Earth Hour is a world-wide effort to raise awareness about the need to take action on climate change. This year, Earth Hour is on Saturday, March 31 and starts at 20:30 (8:30pm) wherever you are. People all over the world — and off the planet — will be turning off non-essential lights for an hour. Even the astronauts on the Space Station will be doing their part, as well as watching from above to see if  there is a noticeable change in the amount of lights from Earth. Astronaut and nature ambassador André Kuipers will be taking photos and videos of Earth Hour from space.

This Earth Hour 2012: 8.30pm, Saturday 31 March, celebrate your action for the planet with the people of world by switching off your lights for an hour, then go beyond the hour.

From its inception as a single-city initiative — Sydney, Australia – in 2007, Earth Hour has grown into a global symbol of hope and movement for change. Earth Hour 2011 created history as the world’s largest ever voluntary action with people, businesses and governments in 135 countries across every continent coming together to celebrate an unambiguous commitment to the one thing that unites us all — the planet.

For more information go here:  http://www.earthhour.org/

Pennsylvania labor activists marched on Capitol Hill yesterday in protest against the shutdown of three refineries in the state. Politicians from both sides supported them in their call to stem the job losses and address the imminent threat to the nation’s energy security that the loss of gasoline production in the east coast now poses.

The refining companies (Sunoco and ConocoPhillips) were quick to respond with the lame retort that some of these labor unions and politicians were supportive of failed cap-and-trade legislation that would have killed the east coast refining industry if it had been successful. What the actual impact of the failed cap-and-trade legislation would have been on the refining industry is debatable, what the refiners actually did was close ranks with their competitors by failing to mention the root cause of the failure of east coast refining. The increasing concentration of the nation’s refining capacity in the US Gulf Coast.

It is an overt strategy and is significantly based on the expected riches of processing low quality tar sands crude that would be delivered to the gulf coast by the Keystone XL pipeline.

A new refinery has not been built in America since 1976. However, through expansions and upgrades refining capacity in the gulf coast has grown over 1 million barrels per day since 2000 and is set to grow a further 325,000 b/d when the Motiva (Shell and Saudi Aramco) Port Arthur refinery commissions its latest expansion later this year.

Many of these expansions, including Motiva’s as well as those by Valero, Marathon and Total, have not just increased capacity but have been designed to enable these refineries to process greater quantities of heavy sour oil such as that derived from Canada’s tar sands. While heavy oil has always been delivered to the gulf coast from countries such as Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the timing of some of these expansions, and in some cases the stated intention, is to prepare for increasing quantities of Canadian tar sands oil that would be delivered by the Keystone XL pipeline.

The gulf coast refiners will do well out of this strategy for a number of reasons. Heavy sour oil is cheap because its low quality requires special equipment and not all refineries have this equipment. Therefore its market is limited putting the refiners at a market advantage. This is especially so as Canadian production has been booming due to rising tar sands production. Investing in that equipment is expensive but has been cushioned by favorable tax treatments that enable accelerated write offs and amount to billions of dollars in subsidy from the American tax payer.

However, gasoline prices are set by the most expensive source in the market’s pool of crude oil sources and therefore heavy oil refiners are making hefty profits out of the heavy oil discount.

But east coast refineries do not have the pipeline connections to western Canadian oil, and have historically not had access to the Latin American heavy crudes, so they did not invest in the heavy oil processing equipment. They were stuck relying on expensive light oil imports which squeezed their profit margins and led to their demise.

Meanwhile, certain gulf coast refiners have been tightening the screws further. Valero, with six major refineries on the gulf coast, many of which have significant heavy oil capacity, has been investing in European refineries with a view to exploiting the gap between diesel and gasoline prices in the Atlantic Basin. That means selling diesel into the European market while selling surplus European gasoline into the U.S. east coast market. A barnstormer of a profit making scheme for Valero; a final nail in the coffin of east coast refiners.

The result is great for the Canadian oil industry (if it gets its pipeline), great for gulf coast refiners, but has been devastating to east coast refiners. It is also quite detrimental to overall U.S. energy security.

The capacity to move gasoline and diesel from the mid-west and gulf coast refineries to the east coast will come, although will probably not come in sufficient quantity this year to prevent a painful price spike on the east coast this summer. But in the long term, what the industry has affected is not increased security via Canadian oil to the gulf coast, but a concentration of the nation’s refining capacity in the heart of the nation’s hurricane corridor.  The lessons of 2005 have clearly not been heeded.

