Comments Post a Comment +

1. 
   • Charlie Peters 2261
   • 6 Jul 2007 9:22am 1183738931 1183764131

   Ron PaulDoes Dr. Ron Paul have an opinion on global warming or ethanol mandates with corporate welfare?
   Clean Air Performance Professionals
2. 
   • stk 3374
   • 7 Jul 2007 4:22pm 1183850533 1183875733

   Excellent analysisI spent a month looking at the top 3 candidates including talking directly with all 3 and looking at their voting records. Your summary is excellent. The fact that both Clinton and Obama signed onto Sanders-Boxer on the same day, 4 months after the bill was introduced and after 11 Senators had already signed on (including 3 months after Chris Dodd) is a telling indicator of how they really feel about climate change. Not only were Clinton and Obama among the last to sign onto this bill, but they signed on SILENTLY with no press announcement at all. And since then, they've never asked their supporters to pressure their Senators to co-sponsor this critical bill. This is not the leadership that is going to solve the climate crisis. Of the top 3 candidates, Edwards is the climate change standout.
3. 
   • stk 3374
   • 7 Jul 2007 7:24pm 1183861465 1183886665

   It's the leadership differences that matterThe analyis above is exactly right. It's not the policy differences we should be looking at; it is the leadership differences. Obama and Clinton are clearly both followers on climate change and their actions on the Sanders-Boxer makes that crystal clear. We will never solve the climate crisis with a President who is a follower on climate change.
   At an Obama event at the Plug-and-Play center in Silicon Valley on May 15, 2007, I asked Obama why it took him almost 4 months to sign on to the Sanders-Boxer bill. He said it was because he was a co-sponsor of the (weaker) McCain-Lieberman bill (S.280) and that the Boxer bill was so tough that it wouldn't pass so his support would only be symbolic.
   But a real leader takes positions that are necessary for the safety of our country and then inspires others to follow. If Obama was the real leader our country needs, he'd help Boxer turn that bill that "wouldn't pass" into a bill that would pass by lending his support to the bill and using his powers of persuasion to convince other Senators to support it.
   In this case, Boxer's bill isn't just a good bill; it is absolutely required if we are to have any chance at all to stop global warming. That's why the Union of Concerned Scientists calls this bill the "gold standard" of climate change bills. Obama and Clinton should have jumped on this bill in January when it was introduced and spent their time helping Boxer convince other Senators to support it. That would be a real demonstration of leadership on the most critical issue that this planet has ever faced.
   Instead, Clinton and Obama left the real climate leadership to Boxer, Dodd (who co-sponsored early), and Edwards. Edwards, who is not in the Senate anymore, on March 16, became the first presidential candidate to publicly pledge to the target of reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 80% by 2050, a goal which parallels Boxer's bill.
   Obama's answer is also inconsistent with his actions. If Obama has a policy of not signing on to bills that are only symbolic, then why did he sign on as a co-sponsor of Sanders-Boxer on May 3? The bill did not change at all since it was introduced and nothing changed externally that would have suddenly made the bill more likely to pass. Obama signed on Thursday morning; Clinton signed on a few hours later. He should have signed on at the start and let his supporters know to tell their Senators to sign on to this. He still hasn't done that. Neither has Clinton. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to taking the actions that a leader would take, they fail.   ...read more
4. 
   • annefrank 7784
   • 8 Jul 2007 12:33am 1183879999 1183905199

   Unfortunately -some "progressives" think Obama Girl and "hope" are solutions for climate change.
   
   Hey - but who knew pole dancing and motivational speeches would be a winning combination for a presidential candidate? The PR and marketing strategists - guiding Obama's campaign!
5. 
   • jmt 3826
   • 8 Jul 2007 2:56am 1183888586 1183913786

   Energy IndependenceNone of the candidates, yet, are bold enough or ready to capture the voters' imaginations. They are still stuck on the linguistics of current corporate priorities rather than challenge us to a new future.  So, we still, only, hear of bio-renewables; squeezing hydrocarbons out of less productive sources, etc.
   Yes, I like wind turbines and the future of photo-voltaics. but ...
   None has spoken broadly of "clean-sourced" energy -- existing technological methods used in other countries which, scaled up can help make us self-sufficient and produce not only the energy but jobs and international marketing opportunities.
   
