Readers: Decipher the political rhetoric.... and you see the same thing that occurs at every presidential election. The American people get pushed mainstream presidential candidates that aren't good enough.

-Sen. Obama's biggest no-no is saying nukes are on the table with Iran! The implications of a nuclear attack socially,environmentally for the next hundreds of years  

-Check out Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who introduced H. Res. 333(Impeachment of Dick Cheney), he has a platform that truly stands out from the rest.

I see Grist pushing and questioning Barack once again about coal to liquids.  Several weeks ago Grist was covering a supposed flip-flop by this candidate on the same subject which is NOT well understood by scientists and even less well understood by the media and average citizens.

Questions:  I wonder what Amanda or Barack would think of a special coal to liquids process which recycled CO2 emissions as more elemental carbon atoms of feedstock, just like the coal itself?  And what if this process didn't produce a float-on-water oil, albeit sulfur free?  What if some specific new clean coal technology which has remained hidden for the past 35 years were to suddenly show up and a new biodegradable fuel revolution would then begin?

Just curious.

Gary Bridge

What worries me most about this interview is actually Obama's answer to the question on a tax vs cap and trade system.  His answer clearly shows that he does not understand the difference- or at least that he didnâ€TMt do a good job showing that he understood the difference in this interview.  Based on his statement here, he seems to think that auctioning off permits is equivalent to setting a carbon tax.  While I agree that auctioning permits is a necessary feature of an equitable cap and trade system, it does not accomplish what a tax accomplishes.  A tax creates a pre-established market price on carbon that can provide a great deal of market stability.   I am not arguing that a tax is better, or that we cannot have an effective hybrid policy. I simply believe that it is the job of a politician to be aware of the political solutions to environmental problems, even if he does not fully understand the science. It does not appear that Barack even understands the differences between the main political solutions to emissions reductions, and I think this is an indication of the low priority he is giving environmental issues in his campaign.
I like Barack, and overall I think he is an excellent candidate, but is time that he gets better informed on environmental issues.

I want Obama to be the candidate.  I do.  He's the only one with a shot to inject some fresh air into things... but, alas, he's gone.  Gone to the same interest groups as the rest.  Did you see him (and Billary, and Edwards) bow their heads when Mike Gravel attacked them about where their money comes from (CNN-YouTube debates).  This is the same unfortunate rhetoric Mr. Obama displayed in those debates (laughable calling them "debates").

It all actually sounds very nice and good.  There's a lot of nice 18-months-til-the-election, starry-eyed speech here.

What don't "we" understand about the fact that cars got 35 miles per gallon... 40 years ago!?  

What don't "we" understand that this should've been the minimum back in the Carter Administration?

Coal-to-Liquids?  Hello Illinois coal lobby.

Nuclear power?  How about "we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way" for oxymoron of the year!

And running a close second in Lane 5 is "If the technology exists for us to use coal in a clean fashion..."!  

Closing fast in Lane 7 is "I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market.." !

Read between these lines.  It says "F*#k you, America, coal and oil companies rule!"

Ethanol?  It's ALREADY a bust.  Just do a google search... or read the latest issue of Rolling Stone mag (yes, even those hippy rock journos are 'in the know'!).  

How about sense!?  Where's the Peace Plan?  

Where's the "By golly, Al Gore's right!  We're in trouble and gotta do something now!"

I like the energy Obama still brings.  He's fighting.  He's saying a lot of the right things.  But he's getting knocked around.

Yes, if only Dennis Kucinich was 20 points (and 6 inches) higher in the race...

I believe Dennis Kucinich still deserves our support as the most comprehensive thinker on the subject of ecology, peace and a hopeful future. As such, he deserves the green vote.  I don't live in a hole and  I know how he's polling.  In the end, I would be happy to support Obama in a general election, but right now, we need to push all of America to listen to Dennis Kucinich and learn from him.  
Comments to others:  coal to liquid certainly deserves some research, but not as much as renewable fuels -- shouldn't we be researching both? and wind and hydro?  we're going to be totally hybrid by 2050 anyway; perhaps there is more merit than we might think in liquid coal if I understand Mr. Bridges post correctly.

MillerOfReality writes: "Nuclear power?  How about "we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way" for oxymoron of the year!"

There actually is a way to use nuclear waste for fuel instead of storing it, which will be covered in my upcoming book. I've been trying like mad to enlighten the Obama campaign on this very subject, but it is like pulling teeth. He seems to already have such an impenetrable bubble in place that fresh ideas from the outside just bounce off. All the candidates seem to be the same in that regard, even Richardson.