In the end, the profit maximization maneuvers of the oil industry will never truly serve the nation’s energy security interests. The U.S. will never be able to insulate itself from the vagaries of the global oil market. That politicians and the public continue to swallow the industry’s rhetoric on energy security is a sad state of affairs precipitated by multi-million dollar advertising campaigns and a bought-and-paid-for Congress.

A price on carbon may serve us better by encouraging efficiency and diversification away from oil. Moving the oil pieces around the board, within the United States, North America, or around the world, simply maintains the status quo, and the U.S. is as vulnerable as ever to the global oil hegemony.

Waterkeeper Alliance says this image was taken on Dec. 30, 2011, and shows an oil sheen from the Taylor Energy platform that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

Environmental groups on Thursday sued an oil company over the pace of its cleanup of a Gulf of Mexico spill that continues seven years after it was triggered by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

“The plaintiffs filed suit to stop the spill and lift the veil of secrecy surrounding Taylor oil’s seven-year-long response and recovery operation,” Marc Yaggi, executive director of Waterkeeper Alliance, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New Orleans. “Neither the government nor Taylor will answer basic questions related to the spill response, citing privacy concerns.”

Justin Bloom, a Waterkeeper Alliance director, told msnbc.com that the group had made Freedom of Information Act requests for documentation “and ultimately the Coast Guard has refused to provide us documents citing the Privacy Act.”

The groups allege that Taylor Energy, based in New Orleans, has violated the Clean Water Act provisions that require public participation in any enforcement of the law.

“Without details about Taylor’s response to this crisis,” the lawsuit states, “it is impossible for members of the public to assess the risk that similar events will cause additional multi-year spills, including spills from higher-pressure wells in deeper water.”

Taylor Energy did not immediately return a msnbc.com call for comment, but it has acknoweldged the spill and has been working with the U.S. Coast Guard and federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to plug it.

Three containment domes had “substantially reduced” sheening over time, it stated on June 8, 2010, after the BP spill drew attention to the area.

The gulf is home to hundreds of oil wells and platforms, both active and capped, and some of which periodically leak. In addition, the gulf and other bodies of ocean regularly see natural oil seeps.

Waterkeeper said it estimates that hundreds of gallons of oil have been leaking from the Taylor site each day for the last seven years.

The Coast Guard, however, said the average amount of oil leaking from the site is 7.5 gallons per day. Oil sheens from the site have been “minimal” and have never made landfall, according to the Coast Guard, which says a total of 12,720 gallons of oil have been reported from daily observations since the spill started in 2004.

“The sheen size of a few gallons (in volume as observed over the sheen dimensional area) has been too thin of an oil film to warrant offshore recovery operations,” the Coast Guard said in a statement.

The plaintiffs acknowledge that the spill is tiny next to the BP spill of 200 million gallons but, argued Bloom, the Taylor spill “is emblematic of a broken system, where oil production is prioritized over concerns for human health and the environment.”

This is something which we are not focused on in our daily lives. It can produce multiple problems in your spine especially for those who have long sitting hours. Make sure that when you sit in your office chair your wallet is not in your back pocket, (Not only your Wallet – don’t sit with anything in your back pocket).

Your wallet can be a real pain for your back and waist, and it can even lead to shooting pains down your legs. Sitting on a wallet for prolonged hours every day can compress your sciatic nerve which passes beneath the piriformis muscle and leads to piriformis syndrome, lower back pain & self-inflicted sciatica.

The wallet acts as a wedge that forces the pelvis, spine and body out of alignment. Just as you would not sit on a brief case or a rock for an extended period of time, you should not sit on your wallet for an extended period of time. Anyone who drives more than a half hour sitting on a wallet is a candidate for sciatica or lower back pain.

The healthiest option is to move the wallet to your front pocket. If it must be kept  in your back pocket, you should remove it before you sit down.

The SeaShepherd Anti-Whaling ship The Bob Barker.

Anti-whaling activists claimed a small victory in their Antarctic campaign Wednesday with the discovery of a Japanese harpoon ship, as one of their boats limped back to Australia badly damaged.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said its Bob Barker vessel found the Japanese harpoon ship Yushin Maru 3 some 200 nautical miles north of the French Antarctic base Dumont d’Urville.

