Thanks, Kate. Quality recap on the enviro-crux of this debate.

Tim Hurst
ecopolitology
Red, Green, and Blue

Obama and McCain sound astonishingly similar on both energy and climate change issues. Energy independence - yes, offshore drilling - yes, nuclear power - yes, clean coal - yes, renewables - yes. All the above approach - yes.

We don't know who opposes whom in these issues. The fault lies with the moderators who are not asking the right questions, which clearly expose the differences if there are any. Such as the following :

1) Finding more oil and liquid fuels - Would you favor at some point in the future, to explore shale oil deposits ?  As we know these deposits contain much more oil than what is present offshore. Would you support coal liquification, which would always be cheaper than imported oil ?

Good answer from climate change perspective : No, we should avoid shale oil. The EROEI is very low, and there are smarter ways of powering the transport sector. Coal liquification is a strict no. This should be adopted only as a desperate measure.

2) Coal plants - Would you favor shutting down coal plants if they are not clean (if they do not fit in 100% CCS technology) ?

Good answer from climate change perspective : Yes, we should have hard deadlines on the termination of dirty coal plants. By 2015, say, all remaining coal plants should become clean coal plants.

3) Nuclear power - How do you intend to solve the problem of nuclear waste ? If you wish to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, would you prefer the PUREX method or the pyroprocessing method ?

Good answer from environmental perspective : Nuclear waste is a misnomer. It is all nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors are the permanent solution for avoiding nuclear waste. Yucca mountain is too costly and it is unnecessary. PUREX reprocessing yields only a tiny sliver of nuclear fuel and produces substantial amounts of Plutonium. We have better methods of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. We should adopt chemical pyroprocessing which completely use up transuranics, and which is better resistant to nuclear proliferation.

I trust Obama than McCain to make the right choices. But most of the above answers are too politically touchy. Neither Obama nor McCain would answer dare to answer the questions like the above, and risk losing significant political support. But these questions need to be asked.

Otherwise, the positions of the candidates will remain completely unclear.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

Somehow, it appears that we have to focus more attention upon the emerging scientific evidence of ominously looming, converging global threats to the family of humanity that are posed by the overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species rampantly overspreading Earth in our time.

The human-induced ecological challenges presented to the human community in these early years of Century XXI are essential matters for global discussion; however, our failure to acknowledge in open discussion "the human population factor" as a primary driving force, one that is precipitating the environmental challenges visible on the far horizon, is rendering our best, necessary efforts insufficient.

Always,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php