I don't say we can't compromise - I simply say that the need for compromise isn't as strong as we think.  L-W starts from the presumption that GHG mitigation will be expensive, and therefore will impose costs on society that we must allocate around.  This presumption implies that we must start by figuring out how to dole out the pain, which is implicitly a process of compromise.  

My point is that the underlying presumption (that GHG mitigation is economically painful) is flawed.  Massive GHG reductions are possible that will generate profits - even more if we get rid of existing rules that subsidize the dirtiest sources.  Ergo, rather than figuring out how to spread economic pain, our conversation ought to start from the perspective of maximizing economic development opportunities.

Is there still need for compromise in a democratic process?  Of course.  But it's not nearly as big as L-W presumes.  And worse, L-W is set up in a way that preferentially directs resources towards the most economically painful GHG-mitigation approache, essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy if enacted as currently structured.  I'll be providing more detail on this in subsequent posts.

boil down your five most important points

suggest legislative language for the fixes

contact NRDC or other big enviro group, ask them to pitch it

you have about a week to get done

lessee

hansen says 350's the target and we can solidly expect to capture 50 with plants, making 400 the safe peak

wall street's itching for a new bubble to save itself from jumping out the window and L-W provides a frictionless market for hucksterism

and you display a tin ear for whole policy, questioning the necessity of ensuring school access as part of guaranteeing education

i can feel my chances of survival slipping away.

I am not saying be quiet

I am saying join the process

talk when it will help most to the people writing an amended bill

was talking to the post-writer person, tho.

20 years from now -- 2028 -- if i'm reading your site right, you would own generating capacity that operated with 33-50% the fossil fuel.

did you notice that 33 and 50, they aren't zero? we're talking old plants... not compatible with CCS, right? but while there's a carbon market your facilities would be pretty profitable, right?

i like heat capture and the short term improvement is awesome.

but do you have a financial interest in not having the stabilization target be below current? we'd still have to phase out your plants, unless you intend to fight for continuing pollution.

if that's true, why are you writing here?