“The Bob Barker has been out at sea for about four weeks and this is the first whaling ship we’ve come across,” second mate Vincent Burke told AFP from the area, which he said was thick with ice.

Burke said his vessel had been searching for the Japanese factory ship the Nisshin Maru in the hope of preventing it from processing any whale meat when it came across the harpoon boat.

He said the Japanese vessel still had its harpoon covered and was therefore unlikely to have started killing any of the giant mammals, and was probably close to the rest of the fleet.

Burke said while he would have preferred to find the factory ship, locating the harpoon boat probably forced the Japanese fleet to keep moving, preventing them from harvesting whales.

“It’s a sort of a victory in that we know we’re in the right place,” he said.

Sea Shepherd activists aim to harass the Japanese whalers during their annual hunt in the freezing waters off Antarctica each year and this year first intercepted the Japanese fleet on December 25 with the help of a drone.

The unmanned plane, small enough to be launched by hand from the deck of the ship, is fitted with cameras and detection equipment.

But the anti-whaling activists suffered a major setback a few days later when the scout vessel, the Brigitte Bardot, sustained major damage when hit by a freak wave in six metre (20-foot) swells.

The activists initially reported that the boat’s hull had cracked, but later said that most of the damage was to one of its pontoons, which has since been shored up to enable it to return to port.

The accident prompted another Sea Shepherd vessel, the Steve Irwin, to temporarily abandon the hunt to escort the Brigitte Bardot back to the Western Australian port of Fremantle. Both vessels are expected to arrive on Thursday.

All the crew were reported to be safe and uninjured.

Commercial whaling is banned under an international treaty but Japan has since 1987 used a loophole to carry out “lethal research” in the name of science — a practice condemned by environmentalists and anti-whaling nations.

Deadly toxins in Monsanto’s genetically modified food.

When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.i (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which “appears to blow a hole in” safety claims, “has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food.” Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.

Links to allergies, auto-immune disease, and other disorders

There’s already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.

In government-sponsored research in Italyii, mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with “allergic and inflammatory responses.” The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer (see chart).

The young mice in the study also had elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases. The Bt corn that was fed to these mice, MON 810, produced the same Bt-toxin that was found in the blood of women and fetuses.

When rats were fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, their immune systems were also activated, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys.iii

Natural Bt is dangerous

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years. But they spray it on plants, where it washes off and biodegrades in sunlight. The GM version is built-in; every plant cell has its own spray bottle. The toxin doesn’t wash off; it’s consumed. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray; is designed to be even more toxic; and has properties of known allergens—it actually fails the World Health Organization’s allergen screening tests.iv

The biotech companies ignore the substantial difference between the GM toxin and the natural bacteria version, and boldly claim that since the natural spray has a history of safe use in agriculture, it’s therefore OK to put the poison directly into our food. But even this claim of safe use of Bt spray ignores peer-reviewed studies showing just the opposite.

When natural Bt-toxin was fed to mice, they had tissue damage, immune responses as powerful as cholera toxinv, and even started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless.vi Farm workers exposed to Bt also showed immune responses.vii The EPA’s own expert Scientific Advisory Panel said that these mouse and farm worker studies “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”viii But the EPA ignored the warnings. They also overlooked studiesix showing that about 500 people in Washington state and Vancouver showed allergic and flu-like symptoms when they were exposed to the spray when it was used to kill gypsy moths.

Bt cotton linked to human allergies, animal deaths

Indian farm workers are suffering from rashes and itching and other symptoms after coming into contact with Bt cotton.

Now thousands of Indian farm laborers are suffering from the same allergic and flu-like symptoms as those in the Pacific Northwest simply from handling genetically engineered cotton plants that produce Bt-toxin. According to reports and records from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies, as well as numerous investigative reports and case studies, workers are struggling with constant itching and rashes; some take antihistamines every day in order to go to work.

It gets worse.

All thirteen buffalo of a small Indian village died after grazing for a single day on Bt cotton plants.

When they allow livestock to graze on the Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands of sheep, goats, and buffalo died. Numerous others got sick. I visited one village where for seven to eight years they allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for the first time. After just one day’s exposure, all died. The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.