   
   Western and west-central states sit astride geothermal zones which can heat homes and businesses.  Some sources are hot enough to directly generate steam and electricity.  Individual, cluster, or community systems can be built-in from scratch (or retrofitted into the infra-structure) rather than expanding our hydrocarbon based facilities to sustain a growing population. Not only does this provide jobs at home but it develops an industry that can sell the technology to developing nations which also sit astride their own "rings of fire".
   One-quarter of one percent of the energy of the Gulf Stream can power the entire (electrical) energy demands of the United States into the forseeable future. Steady and constant (and hidden well below the surface) the off-shore current can allow oil companies to become carbon-free energy companies feeding a national grid.
   Tides are predictable, not affected by clouds or night. No storgage necessary.  Given that the U.S. has more coastline than any other country except Australia power can be locally generated and fed into the grid.  The mega-tides of the Bay of Fundy may be needed for a mega-generating source, but hosts of micro generators can feed the grid.
   Waves, too, can be harnessed to produce energy.
   The executive and purchasing powers of the Federal government (GSA and DoD), coupled with those of the governments of the various states, counties, and municipalities can incentivize industry to build fleets of first, hybrid, and then electric vehicles for domestic use.  Perhaps a M1A1 tank needs to run on hydrocarbons, but domestic vehicles around bases need not.  60-70 years ago electric delivery trucks moved around cities during (and before) WW II.  The Postal Service; FedEx; UPS; can do so again.
   The executive and purchasing powers of the Federal government (GSA, DoD, HUD, FHLBB, etc.) -- and perhaps even major lenders and insurers -- as well as the various states, counties, and municipalities can set green standards foor all future construction.
   
   
   For the sake of "brevity" I'll stop here.  I'd like a candidate bold enough to embrace at least some of these goals.   ...read more
6. 
   • Asteroid Miner 2133
   • 8 Jul 2007 5:31am 1183897905 1183923105

   carbon dioxide storageAl Gore's Live Earth Pledge has a fatal flaw: "the capacity
   
   to safely trap and store the CO2."   There is no safe way to
   
   confine trillions of tons of CO2 at high pressure.   It WILL
   
   leak out and suffocate millions of people.   CO2 is denser
   
   than air and displaces air at ground level.   CO2 has caused
   
   suffocation in Africa.   See:
   
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm    
   "Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
   
   "More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed
   
   from Lake Nyos 15 years ago. "
   
   "In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon
   
   dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down
   
   surrounding valleys to suffocate thousands of local villagers
   
   and animals.
   The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the
   
   same volcanic zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "
   The CO2 storage facilities proposed by Al Gore, besides
   
   being prone to leak, will be a target for terrorists.      A
   
   terrorist has only to cause a leak to kill more people than a
   
   nuclear bomb would.   Leaks are very easy to cause in high
   
   pressure containers.   CO2 storage is a time bomb.      
   Americans are paranoid about all things nuclear.   NMR had
   
   to be renamed MRI to get sick people into the scanner.  
   
   Perhaps somebody's response is to let the millions die in the
   
   carbon dioxide so that the survivors will listen to reason?      
   
   Nuclear power is the safest kind.      Killing millions of
   
   people with CO2 is a sick, genocidal way to end the
   
   paranoia over all things nuclear.     I have no financial
   
   interest in nuclear power and no connection with the
   
   nuclear power industry.
     ...read more
7. 
   • Asteroid Miner 2133
   • 8 Jul 2007 5:41am 1183898492 1183923692

   Extinction of Homo Sapiens [people]download from:
   
   http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938- ...
   
   from the October 2006  issue of Scientific American
   
   Article:  "Impact from the Deep"
   
   "Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again? "
   
   By Peter D. Ward
   
   The last paragraph of the article says:  
   
   "The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find out."    
   
   The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of coal.   Nuclear power is the safest available.
   
8. 
   • Asteroid Miner 2133
   • 8 Jul 2007 5:45am 1183898721 1183923921

   Coal contains uranium, arsenic, lead, thorium...Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output?   See:  http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.htm ...
   
   If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500 nuclear power plants of the same size.   That isn't all that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.   Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial production.   Did you know that you get 100 times as much radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear power plant?  
   
   Have you ever heard of background radiation?   The natural background radiation that has been there since the beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-fired power plant.   See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
   
   or  http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.htm ...
   
     If the safety level of nuclear power plants were LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants, the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
   
      I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.  
9. 
   • Richie Rich 7189
   • 8 Jul 2007 6:36am 1183901800 1183927000

   Want it all, want it nowYes we all agree that major overhaul is needed to save the planet.  But reality check : great idealists like Nader or Kucinich or the more popular Edwards, scare people by wanting too much all at once.
   Barack Obama says that we can lead the world in energy reforms by developing new technologies to replace gasoline cars and other things.  That kind of thinking pleases the greedy big biz who have a stranglehold on our economy, while moving us toward what we really need to save the world.
   You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, and Obama can be respectful and fair.  That's why people who hate politics on all sides are coming out to support Obama.
10. 
    • stk 3374
    • 8 Jul 2007 9:17am 1183911437 1183936637

    Obama isn't likely to make any forward progressYeah, Obama's rhetoric sounds great. But when you actually read what he's proposing as these "compromises" you find that he's able to forge these compromises because he allows all sorts of escape clauses so nobody has to change. In short, if you don't require any forward progress, it's easy to find a compromise position that all sides can agree to.
    For example, Obama's "Health for Hybrids" bill (S.1151). I read the bill. Know what? It says that you are ineligible for the funds if your average fuel economy goes down. So Obama is saying that the government will spend all this money on the car makers provided the car makers don't get WORSE!!! That's not moving the country forward. He's just spending lots of money to maintain the status quo without requiring any forward progress. If we are going to spend taxpayer money on the auto companies, we need to get cleaner vehicles in return. His bill doesn't even require them to improve their efficiency by 1 mile per gallon...ever!
    Another example is Obama's CAFE bill (S.2694). The Sierra Club analysis posted on their website says that, due to all the loopholes,  "it is likely that this bill will not do much to raise CAFE." I had a long argument with Obama's communication director (Robert Gibbs) who claimed the Sierra Club's analysis was wrong. I contacted the analyst who wrote the report (Brenden Bell) and received documents and arguments that justified that there was no mistake in the analysis. I re-read the bill and concluded Bell's analysis was correct based on the historical observations of NHTSA's behavior.
    So yeah, Obama's rhetoric sounds GREAT. But the reality is that if he gets elected, don't expect much forward progress on global warming. And if we don't make dramatic reductions before 2020, we may never be able to reverse the GHG concentrations since we are starting to see major ecosystems like the Southern Ocean start to lose it's ability to absorb CO2.
    We don't have much time. Obama sure doesn't appear the guy to lead this effort. And his support of Coal to Liquids (CTL) should send shivers down the spine of any environmentalist. Granted, he's recently backed down and required CTL to be slightly cleaner than the fuel it replaces, but the focus has to be on zero emissions pathways, not on pathways that are slightly better. You'll NEVER achieve the 80% to 90% greenhouse gas reductions we need by focusing on fuels that are only incrementally cleaner that the fuels they replace (even if you could make such a fuel).
    There are way better zero or near zero pathways for both transportation and electric power. That should be the focus of government policy; to enable and incentivize the rapid adoption of those pathways.   ...read more
Comments Page 1 of 6 pages |  1 2 3 >  Last »