result, moving quickly toward landfill collection of methane for energy COULD cause huge increases of fugitive anthropogenic methane at the very time we need to slow this source of greenhouse gases. Precautionary Principle would encourage all of us to move slowly on this.

We advocate the removal of all compostable materials from landfills, and if energy recovery can happen at the same time as composting. Then for now that seems like a win for the planet. Far better to capture methane in an in-vessel anaerobic digestion composting system than to hope we can collect methane from a big hole in the ground or a pile in the sky.

As for pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in our sewage system, we hope in time EPR mechanisms like making pharmaceutical companies take back expired medications, can help reduce the toxicity of sludge and water effluent. But it will take time and all of us working toward a goal of reducing the toxic materials we’ve come to expect are part of the products we buy.

It is on my work plan to check with all the big national environmental groups like ED to see where they stand on garbage to energy whether in the form of LFGTE or other forms of conversion technology. And if they are trying to show a willingness to help the planet find energy solutions by being open to energy from waste, are they, and is ED, being specific about source separated waste streams. I hope Heather can respond.

Respectfully,

Ann Schneider

]]> By: The Quadfather http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4887 The Quadfather Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:22:06 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4887 I default to the fact that there is no golbal warming. It isn't happening. And the so called link to carbon dioxide has never been proven, in fact it has never even undergone scientific scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with change, but as witless Obama supporters don't understand, there are two kinds of change, there is good change and there is bad change. Forcing prices high just to affect change that otherwise wouldn't happen because the change is too expensive is bad change. If someone invents a car that's cheap and runs on cheap fuel that doesn't pollute and it's so competitive it forces other automakers to follow suit, just to compete, then that's a good change. This idea of getting rid of combustion is a bit rediculous. Just exactly do you propose to do that? Combustion is how the energy is released. Carbon dioxide is released, plants pick it up and turn it into oxygen. If you can do it, fine. Build the car that doesn't pollute. But until you do, don't blame me for wanting to drive a V8. And if I want to, I'll just take it on a cruise for absolutely no particular reason, just a joy ride. Because that is what freedom is about. That is my right. My vehicle, my fuel, my right. But the new administration isn't about freedom, they're about centralization and control. This I do not like. This is evil. I default to the fact that there is no golbal warming. It isn't happening. And the so called link to carbon dioxide has never been proven, in fact it has never even undergone scientific scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with change, but as witless Obama supporters don't understand, there are two kinds of change, there is good change and there is bad change. Forcing prices high just to affect change that otherwise wouldn't happen because the change is too expensive is bad change. If someone invents a car that's cheap and runs on cheap fuel that doesn't pollute and it's so competitive it forces other automakers to follow suit, just to compete, then that's a good change. This idea of getting rid of combustion is a bit rediculous. Just exactly do you propose to do that? Combustion is how the energy is released. Carbon dioxide is released, plants pick it up and turn it into oxygen. If you can do it, fine. Build the car that doesn't pollute. But until you do, don't blame me for wanting to drive a V8. And if I want to, I'll just take it on a cruise for absolutely no particular reason, just a joy ride. Because that is what freedom is about. That is my right. My vehicle, my fuel, my right. But the new administration isn't about freedom, they're about centralization and control. This I do not like. This is evil.