One small study in Andhra Pradesh reported that all six sheep that grazed on Bt cotton plants died within a month, while the three controls fed natural cotton plants showed no adverse symptoms.

Living pesticide factories inside us?

Getting back to the Bt-toxin now circulating in the blood of North American adults and newborns—how did it get there? The study authors speculate that it was consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class. They even suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn—as most livestock are.

I’d like to speculate on another possible source. But I warn you, it’s not pretty.

The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans. Here’s their back story: Scientists found bacteria growing in a chemical waste dump near their factory, surviving the presence of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The herbicide normally kills bacteria, but this organism had some special gene that allowed it to survive. So Monsanto scientists figured, “Let’s put it into the food supply!”

By forcing that genes from that bacterium into soybean plants’ DNA, the plants then survive an otherwise deadly dose of Roundup herbicide—hence the name Roundup Ready.

In the human studyx, some of the subjects were found to have Roundup Ready gut bacteria! This means that sometime in the past, from eating one or more meals of GM soybeans, the gene that had been discovered in the chemical waste dump and forced into the soy, had transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside their intestines—and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have dangerous GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.

When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government mysteriously dried up, so they were not able to see if the same type of gene transfer happens with Bt genes from, say, corn chips. If it does, it means that eating Bt corn might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually manufacturing Bt-toxin from within our digestive systems.

I don’t know of a test that can confirm that this is happening, but the Canada study may be showing the results—where Bt-toxins are found in the blood of a very high percentage of people.

If the “living pesticide factory” hypothesis is correct, we might speculate even further. Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of our digestive tracts? The biotech companies insist that Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans. But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.xi In the former study, they even found “changes in the electrophysiological properties” of the organ after the Bt-toxin came into contact.xii

If Bt-toxins were causing leaky gut syndrome in newborns, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the intestines could be devastating. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this is the apparent mechanism for autism.

Thus, if Bt genes were colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders—since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market. Physicians have told me that they indeed are seeing such an increase.

The discovery of Bt-toxin in our blood does not confirm all this speculation, but it does provide food for thought. And hopefully, that food is non-GMO.

Our Institute for Responsible Technology joins other organizations worldwide calling for an immediate ban on GM food crops, and the commencement of rigorous independent scientific research on the safety of GMOs in general, and Bt-toxin in particular.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, author of the #1 international bestselling book on GMOs, Seeds of Deception, and of Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. To avoid GMOs, which is the advice of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

Margarine in a tub.

Margarine originated with the discovery by Michel Eugène Chevreul in 1813 of margaric acid.  In 1870 a French chemist named Hippolyte Mege-Mouriez, used margaric acid to create Margarine in response to a request from Emperor Louis Napoleon who offered a prize to anyone who could make a satisfactory substitute for butter, suitable for use by the armed forces and the lower classes.

Margarine is made by a process called hydrogenation. Traditional margarines, which contain saturated fats, are mostly made from vegetable oils. Modern margarines can be made from any of a wide variety of hydrogenated animal or vegetable fats.

Today’s margarine differs substantially from the original oleomargarine invented by Mouriez. The hydrogenated margarine today is liquid vegetable oil converted into a solid or semi-solid grease known as plasticisation.

The manufacturing process begins with cheap vegetable oils, such as Canola and Cotton Seed, which have already been rendered harmful by the extraction process involving high temperature and petrochemical solvents such as benzene. Some of these oils, such as cottonseed oil, are not even suitable for human or animal consumption.

Canola oil, the beauty queen of the vegetable oil industry. It was developed by making a hybrid version of the rapeseed, and it was given its name in the 1980s as part of a marketing effort organized by a conference on mono-saturates.

Rapeseed oil contains high amounts of the toxic erucic acid, which is poisonous to the body. Canola oil is an altered version, also called Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed (LEAR) and it is commonly genetically modified and treated with high levels of pesticides.

Canola (modified rapeseed oil) is produced by heating the rapeseed and processing with a petroleum solvent to extract the oil. Then another process of heat and addition of acid is used to remove nasty solids (wax) that occur during the first processing.

The oil is once again subjected to extreme high temperature (about 500ºF) and pressure, and hydrogen is forced into the molecular structure to harden it. This process requires toxic substances, such as nickel oxide, which act as catalysts that enable the chemical change.