When it comes to actually solving global warming, it boils down to politics. The end of global warming necessarily implies the end of the fossil fuel industries. Are any of the candidates prepared to promote the dissolution of the most powerful industries on the planet? I would like to think so, but one must consider the millions of lives that have been sacrificed on the altar of oil, and wonder whether a president who defied them would simply be added to the heap. This is a tough nut to crack.

Why ignore the other candidates?  Gravel and Dodd and Biden may not stand a chance, but TV and the Internet have given them a voice they could not have had before.  Why should Grist deny them one?  

Kucinich is viewed as not having a chance, but then he doesn't get many chances to speak, does he?  Why doesn't Grist provide a platform for him?  We need his voice for as long as possible.

Edwards could actually upset the front-runners. He could win in areas where they will not.  He shouldn't be seen as "fringe" by Grist.  He should be right there in the main stream.  

As for what Obama has to say, most of it is fine, but it's shallow.  His heart's in the right place, and so we can trust that he will choose advisors who are deeper than he is.  

But I wish Grist would give Kucinich and Edwards the time to counteract the time they DON'T get on TV.

I feel that when we are talking about developing an alternative (CTL) to current petroleum based fuels, it is somewhat unfair to put in a pre-requisite that it has to emit 20% less CO2 than current solutions. Any technology that is in its infant stages needs a level playing field. Mind you, I would be FOR putting that 20% pre-requisite for CTL in place, but I think in that case you would have to be FOR the exact same cap of 20% on CO2 emissions from current petroleum based fuels. Then the government would take the lead without influencing the free market.
Watch what the oil prices will do, and you'll know we can't do without CTL, which is much cleaner than anything we have that is petroleum based. Don't give it a disadvantage compared to current dirtier 'solutions'
Thanks

Grist, please include a question on candidates' stand on overturning Bush policies regarding distributing info on birth control and family planning choices.   Wasn't there a ban on any US-state-funded clinics, domestic or abroad, to even furnish basic information on birth control?  

In assesing a candidate's environmental policies, I'd like to know his or her stance regarding science vs. religion: is he or she open to assesing facts, or will his or her religious background cloud decisionmaking?

The Corn Guy would love to make us take a bath in ethanol.

Why do we continue to even consider nuc energy until we have put our great scientific minds to neutralizing the waste?  We need to remember that the nuclear waste already created is sitting around and has devastating potential for leaking into our ground and sea waters.
And with wind energy that are build in the natural flyways; what about the tens of thousands of birds that get slaughtered as they migrate?
So...solar energy.  The one thing we all know is that the sun rises and sets every day.  Surely we can create a system where solar energy is powered onto the grid.   We have plenty of desert in the world and everyone has a roof on their house...e.g. Denmark.
We need to take into account the entire eco system while making these crucial decisions; as we see with ethanol and corn prices for food going through the roof, let alone all the water just growing the crop consumes. (clean drinking water is fast running out)
Piglet  

What a shame.

Grist makes that "all is forgiven" because he released an environmental plan.

No. There are many red flags involved with this guy.

Nonsense. Once again with Obama we have a limited record to judge him by.

Check his lifetime score, and you find 2 years. 1 ranked 100 and one 95.

Then check Hillary. We also have a 100 year, and a 95 year. She has more yearsm, and several with lower scores but she still gets a lifetime score of 90.

Not "by far" by any means. Limited number of years.

I have serious questions about Obama and nukes, and Obama and coal. I am thankful he can be pressured and his stances have become greener as people have raised doubts, but that's not what matters in the long run.

Nonsense. Once again with Obama we have a limited record to judge him by.

Check his lifetime score, and you find 2 years. 1 ranked 100 and one 95.

Then check Hillary. We also have a 100 year, and a 95 year. She has more years, and several with lower scores but she still gets a lifetime score of 90.

Not "by far" by any means. Limited number of years, and not enough to make that kind of judgment by.

I have serious questions about Obama and nukes, and Obama and coal.

OBAMA did the one "environmental" act which showed me he's willing to do what it takes to make our Nation's AIR cleaner, & less fllled with Toxic Poisonous Pollution:

It's real Simple, & one-fifth of all Americans can also take this ONE action:

He QUIT CIGARETTE SMOKING.

