because all these guys are complete slaves to Big Energy (witness Obama's irresponsible advocacy of FutureGen).

he needs to just appoint Dennis Kucinich as head of the DOE, so ole DK can decentralize and clean up our crappy electricity system, create wealth, opportunity and employment for many millions of people, instead of environmental destruction and grotesque enrichment for a few Big Energy Monopolists and their mercenary partners in government (sorry Pelosi, but you bought into the wrong plan with Pickens).

we, as individuals, need to be heard in this conversation, but Big Enviros keep shouting us down and cheering for total ecosystem death with giant centralized "renewable"(ha!) power plants and massive, GHG-intensive transmission projects, as though that's the "Green Way."  it's a lousy way, both for climate change, for habitat preservation AND for humans who are sick of being held hostage to Big Energy monopolies.

LET US PARTICIPATE AS MORE THAN CONSUMERS!!  WE WANT RENEWABLE GENERATION AND SMART METER SYSTEMS ON OUR HOMES AND BUSINESSES, AND WE WANT TO BE PAID FAIRLY FOR THE POWER WE PRODUCE!!  WE WANT INVESTMENT IN EFFICIENCY AND STORAGE!

i shouted.  do you think he heard?

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

  Given the political reality in the US, that is about as good as I could expect to get. A couple of points where I disagree with Jon:

 (1) Domestic drilling for oil/gas: This is mainly political necessity. But also with oil north of $100/barrel it makes economic sense. And natural gas is crucial to our midterm energy future. Especially if we attempt a large renewables buildout that isn't accompanied by largescale energy storage (which is not a solved problem), the use of natural gas powered peaking plants to cover any periods when wind & solar are deficient will be needed.

 (2) Carbon Capture and Sequestration: I still think it is essential to try and develop this. Burial in oil bearing formations, as an enhanced oil recovery method, is the most economical method, but shouldn't be the only avenue explored. Even if the US is able/willing to forgo coal ( a big question mark here), I doubt the major developing economies, will. Developing and exporting CCS is an important climate insurance policy.

 (3) Nuclear: I'd sure like to see a major effort to use Thorium instead of Uranium, as most of the most objectional problems with fission (long lived radioactive waste, and proliferation issues) are supposed to be non issues with Thorium. A robust non intermittent baseload would make the job of integrating variable renewable power onto the grid a lot easier.

  Another theme I'd like to see, but don't expect to see, is to define our obsession with liquid fuels as a serious problem. It is this obsession, which is driving the ethanol/biodiesel programs. It would seem that we could better utilize excess (waste streams) of biomaterial for biogas, and/or thermal-electric generation. Although perhaps burial, as a CO2 sink would be better still.

"Let me be clear: There is no question that Obama's energy plan is better than McCain's and a very big improvement over Bush. But I am convinced by my close reading of his energy plan that it is essential that efforts like the 1Sky campaign need to keep ramping up the pressure for a truly science-based program to deal with the climate crisis. We have an extremely short time-frame in which to do so. Obama (and McCain) needs to be pushed now and pushed if he is elected to revise a number of elements of his program."

You are ignoring two realities with this statement:

a. Economic. Neither Obama nor God himself can risk major negative economic impact while striving towards developing new energy sources. You want revolutionary change, but that is not going to happen. It's going to be evolutionary - it has to be.

c. You certainly do NOT want to push Obama to now put radical plans on the table. Do you want him to lose the election? Because as soon as you start talking like the members of Grist do, you will lose the mainstream that one HAS TO HAVE to win any election. You can't be fringe and win. Fortunately, Obama understands what people here don't.

Victory in Pattani

... would ever say something like "We need to look at completely changing how we live, how we generate revenue, how we provide food and clothing for ourselves, etc. etc. etc."

Not if he wants to get elected. There is NO mandate for a radical makeover. People expect the government to orchestrate a transition - not so thoroughly intervene in their lives and ambitions that it becomes totally disruptive. There is no reason to believe that ANY government can do what is suggested in the below link without totally trashing the society it tries to do it with.

Victory in Pattani

a. There are jobs associated with Coal. If you shut down the plants, you shut down the mines. So the employees of both hit the streets. Those employees have political representatives who are not going to be too keen to tell their constituents "oh well."

b. You can't shut down plants RIGHT NOW. You have to replace the power they are generating with something else.

I agree that new new plants should be required to have sequestion and in order to get an operating license, and I agree that coal should move to the background as a fuel for producing electricity. but again, this is something that should be phased.

Lastly, in your other post you spoke of incentives. Shutting down coal is not an incentive. Tax shelters and the like are incentives. Things are changing, there is a slow but sure wave of change that is palpable - if the Green movement doesn't engineer something so radical that the voting public comes to the conclusion that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Again, I am highly suspicious of ulterior motives in the movement.

Victory in Pattani

That is what is important to get this renewable/conservation energy re-evolution going.

Compromise:  With the industries that have many members of congress in their pockets.  

Let them build a few experimental plants, nuclear, cellulosic ethanol, "clean" coal CCS, coal to liquid, tree to fuel, all the boondoggle dangerous nonsense that can never work.  It is necessary to let them prove they won't work to get them out of the way of real initiatives.

Participation:  As in past national emergencies, like world wars and natural disasters, get everyone to join in on clear goals, like reducing oil demand 5% per year.  

Tax carbon, so everyone helps pays for fixing our GHG intensive energy economy, offset by equal income tax breaks for working families.  So the carbon tax is revenue neutral, not a tax hike.

Sacrifice:  Give everyone ways to paricipate in meeting these goals.  Ways to conserve oil and energy and ways to invest in generating GHG free energy.  Subsidies for home solar and wind systems and energy saving systems like ground source heating/cooling.

Subsidy:  Subsidies for farm based solar, wind, and biogas/organic fertilizer systems and grid power backup systems that use biogas.

Subsidies for home solar and wind systems and energy saving systems like ground source heating/cooling.  And plugin hybrids charged on home solar panels.

Withdraw subsidies from big oil, coal, nuclear, agribizz fuel farming, and gas guzzler auto manufacturing.  They don't need the huge subsidies they are getting, which amount to 10s of billions per year.  Divert these billions to direct subsidies to homeowners, small business, and farms.

Order millions of plugin hybrid hypercars, ground source heating/cooling systems, solar systems, and so forth for government use in order to spur mass production efficiency and cost reduction.

I think Obama can organize an effort like that.  But he is going to have to get the message.  Will industry lobbyists have his ear, or will environmentalists like Lovins and Lester Brown be able to penetrate the wall of noise?

It's going to be tough to get the needed reform with national healthcare and ending these oil wars competing for his attention.  

We need to point out that this renewable energy/conservation re-evolution can eliminate oil war at it's root, namely oil addiction itself, and revive the economy so we can actually afford national healthcare.

Remember what happened to the clinton effort to get national healthcare in 92-93?  It was killed by democrats in congress in the pocket of the healthcare industry.  We are in danger of that happening again, across the board, on healthcare, energy, and oil war.  Winning this election is just the beginning of the reform battle.

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