The end result is a smelly, gray,  greasy substance. So it is deodorized, again using high heat and chemical additives. The grease is then bleached white and yellow dye is added. Finally, artificial flavors are mixed in to make it taste like butter.

Margarine is high in trans fatty acids. Hydrogenated are so-called “trans fats” or, more correctly, trans-fatty acids, are unnatural compounds, which are known to be detrimental to health.

The primary health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an elevated risk of coronary heart disease. Trans fats have also been linked to Alzheimer’s Disease, Cancer, Diabetes, Obesity, Liver Dysfunction, Infertility in women and Depression.

In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation requiring manufacturers to list trans fat on the Nutrition Facts panel of foods and some dietary supplements. The new labeling rule became mandatory across the board, even for companies that petitioned for extensions. However, unlike other countries, in the US, trans fat levels of less than 0.5 grams per serving can be listed as 0 grams trans fat on the food label. A deceitful practice at best.

 When choosing between butter or margarine keep these facts in mind.

Margarine

1) Margarine begins as chemically-extracted, refined vegetable oil and is a poor quality product to begin with.

2) The final product also contains nickel, cadmium and often other very toxic contaminants.  These are introduced as hardening agents used in the production process.

3) Nickel, for example, is an extremely toxic chemical that in excess causes lung cancer, kidney disease, depression and more.

4) Cadmium is also among the most toxic of the heavy metals.  It may contribute to serious diseases such as arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure and malignancy.

5) Margarine also contains artificial or natural coloring agents, or it would look like bicycle grease.  In summary, margarine is a disaster, even so-called health-food margarine.

Butter

1) Butter is made from churning cream.

2) It is a fabulous fat that contains a number of natural fatty acids that are excellent for the body.

3) Butter is an excellent source of fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamin A, D, E and K.  These are not found to any degree in margarine.

4) Butter does not contain trans-fatty acids or toxic metals such as nickel and cadmium.

Conclusion

The argument for eating margarine and other products containing hydrogenated oils are their lack of cholesterol.  Margarine is also less expensive than butter.

However, margarine often contains poor-quality, refined, artificially saturated vegetable oil.  It also contains harmful trans-fatty acids, and often residues of toxic metals such as nickel and cadmium.  It does not contain many nutrients at all.

Butter, by contrast, is a natural food and one of the best sources of important fat-soluble vitamins.  You will pay more for butter, but nutritionally and for its purity, it is well worth it.

Japanese whaling vessel Yushin Maru 3. Part of Japans illegal whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The Japanese government has admitted to using $28 million of donated earthquake and tsunami relief funds to increase security aboard it’s illegal whaling vessels.

Environmental groups such as the Sea Shepherd’s have been waging a non violent war against Japans illegal whaling operations in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Now Japan has responded by placing armed guards and military personnel aboard their whaling ships.

Fisheries Agency official Tatsuya Nakaoku said the extra security was designed to ensure safer hunts.

“We will bolster measures against acts of sabotage by anti-whaling groups so as to stably carry out the Antarctic whaling research,” the fisheries department said after the budget was passed.

Commercial whaling is banned under an international treaty but since 1987 Japan has used a loophole to carry out “lethal research” on the creatures in the name of science.

The whalers plan to kill more than 900 minke whales and about 50 fin whales this season.

A total of 18 Japanese non-government organisations, including the Environmental Lawyers Federation and Consumers Union have signed on to a protest letter to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

“We demand the government not waste any more taxpayers’ money on the whaling program, but instead spend this money on projects that actually help the people, communities and region affected by the tragic March 11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis,” the letter said.

Using advanced nanotechnology, HyperSolar intends to eliminate the harmful aspects of extracting natural gas and preserve its existing delivery infrastructure and economy by fundamentally changing the source of natural gas from underground to above ground.

HyperSolar, Inc. the developer of a breakthrough technology to make renewable natural gas using solar power, today announced that it has filed a patent application for the production of renewable natural gas using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. This renewable natural gas is a clean, carbon neutral methane gas that can be used as a direct replacement for traditional natural gas to power the world, without drilling or fracking, while mitigating CO2 emissions.

“The sun is our greatest source of energy and a method to use this energy to make clean, renewable fuel is a very significant discovery,” said Tim Young, CEO of HyperSolar. “We intend to focus all our energies and resources on commercializing this breakthrough technology.”