]]> By: neosapiens http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4872 neosapiens Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:33:15 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4872 It's true that addressing global warming will change the economic winners and losers, and people will have to change from jobs in dirty industries to jobs in clean ones. I'm deeply frustrated with the half-truths and distortions being promoted by far-right think-tanks and ossified business interests. Businesses have to change the way they operate all the time, and changing jobs and even changing careers is totally normal and to be expected in the modern world. The truth is that nimble and creative businesses will embrace new opportunities. To advocate doing nothing about global warming just because we're afraid of change is ridiculous! The claim that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will hurt the economy and destroy jobs is simply fearmongering. Done right, addressing global warming will renew our prosperity and enrich our quality of life. The real result of doing nothing will be economic collapse and vastly reduced quality of life and much shorter lifespans. We can't afford NOT to go green. It's true that addressing global warming will change the economic winners and losers, and people will have to change from jobs in dirty industries to jobs in clean ones. I'm deeply frustrated with the half-truths and distortions being promoted by far-right think-tanks and ossified business interests. Businesses have to change the way they operate all the time, and changing jobs and even changing careers is totally normal and to be expected in the modern world. The truth is that nimble and creative businesses will embrace new opportunities. To advocate doing nothing about global warming just because we're afraid of change is ridiculous! The claim that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will hurt the economy and destroy jobs is simply fearmongering. Done right, addressing global warming will renew our prosperity and enrich our quality of life. The real result of doing nothing will be economic collapse and vastly reduced quality of life and much shorter lifespans. We can't afford NOT to go green.

]]> By: Mark Holland http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4866 Mark Holland Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:19:37 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4866 Destroy fifty million jobs, create fifty - sounds good to me!!! Destroy fifty million jobs, create fifty – sounds good to me!!!

]]> By: Dr. J. Singmaster http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4861 Dr. J. Singmaster Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:25:12 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4861 Heather: Thank you for responding as I hope a real dialog can get started to shift ED thinking. In my first comment above I pointed out that EPA has a conference coming up on risks of drugs in drinking water, and now I ask you: do you like the idea of drugs in drinking water and don't you think that ED ought to be calling for action using the pyrolysis program that I outlined in my e-mail to you about the UGLY in water. The pyrolysis program applied to the ever-expanding massive messes of organic wastes and sewage would destroy germs, drugs and most toxics in them while converting 50% or more of the carbon to inert charcoal. That process would greatly reduce the chances for spreading of those mentioned hazards, and would greatly reduce the costs for new dumps free of the hazards. Also adding to the need for action on those messes is the NAS report calling for major steps to control pollution from storm drain discharges. Concerning hydrogen, adsorptive materials have been developed to take up many volumes of hydrogen. One is being used in some hydrogen driven Hondas that are being tested in S. California at several car rental operations. One scientist said that because of hydrogen's lightness, it would drift away from a leakage site and likely be less of an explosive hazard than with vehicles using heavier-than-air natural gas, of which many thousands are already on the road. I am not sure why you mentioned electrolysis process for hydrogen as I said six different catalyst have been reported all using sunlight energy to split water to get hydrogen, so no fuel is burned. Any biofuel concept with algae or trees simply does not face the basic biological fact that if you burn the fuel, you are recycling carbon dioxide without removing on balance one molecule of carbon dioxide from the 35% and growing overload of that gas. Planting anything in mass, such as trees being claimed to remove that gas by some groups, may remove a little extra carbon dioxide over a few years, but they slough off leaves, flowers, wind broken branches, and finally die and decay reemitting in time all trapped carbon. Bulk composting now being done is just a speeding up of the recycling and reemitting natural biodegrading process that could be stopped by using pyrolysis. I hope that I have gotten you concerned enough to get ED thinking on how to control more than just the global warming crisis as we have several others. The massive messes of organic wastes and sewage may soon be what starts taking people's lives and ruins our descendants' futures if we do not act now. Dr. James Singmaster Heather: Thank you for responding as I hope a real dialog can get started to shift ED thinking.
In my first comment above I pointed out that EPA has a conference coming up on risks of drugs in drinking water, and now I ask you: do you like the idea of drugs in drinking water and don't you think that ED ought to be calling for action using the pyrolysis program that I outlined in my e-mail to you about the UGLY in water. The pyrolysis program applied to the ever-expanding massive messes of organic wastes and sewage would destroy germs, drugs and most toxics in them while converting 50% or more of the carbon to inert charcoal. That process would greatly reduce the chances for spreading of those mentioned hazards, and would greatly reduce the costs for new dumps free of the hazards. Also adding to the need for action on those messes is the NAS report calling for major steps to control pollution from storm drain discharges.
Concerning hydrogen, adsorptive materials have been developed to take up many volumes of hydrogen. One is being used in some hydrogen driven Hondas that are being tested in S. California at several car rental operations. One scientist said that because of hydrogen's lightness, it would drift away from a leakage site and likely be less of an explosive hazard than with vehicles using heavier-than-air natural gas, of which many thousands are already on the road. I am not sure why you mentioned electrolysis process for hydrogen as I said six different catalyst have been reported all using sunlight energy to split water to get hydrogen, so no fuel is burned.
Any biofuel concept with algae or trees simply does not face the basic biological fact that if you burn the fuel, you are recycling carbon dioxide without removing on balance one molecule of carbon dioxide from the 35% and growing overload of that gas. Planting anything in mass, such as trees being claimed to remove that gas by some groups, may remove a little extra carbon dioxide over a few years, but they slough off leaves, flowers, wind broken branches, and finally die and decay reemitting in time all trapped carbon. Bulk composting now being done is just a speeding up of the recycling and reemitting natural biodegrading process that could be stopped by using pyrolysis.
I hope that I have gotten you concerned enough to get ED thinking on how to control more than just the global warming crisis as we have several others. The massive messes of organic wastes and sewage may soon be what starts taking people's lives and ruins our descendants' futures if we do not act now. Dr. James Singmaster

