Wow, that's a real debate about real issues (although Clinton seems to want to talk more about past voting rather than what needs doing now)

I especially like Obama's last line. That's the key message!

...They're actually talkin' 'bout eco-issues!  Seriously, I think the candidates (Dems especially, but even Republicans), have spent more time and energy on environmental and energy issues in this presidential debate than maybe in all of the other presidential races in the history of this country combined!

An excellent step forward.

Obama's enthusiastic support for coal to liquid fuel since he has been and the U.S. Senate and the fact that he is leading beneficiary of the money of big coal in the presidential Democratic Party field(though not of big oil precisely of his stance on coal to liquid fuel) should give anyone with any modicum of concern about global warming or mountain removal pause.

Obama is the only presidential candidate who is a Senator to be an original cosponsor, mostly alongside global warming denying Republican Senators deep in the pocket of big coal though Sen Byrd finally relented under great pressure from big coal interests in his home state of West Virginia.

S. 154 & S. 155, the Coal to Liquid Fuel Energy Act and the Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act would both spend billions of tax payers dollars on subsidizing "developing" the already existing technology to put coal in are fuel tanks and subsidizes necessary infrastructure to put coal in american gas tanks at such a high level and combination of grants, tax incentives and even government guarantee of return on private loans to do these projects that the renewable sustainable and ecologically friendly energy industry in this country would dare dream of recieving in their wildest of dreams.

This, combined with Obama's incredibly enthusiastic support for nuclear energy coming from a state with 30 some nuclear facilities, among the highest concentrations anywhere, and his lack of exposure to any critical analysis of the nuclear industry from much of his current constituency makes him clearly unsuitable for president in terms of anyone serious about environmental concerns.

His ballyhooed programs on global warming are not enough and don't go much further than things Bush has already agreed to support or the strongest carbon emissions standards in the country signed into law by Republican governors in Minnesota and California working in concert with public pressure and Democratically controlled state legislatures.

We must do better than Obama on these issues this election cycle!

Global warming speeds up Race for North Pole
London , 15 January 2008 - Global warming is accelerating the quest for the North Pole's vast energy resources, which are becoming accessible due to the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, Jane's Defence Weekly reports. Claiming Arctic sovereignty is fast becoming a high-stakes - and potentially dangerous - game.
Unsurprisingly, the Arctic nations are locked in territorial disputes. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA are all vying for access. Their claims may become even more contentious should energy reserves be proven to be recoverable in the vast, unforgiving environment.
A preliminary assessment by the US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests the Arctic seabed may hold as much as 25 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves. Diminishing ice coverage will make extracting resources in the North Pole more feasible.
The Northwest Passage opened for the first time in human memory in 2007 and is poised to become a premium navigation route. As an alternative to the Panama Canal, it would cut roughly 7,000 km from the traditional shipping route between Asia and Europe, saving shippers fuel and time.
No country has clear legal authority to conduct maritime interdictions, ensure safe transit of commercial shippers or conduct routine surveillance of maritime traffic. This lack of clear jurisdiction has created a major security vacuum in the waterway.
"There is a risk that the Northwest Passage will become attractive to those who wish to traffic in weapons of mass destruction, missile components, centrifuges and other things of both national and global security concern," said Michael Byers, an Arctic expert at the University of British Columbia.
Sovereign rights to energy resources in the Arctic seabed are also still largely undetermined under international law. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a legal framework to govern all uses of the world's oceans and resources, but the major players in the Arctic are still gathering evidence to bolster their own claims under the treaty. The US has not even ratified the UNCLOS.
Competition to claim parts of the Arctic seabed is likely to intensify as Arctic energy reserves become more accessible and the price for oil rises. The region could be ice-free in the month of September as early as 2040, according to a 2006 study sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and NASA.
Arctic powers are expanding their military and civilian footprints in the region. Canada, Russia and the US are investing in northern-capable research, surveillance and combat assets and boosting their Arctic operations tempo to include more military exercises, overflights and exploration missions using icebreakers. Forces operating in the Arctic region are exploring the full range of military capabilities, since there is no ban on weapons in the Arctic as there is in Antarctica.
Some experts say the build-up suggests that debates about Arctic sovereignty and security have reached a critical juncture: progress must be made on the diplomatic front or conflict may be unavoidable. The critical question is whether territorial disputes in the Arctic will descend from diplomatic annoyances to military brinkmanship or even armed conflict.
- Ends -

Yes that is just the way it was done. A little secret by 2040 to get the oil and gas from the North will probably not be on the table.

