More useful 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   JMG Posted 5:16 pm
   08 Jun 2007

   Hunh?Under "new coal plants and liquid coal" Obama is listed as "Supports liquid coal if it meets a low carbon fuel standard."
   Anyone know what the "low carbon fuel standard" he has in mind is?  It would have to be something like "open pit burning of coal lumps" for Nazi method fuels to qualify.
   
   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

2. 

   BruceMcF Posted 12:15 am
   09 Jun 2007

   As I understand it, sequestering all or much ...... of the carbon emitted in production.
   However, even 100% sequestration (which I personally find highly unlikely, but I'm an economist rather than an engineer) leaves us with a fuel with slightly more CO2 emissions as gasoline.
   If we could get 50% sequestration or recycling of CO2 emitted from existing coal plants, and were using that electricity to power electric transport ... from electric bikes to NEV's to electric trains ... that would be a medium term improvement as we build up our renewable power sources and start the long, hard process of unwinding suburban sprawl.
   But CTL is at best no better than gasoline, and at worst twice as bad. I don't see how it physically makes any sense at all. Its just pandering to the coal lobby.
   
   Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
   
   Energize America 2020
   
   
   
   

   Permalink

3. 

   BruceMcF Posted 12:25 am
   09 Jun 2007

   Clinton/Obama support Mcain-Lieberman.I think that the LCV guide is misleading. Clinton and Obama support Sanders-Boxer, it is true ... they both joined as co-sponsors of the bill on the 4th of May.
   However, early in their first quarter fund-raising, they were co-sponsoring the much weaker McCain-Lieberman bill, with 65% target reduction, 30% offsets, and heavy nuclear industry subsidy.
   Obama was an original co-sponsor of McCain-Lieberman (Clinton co-sponsored later in January) ... Sanders-Boxer was introduced the following day, but it took him three and a half months to join that as a co-sponsor.
   And his biggest single source of funds in Q1 was $160,000 of bundled contributions from Exelon and CommonwealthEdison, with Exelon the biggest nuclear power operator in the country.
   I think the LCV guide is misleading ... it should have both Obama and Clinton down as placing a bet each way.
   The League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
   
   1920 L Street NW, Ste. 800
   
   Washington, DC 20036
   
   (202) 785-8683
   
   
   
   Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
   
   Energize America 2020
   
   
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   Underdog Posted 10:28 am
   09 Jun 2007

   Keep It In PerspectiveThere are a number of candidates here who would do a good job of dealing with climate change.  That's good to see.  But we should keep things in perspective.  The next president will be working with Congress in about two years to develop a national strategy.  By then there may be changes in available technology, climate data, public opinion and other factors.  The details of the candidates' current positions are less important than their willingness to deal with the problem constructively.  And there's a danger in pushing candidates to adopt stronger positions to earn support from environmentalists:  they might wind up losing support elsewhere.
   I think we should remember that it's better to support a winning candidate with a good record on the environment than to support a losing candidate with a great record.

   Permalink