Rudy Giuliani’s stance on climate and energy 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 4:40 am
   18 Oct 2007

   No Coal
   
   Rudy has to get off the coal bandwagon.  It's a dead horse already as utilities themselves are scrapping plans left and right for coal plants.
   This is a case where, yes, a single answer suffices: More nukes.
   France did it. 80%
   We can do it.
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   Sutext:

   Permalink

2. 

   plum Posted 6:16 am
   18 Oct 2007

   Newsroom politics"[C]oal, which is considered a major contributor to global warming"...
   What's the bet there's some newsroom politics playing a part here? As a former copy editor, I know that stories can go through several eyes before seeing print. And when the deadline's rushing at you and you've got a denialist on the floor who's kicking up a fuss and won't back down, inserting weasel phrases like "which is considered" is part of the day-to-day negotiations you have to live with in the newsroom. Nobody likes it.

   Permalink

3. 

   nycowboy Posted 5:57 am
   19 Oct 2007

   No to NukesThere are some people who do believe
   
   strongly in nuclear power -- and that if we turn to that --
   
   we can continue to live our lives as we currently do without
   
   change. They note the lack of smoke stacks on nuclear
   
   plants, and argue that because there are no direct emissions
   
   that it must be a clean fuel without carbon dioxide.
   In contrast, my vision is to within the next two decades to
   
   re-power all fossil fuel power plants and use renewable
   
   sources, new pump storage, and increased conservation to
   
   meet our growing energy demands and reduce carbon emissions.
   
   Simply replacing an existing oil or coal plant with a more
   
   modern oil or coal plant of the same size, with reduce
   
   carbon dioxide emissions significantly (10% or more), as we
   
   can burn oil or coal more efficiently and cleaner. Reducing
   
   acid rain and smog-producing chemicals in many ways is even
   
   more important then global warming -- acid rain kills trees,
   
   defiles buildings, and smog kills people now.
   Clean coal is another technology worth investing in,
   
   particularly to replace older plants. Coal will always be a
   
   major emitter of carbon dioxide and it's extraction from the
   
   landscape will lead to blight and massive piles of coal ash.
   
   But we can burn and process it in the right way. Replacing
   
   old coal plants that are terribly dirty with new plants that
   
   consume a similar amount of coal will cut carbon emissions
   
   up to 20% and hazardous ones far more compared to plants
   
   built in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite what our President may
   
   say -- it's not an ideal technology, but for replacing our
   
   existing infrastructure it's an much needed upgrade.
   Then there is renewable sources and pump storage -- both go
   
   hand and hand. There is no question that we need more pump
   
   storage now, as our dirtiest and most inefficient plants
   
   across the nation often serve the purpose of providing extra
   
   power in a crunch (new plants are 75%-80% efficient at
   
   stored energy).  There are only 25 pump storage plants in
   
   our country, but there is no reason why we could we build 3
   
   or 4 times that number with minimal impact. Siting is an
   
   issue, as witnessed by the proposed 2-gigawatt Storm King
   
   Pump Storage. That was a great project, that would have done
   
   much to help reduce pollution in New York City and cut
   
   carbon emissions, but it would have been very ugly, and
   
   dumping turbid water directly in the Hudson would have put
   
   the river's fisheries at risk.
   Renewables tend to be on-off sources that are less then
   
   reliable. But we need far more of them, combined with pump
   
   storage to store electricity based on demand. There is also
   
   a need for new power lines to move power efficiently across
   
   our country to places that need it. That's why I've been a
   
   strong supporter of the NYRI, although I believe that parts
   
   need to be re-routed to address community concerns. New York
   
   City needs more electricity, and we have an excess of it in
   
   CNY/WNY especially with new wind capacity and other sources
   
   coming online. Likewise, we need a government that can get
   
   renewable energy projects like Wind Farms sited in
   
   reasonable places, without NIMBYs being able to derail it.
   
   The fact that Vermont's moron for a governor, carpet-bagger
   
   Jim Douglas has been so successful at derailing renewable
   
   energy in that state is evidence of a need for stronger
   
   sitting laws on the national and state levels.

   Permalink

4. 

   Carbon Coalition Posted 6:15 am
   22 Oct 2007

   Big News from Huckabee"I support cap and trade of carbon emissions and I was disappointed in the senate for rejecting a carbon counting system to measure the sources of emissions because that would have been the first and the most important step to implementing a true cap and trade."  -Mike Huckabee, Manchester NH, October 13.
   This is no small step within the GOP field.
   More about climate change & the NH Primary at http://www.carboncoalition.org/blog

   Permalink