Cute analogy, LGT.  In that quaint orientalist artefact, Puccini's final opera "Turandot," the answer that breaks the curse and wins the Princess, rescuing her from her own ice-bound heart, is "Love."  But we may very well doubt that the residents of southern Nevada could perceive much that was altogether loving in the way the candidates answered the Yucca Mountain question.

John Edwards came close, though.  Whether he is the "greenest" candidate, as Wildleaf says, I do not know.  And whether he always negotiates quite fluently the terms that he uses, as DR suggests he does not, I do not know.  But surely he is at least as green as Hillary and Obama.  And he certainly is second to none in going after the complications caused by heavy-handed interested parties.

E.g., like the Neapolitan Mafia, the Camorra, who are sitting on the trash disposal crisis in Naples and vicinity, there is already a considerable history of powerful, monied interests who chose Yucca Mountain as an optimum site for the disposal of nuclear waste material.  John Edwards is supremely qualified and motivated to identify the military/industrial/energy interests operative in the history of Yucca Mountain, both locally and nationally.

By contrast, Obama's "getting the best experts around the table" is pathetic.  It sounds brilliant, sure.  But in fact, the problem of nuclear waste disposal has been studied now for a long time; from among many options, subterranean deposit seems to be the most feasible and secure; and there are a number of security issues, especially involving transportation and geophysics, that make Yucca Mountain look like an unacceptable option.  One gets the impression that Obama is representing the interests who are lamenting the millions that have already been spent on Yucca Mountain.

And on this point at least, Hillary gets it.  For a number of reasons I continue to prefer Edwards to Hillary, but I like her response here.

Similarly, I was not impressed by Obama's response to Tim Russert's question.  (By the way, in defense of Russert, whose interviewing style was recently criticized in Gristmill, I think his first question was very good.  His second question, on another interesting topic, was a good bit more muddled and unfair.)  Obama's line about a "menu of options, and let's see where science and American know-how and entrepeneurship take us," is gorgeous (though LegumeSam, Patrick in Beijing, the late John Paul II and I would want to insist that capitalism be constantly mistrusted and scrutinized).  But there you are: the line can be interpreted in either a pro-business or a pro-market sense; and one cannot help suspecting that Obama would be in fact too accommodating on the pro-business side, and not strong enough on the pro-market side.

And I strongly dislike Obama's last line, which so impressed Easterbunny.  A true leader will require us to rethink what our "standard of living" is, and to ask what about the way we live is worth keeping, what is worth chucking, what is worth enhancing.  But simply to state that our "standard of living" is untouchable sounds pretty much like Dick Cheney's evil counsel, that conservation is no more than a personal virtue.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

Last night in Nevada the debates. One question was asked to John Edwards. Tim said he had talked with some people and it looks like the population will be 9 billion by 2050. That means we could double the amount of CO 2 by 2050. John said wind, solar and cellulosic fuels. Not nuclear. Now Obama has all the words down but the mind is not really working. Then Hillary said an Apollo project but kind of laughed as she said it. A better way to put it she said it in a way like people would think she was just not right. A little secret you don't double CO 2 levels. When John was asked that question it stopped him for a second as he had to think how to answer that question. Yes that was just the way it was done. When John was asked that question how about if he said, "You can read as much as you want on these subjects, but it doesn't really enter your system. You don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have." Why couldn't he say that? Pachauri of course said that but as we all know is a Socialist and trying to change the entire Capitalist system Worldwide so he and his left wing buddies can control the entire Planet. I heard that on Glenn Beck the other night. Thank you Glenn that is clearly the most logical answer.

"(And good for Obama for pushing efficiency into the mix.)"

Right.  The conversation turns to curbing co2l plants (thanks to Edwards) and Coalbama changes the subject to efficiency.  

Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted.
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and
people steal it.   The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to
is Israel.   This happened in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa
1970.   A company called Numec was in the business of
reprocessing nuclear fuel.   I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker.   [A nuclear battery would
have the advantage of lasting many times as long as any other
battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace batteries.]   Numec
did NOT have a reactor.   Numec "lost" half a ton of enriched
uranium.   It wound up in Israel.   The Israelis have fueled both
their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing
nuclear "waste."   It could work for any other country, such as Iran
or the United States.   It is only when you don't have access to
nuclear "waste" that you have to do the difficult process of
enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "CANDU"
reactor or a British Magnox reactor, both of which run on
unenriched uranium.  
Numec is no longer in business.   The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped.   That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.  
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility.   At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place.   Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

   Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements.   Coal
is a rock.   The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2
parts per million.   Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per
million uranium.   A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year.   If you multiply 4 million
tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium.   Most of
that is U238.   About .7% is U235.   4 tons = 8000 pounds.   8000
pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235.   An average 1 billion
watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235
every year.   There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the
stack or into the cinders.   Since a reactor full fuel load is around
11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10
years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and
cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year.   1.1
divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%.  
Remember that only 2% of that is U235.   The nuclear power
plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year.   The coal fired power
plant burns coal by the trainload.   The nuclear power plant
consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could
carry that much weight in a briefcase.
   U238 can be bred into Plutonium and Thorium can be bred into
Uranium.   We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal
cinders and smoke.

   Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities.   Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements.

Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for
cooking.   The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic
poisoning because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large
amounts of arsenic.  Coal varies a lot.   You have to analyze it not
only mine by mine but even lump by lump.

Bacteria can produce poison free biogas from coal right where it is at, underground.  leave the radioactive elements underground.

Nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous, and as you point out the waste can even be turned into nuclear weapons.  Just too risky.

Leave nuclear power in the sun, and harvest it with wind, solar, wave, biogas and so forth.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Obama's line about a "menu of options, and let's see where science and American know-how and entrepeneurship take us," is gorgeous (though LegumeSam, Patrick in Beijing, the late John Paul II and I would want to insist that capitalism be constantly mistrusted and scrutinized).

American know-how would go a lot further if it weren't for its dependency upon American entrepreneurship, which insists upon making money (i.e. bringing in government subsidy) upon the whole thing.  Better to get rid of capitalism altogether, and allow people power to make the big economic decisions.

But simply to state that our "standard of living" is untouchable sounds pretty much like Dick Cheney's evil counsel, that conservation is no more than a personal virtue.

Actually our "standard of living" is quite touchable, with millions of "standards of living" wiped out by the shrinkage of "free markets" all over the world every once in a while.  What Obama means is that we are to continue to view the natural world as the source of our favorite consumer appliances rather than attempt, on some grand scale, to live with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Hurray, LegumeSam, my hero!

Two things (for example) about American politics elude me:

The libertarian bit: What the hell is the problem with such drugs as marijuana and cocaine, such that they should be by law declared illegal substances?  Would it not reduce crime terrificly, and make everybody very much happier, if such items as marijuana, cocaine, LSD and peyote were sold across the counter at Duane Reade's?

The Victorian-British-Library bit: Why the hell in American political discourse are "American" and "free" and "liberty" inevitably associated with capitalism, while anything that looks vaguely Marxist and socialist at once is brought under suspicion and considered "un-American"?

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

Would it not reduce crime terrificly

Yes, but the shadow government is in the crime business... it wouldn't be profitable for the CIA to deal the stuff if it were legal... of course, prohibition is one of the main vehicles for racism in mainstream society, as the punitive weight of the drug laws falls disproportionally upon nonwhites...

One of the ways in which the EZLN used to obtain weapons is through the drug trade -- the Zapatistas used to pose as drug dealers and buy them from the Mexican government.  They probably still get weapons this way.

Ending prohibition is probably the number one way in which the Right in America (the only active political faction) can be motivated to do something good.  Thanks for bringing this up.

Why the hell in American political discourse are "American" and "free" and "liberty" inevitably associated with capitalism, while anything that looks vaguely Marxist and socialist at once is brought under suspicion and considered "un-American"?

Probably because of the endless, and tiresome, invocation of the Soviet bogeyman.  Since we are all now advocating mere "economic democracy" under conditions of "radical decentralization" and identity politics, toward a global, ecologically sustainable society, this shouldn't matter, but the Right tars us all with the same brush nonetheless.  We are a bunch of evil Reds.  Their alternative, of course, is capitalist "two party" dictatorship, maintaining corporate hegemony until abrupt climate change wipes out our habitats.  

The Right on Gristmill, for instance, offers us endless sales pitches for "alternative energy," none of which will stop one barrel of oil from being pumped from the ground, refined, and burned.  But, see, this is their version of "freedom," never mind the children who will have to live, and die, through its blowback.  At some point it will be necessary to tell little Junior that he's toast, because Mommy and Daddy couldn't give up being bourgeois capitalists for anything.  Hey, they tried their best; they bought a Prius.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus