A few times now John has made a point I have made in the past and now shall make again (how's that for a self-referential intro?). To wit:
"Energy security" is a lopsided way of framing our energy problem, and left un-balanced, will do more harm than good.
Why? Because the shortest, cheapest route to energy security (or "independence," if you like) is through coal, and coal is ... wait for it ... the enemy of the human race. This is not just true for China and the U.S.; Germany, Britain, and even France are planning a slew of new coal plants.
For more on this crucial point, see this fantastic post from Jerome a Paris.
A milestone: 100th coal plant stopped
McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate
Coal-nundrum and Ex-gas-peration
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 6:43 am
30 Nov 2006
However
Reason for hope:
www.grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:09 pm
30 Nov 2006
"beautiful downtown Burbank"
"In an abrupt about-face" is one of my favorite journalistic cliche's. You just know that blood is in the water. How many styles of doing an about-face are there, actually? Has anyone timed how long each of them takes? Has any journalist ever started off with, "In a cagey about-face," or, "In a fooling-no-one about-face," or, "In a sultry, smouldering, high-heeled, strapless about-face," or, "In a lightly toe-tapping about-face that resembled nothing so much as a Strauss waltz through a Viennese ballroom"?
So anyway, substantively, have the people of Germany, Britain and even France, in an abrupt about-face, decided to go anti-green and pro-coal? Mais, c'est incroyable!
Also, in reference to a couple of the references, I think the late-1950s term, used by President Eisenhower, "military-industrial complex," needs to be re-interpreted. This is serious: times have changed, obviously, and we now need to know what Jerome a` Paris and others are talking about, exactly.
On Burbank, and the Southwest in general: They are an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen any day now. We would be better off just dropping them out of the Union (Sorry, FFletcher), if it were not that we Democrats rely so heavily on the good wishes of the LA crowd.
E.g., last night on PBS here in NYC, there was a pleasant multi-artist concert honoring James Taylor, in LA. The Dixie Chicks (whom I love, especially "Home") started off; and who of all people should have been half-time entertainment but Bill Clinton!
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 2:26 am
01 Dec 2006
Perserve the Site Not the CO2
The point that we have sought in Burbank is to reduce the CO2 and other emissions at the Intermountain Power Project site while maintaining the site. For us the project's transmission brings wind energy from Wyoming that we currently have under contract and over which we intend to bring more such energy. Replacing coal energy with wind energy is another strategy that we believe can be incorporated as we bring on more wind energy.
The big about face that recently occurred is the alignment of all of the Intermoutain Power Project participants to conduct a significant study of how the current 2000 pounds of CO2 per megawatthour can be reduced to less than 1100 pound of CO2 per megawatthour. Burbank called for such reduction in 2003, however, that was viewed as too expensive and unnecessary at that time. We are very happy that we are now considering that approach. I thank our good friends at NRDC for their efforts.
Permalink