but wants to push a proenvironmental agenda.

Energy along with health care and Iraq are Obama's three big issues. Energy and environment are so closely intertwined that if energy is at the top the environment is at the top.

David is right about Obama being our best and only choice. Enviros should protest when Obama he isn't making better choices but should realize what is truly possible and shouldn't be self-destructive.  

Scientists and engineers who work on a particular solution, like CCS or nuclear power, have a picture of what that optimum system in the right location could do.

That's for the most part the root of honest dissagreement about who has the best techology solution.

Lobbyists run with that, skewing the facts to make their case for their industry.

Politicians promote these projects with second hand information, mostly disinformation.

But the proof is in the results of R and D and test projects.  Barack will fund that, then choose the ones to subsidize and mass produce.

This is why he wants to give nuclear and CCS and biofuel a chance.  I don't think they will be competitive with conservation, renewables,  and renewable smart grid technology.

But give the honest scientists and engineers a chance to do their work.  Human creativity and innovation might lead to a whole new path no one though of yet.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I have great respect for Obama's ability to speak with some latitude on his positions and build a broader coalition.  For that reason we need to be ready to shift that balance far more to the real-climate-solution side when he is elected.  Statements like these: "But the proof is in the results of R and D and test projects.  Barack will fund that, then choose the ones to subsidize and mass produce." allow for time to wait-and-see, and threaten to draw RandD money away that could go into infrastructure.  

Yes we need R and D for lots of technologies, (please don't deny 'advanced' coal some R and D, but we have enough evidence to show that its not a great bet for a lot of our money, even as powerful lobbies would convince us otherwise.)

Lyndon Johnson didn't sign the civil rights act without a massive national movement, people getting killed and beaten, and years (generations?) of struggle.  We are the ones who, if we believe the pages of Grist, need to be out there creating the political will for the right solutions, not trusting that Obama will somehow chart the right course in the post-election party.

All in defense of defenseless options.

The big stuff
Clean coal? More drilling & nuclear plants... this is what my father heard during presidential debates when I was a baby.

New nuke & Clean Coal plants would take over a decade to come online and we are still in debt from the ones installed over two decades ago.

The price of all resources and operating costs in these industry's are nearly 3 times more than any other. And no one seems to have a longterm viable solution to how the get rid of the long term waste from either....

More debt and longer time-lines are not sustainable energy options... the longer we wait, the longer we push ourselves into financial, energy (*4 trillion debt) and ecological debt (*5 trillion debt).

Lets put aside the trillion dollar safety, health and environmental issues that proponents of clean coal nuclear energy leave out... these options may bankrupt a bankrupted nation.

The small stuff
The "best" proposed scenarios by candidates Energy Plans for nuke and off shore drilling could only supply 3% -5% of our energy demands.

Not likely... but what of we prosper during this time? The 3% -5% would barely keep up with growth in the next two decades while these "no plans" dig use further in debt.

Current vehicles on the road and coal plants will not be phased out for decades. If these are the "primary sources" of our problem, how do any of the "proposed plans" address this? And growing Asian and Indonesian environmental and energy problems will make the current U.S. situation look insignificant by then.

WHERE DOES THIS ALL LEAVE US IN 2020, 30 40?

As we elect our next president... we can not continue to erode our future with the same answers for energy that have left us in the dark for decades.

Regardless of who we want to win... it's politics, they will not change unless we demand it.

At this point, it should be abundantly obvious to all.

Rant-
Have we learned nothing about politics or energy? When we leave the destiny of our future in the hands of others, we hand off our own opportunities.  

The only way we can ultimately protect our future is for everyone to have a "vested interest in it".

We can stop more than 30% of our waste and 76% of our electricity energy needs that create 48% of our greenhouse gases. In less than a decade we have hope of eliminating the need for volatile foreign energy commodities that erode the safety, security and economy of our country.  

*Current EIA & DOE . gov facts we choose to ignore... detailed on the oildrum and a dozen other sites.