]]> By: maha http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4859 maha Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:36:46 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4859 good luck to win . i support president-elect obama.i think it is very important to establish strong all level green .ecosytm . global warming,pollotion eduction .escpecialy public program more than just televsion and internet.may be at the malls , groceries trains ,subways and parks good luck to win . i support president-elect obama.i think it is very important to establish strong all level green .ecosytm . global warming,pollotion eduction .escpecialy public program more than just televsion and internet.may be at the malls , groceries trains ,subways and parks

]]> By: Grace Mulei http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/comment-page-1/#comment-4858 Grace Mulei Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:27:27 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/greenroom/2008/11/18/your-thoughts-on-our-transition-report/#comment-4858 Dear Sam Parry, Thank you very much for Obama Global Warming Action Plan, for States America. The key factor is to rebuild economies through combat Global Warming Action Plan. The developing countries are greatly affected by climate change. Yet they emit only 7% of greenhouse gas, while the industrialized countries emit 93%. The effect of climate change include extreme and prolonged drought,severe winds, Tsunami, floods,and spread of avoidable deceases. We are proud of Obama conquest for we believe he is our son from Kenya.Africans rely on their sons in many aspects. We would wish for programs that work on the effects of global warming.They include environment conservation projects, campaigns, global warming advocacy, and green jobs creation for building economies. Thus contribute to the achievement of the MDGs. We can revert Relief Food Dependency to Foo Security and sustainability. All this starts in schools, that produce communities every year, without sustainable development. This needs a change. We can make this much required change. Grace. Dear Sam Parry,

Thank you very much for Obama Global Warming Action Plan, for States America.

The key factor is to rebuild economies through combat Global Warming Action Plan.

The developing countries are greatly affected by climate change. Yet they emit only 7% of greenhouse gas, while the industrialized countries emit 93%.

The effect of climate change include extreme and prolonged drought,severe winds, Tsunami, floods,and spread of avoidable deceases.

We are proud of Obama conquest for we believe he is our son from Kenya.Africans rely on their sons in many aspects.

We would wish for programs that work on the effects of global warming.They include environment conservation projects, campaigns, global warming advocacy, and green jobs creation for building economies. Thus contribute to the achievement of the MDGs.

We can revert Relief Food Dependency to Foo Security and sustainability. All this starts in schools, that produce communities every year, without sustainable development.

This needs a change. We can make this much required change.

Grace.

]]>