My Lungs & the Lungs of my 2 grandkids, who have childhood ASTMA, as does my daughter-in-law, THANK Obama, & every Smoker who quits. (Myself,I have "adult onset Asthm, ironically CAUSED by smoking, from the Age of 14 (PRIME target age for tobacco industry to hook us: we're kIDS!) until the Age of 34, when THANK God both Surgeon C. EVERETT KOOP's "Smoke-Free Class of 2000" project for kids & his gutsy (against massive political pressure from Pres. REAGAN, who appointed him) campaign to educate & encourage Americans about Smoking & Health, & being a True "ENVIRONMENTALIST"!

Because where do most of us spend most of our time?  INDOORS, breathing INDOOR Air.  Dr. KOOP helped make our AIR CLEANER, & inspired so many Americans like myself to quit.

Thankfully also, the NICOTINE GUM came on the market then, or we wouldn't have been able to quit, a lot of us!

Bill Clinton, he is a CIGAR Smoker, as BUSH has been known to smoke Cigars also. (Don'tknow what ELSE Bush does with cigars, we know what Bill does with them); Arnold Schwartzenegger is one of Cigar Industry's loyal "Celebrity Smoker "PIMPS", who help promote cigar smoking in return to financial & other rewards.

The REPUBLICANS are dying to "roll back" what progress has been achieved, toward creating Smoke-FREE Public Air Space for all Americans to be able to "breathe free", because they are so in BED with Big Tobacco, they might as well be kissing gay cousins or incestuous brothers!

I don't THINK Hillary Clinton smokes Cigars, but who the heck knows? She sure wears the Pants Suits, that's for sure! Ha!

McCain?  He'll go along with the TobaccoIndustry, his 15-yrs. younger second wife is a Beer Distributor Company family "heiress", it is HER money that paid for his political campaign to get him into the Senate, along with other Special Interests Lobbyists backing.

So, I'll stick with Obama. He's so right in so many other ways, & he had the WILLPOWER to kick the Nicotine addiction.  That's like major willpower. Now he's an "ex-smoker" he won't be able to stand tobacco smoke, either!

He doesn't specify anything in detail and that always worries me.

Firstly, I would like to clear the record for nuclear technology and its competitors.  Nuclear energy is clean, and there IS a safe way to dispose of the material.  The government and general public are so ignorant of this fact, that very often the "Nukular" energy spends more time battling politics than doing what it needs to do.

Per KWH, nuclear energy's radiation emissions are SIGNIFICANTLY less than what coal produces.  Wind power kills birds by the thousands, hydro kills fish and other aquatic life thats essential to the food chains, but Nuke does not.  Solar would be the way to go if we had a more efficient way of capturing the sun's energy, but until we have Fusion energy, or an efficient form of Solar energy capture, the best option we have is Nuclear Fission Reactors.

Regarding Obama, I think its just silly that people want to "Pin" him down on stances or opinions on specific energy plans.  He can't be pinned down because he is an excellent candidate, and does not stick to his guns on a specific technology or course of action.  If you read what he is saying, you would come to the understanding that he simply wants to do whats best for the environment and for our people.  He is a man of ideas, where his idea is that we need to fix things, and his opinion will change based upon what the best course of action is.  If you don't understand that, please don't waste your time posting.  Trying to pin him down and attack him is all you really want to do, because all the ideas out there currently have flaws, and you want to point them out.  Good job, no one else here has figured out that most of the current ideas are not ideal.  Enter realism.

We can't just shut down the coal plants or ignore the coal industry, our energy grids would fail, and our slumping economy would almost recede into a full depression.  I think he is making the best decisions that anyone could make in his position.  Please remember that he has to remain in favor with his party, his people, and other countries.  You can't just shut down "evil" markets, you have to slowly push them into "healthy" markets.

Wake up.  Obama is the best candidate we have for cleaning up the environment in a realistic way.

Solar Power is infinite and clean. Being cost effective is one issue. It being a free renewable source of energy, the cost will pay for itself time and time again so its the most cost effective source I can think of. Another issue is space to have solar farms. Well why cant we utilize the space that is already there? A small solar panel on every telephone pole, wouldnt that solve that problem?
Nuclear Power in my frame of mind is still depleteing a natural source of fossil fuel, Uranium. The supplies for that is running low as well.
The more energy one country can create the stronger that country will be. In that thought if every homeowner was to participate in solar power and supply at least 50% of their own energy would strengthen the economy.