Inspired by the photosynthetic processes that plants use to harness the power of the sun to create energy molecules, HyperSolar is developing a novel solar-powered nanoparticle system that mimics photosynthesis to separate hydrogen from water. The free hydrogen can then be reacted with carbon dioxide to produce methane, the primary component in natural gas.

“With global consumption projected to surpass coal in 2035, natural gas will be the next great fuel,” continued Mr. Young. “From sunrise to sunset, our proprietary nanoparticles will work in a water based solution to produce clean and environmentally friendly renewable natural gas that can be collected for later use in power plants, industrial plants and vehicles – anywhere and anytime.

With hundreds of billions of dollars already invested in natural gas infrastructure and trillions more dollars on the way, we believe natural gas as a primary fuel is a reality. However, the environmental risks associated with the extraction and usage of conventional natural gas is also a reality. Using advanced nanotechnology, HyperSolar intends to eliminate the harmful aspects of extracting natural gas and preserve its existing delivery infrastructure and economy by fundamentally changing the source of natural gas from underground to above ground. The company intends to do this by creating natural gas above ground using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, in a renewable and sustainable manner.

Ex-Skeptic Physicist Richard Muller, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project

A prominent climate change skeptic told Congress on Monday he no longer doubts that global warming is real and caused by humans, and joined other scientists in urging action to stop it.

Physicist Richard Muller, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, whose two-year research was funded in part by a foundation formed by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, said he could find no bias in other studies.

“We confirm that over the last 50 years, temperature has risen 0.9 degrees Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the same number that the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says.”

Muller told the House Committee on Natural Resources that while he remains cautious about the extent to which humans have played a role, he now hopes other climate skeptics will come on board with his findings.

“As they read and study our papers, I am hoping that many of them will reflect my belief that they are open-minded and come to agree that yes, climate change temperature increase certainly has happened,” he said.

“The amount that is due to humans is still open and there are very big uncertainties in that,” Muller added, urging continued study of the matter.

“In my mind, humans have contributed to climate change. The real issue is how much?”

Muller’s appearance on Capitol Hill was his first since his research was released last month, and comes just weeks after the Department of Energy reported a six percent increase last year in carbon output worldwide, the biggest jump ever.

Ranking committee Democrat Ed Markey lamented the United States’ failure to act and applauded Australia’s recent approval of a carbon tax to force its coal-fired power stations and other major emitters to “pay to pollute.”

“Other countries are taking the threat seriously. Australia just passed a set of bills designed to reduce carbon pollution and positioned their country to compete in the global clean energy race,” Markey said.

“The attacks on climate science have been a colossal distraction from the debate we should be having Congress on what actions should be taken to reduce pollution, create jobs, reclaim our lead in the clean energy race.”

His colleague, Democrat Henry Waxman, said the Republican-controlled Congress had voted 21 times to block actions that would have addressed climate change.

“History will look back on this science denial with profound regret,” Waxman said.

“When a prominent skeptic publishes a study determining that global warming is real, that is information Congress needs to hear.”

Also on the panel was Ben Santer, research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who told lawmakers that international scientists have considered a host of different factors in their research, including rainfall, sea level pressure, continental runoff, surface humidity, and atmospheric moisture.

“The bottom line message in each case is, natural causation alone cannot explain the changes we see,” Santer said.

“People sometimes incorrectly say, ‘You climate scientists never consider alternate hypotheses, alternate plausible explanations of the observations.’ That is not true,” he added.

“We routinely consider such alternate hypotheses and try and determine whether they fit the available observations. They do not.”

William Chameides, dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment in North Carolina and vice chair of the National Academies’ Committee on America’s Climate Choices, said there is a “pressing need for substantial actions.”

Chameides helped produce a report earlier this year that urged the US government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon pricing system and invest in research and development to mitigate its harmful effects.

“We know we are facing a risk. We know that the longer we take to act, the worse that risk is,” he told lawmakers.

“With each ton of greenhouse gasses that we put into the atmosphere, we are increasing the risks of dangerous impacts of climate change, and those risks will be with us for many, many years. Perhaps 1,000 years,” he added.

“Twenty percent of the C02 that we emit today when we all drive home and I fly home tonight, will be in the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere in 1,000 years,” he said.

“It is something to think about very carefully when we think about our legacy for future generations.”