i wouldn't need the talcum powder:

"If severe emissions reduction requirements in a cap and trade system take effect before the carbon capture and storage technologies are available, the effect on coal fired utilities [in] particular would be severe,"

GROUCHO: well that can't stand. take a note: the next person i catch acting severely will get their arms cut off!

ZEPPO: their arms! isn't that a little severe?

GROUCHO: no, i said the next person.

...Republicans claim to block clean-energy technology subsidies because the cost will be handed to the consumer and will thus be a "tax".

Yet when it comes to coal, these particular congressmen seem to have no qualms 'bout havin' consumers pay their companies for research money.

you're getting confusticated. let me explain something important.

a "tax" -- as you call it -- is any money gathered for any purpose other than making the already rich, richer. this is because the point of democratic government, in the enlightened view, is to ensure that only people who have money, get money, and the reason this is democratic is that in a market economy, spending money is like voting, and the more you vote, the better it is for democracy; so the people who don't have much money to spend, who don't vote very often, are making democracy weaker, and don't deserve any money at all.

That's excellent, hapa.

We need a term and "framing" for those who accept the severity of the aggressor as just the way things are, yet castigate the "severity" of any victim who dares fight back. (You see that everywhere in America today, this despicable moral false equivalence.)

Well stated Hapa:

However the dirty little secret, never to be revealed, is that the right wing adores taxes.
Where, after all, do corporate subsidies come from?
Where does military spending come from?
[Non sequitur follows] Just don't get me going on the "peace dividend".

 - Crotchety1

Why not just recycle all the old talking points the anti-renewable crowd uses?  Against their pet projects, like CCS and coal to liquid and fuel farming and nuclear power.

Turn it around.  They are backing the mega expensive technologies that just will never work right.

Kind of ironic.  Now that renewables and conservation are proving their leadrship on cost and GHG freeing efficacey.

Why not?  Because we don't need propaganda, we have facts.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

There are some no-such-thing-as-clean-coal types of comments.
Head in the sand is the way I see it.
VERY important to get started right away on solving carbon sequestration if we want to do anything about carbon.
For those who think we can stop the use of coal by slowing down the development of technological solutions on carbon, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
That is not our coal.
Just like it is not our oil.
You can keep it in the ground by nationalizing it, which i think we should do either way.
Absent that, it will be mined, shipped and burned somewhere.
If not the US, then in some other country with or without CCS.
You can't stop mountaintop mining or killing valleys and streams and coal miners by having your head in the sand.
Either we nationalize coal, or we better be damned sure that we develop carbon sequestration technology ASAP.

Of course the costs will be passed on to consumers.
Either in rates or in taxes.
This is undeniable.
Where else does the money come from?
Increasing business expenses, like through taxes and fees, just get passed on to the consumers of those businesses.
The right approach is to "embrace" the fact that we all must pay the cost of solving public policy dilemmas like the environment, health and education, and what we need is a proper 'accounting", if you will, of the pass-through of the funds.
Gonna cost Trillions to solve Carbon, let's get a budget and a plan together and get at it.
The benefits of the policies will endure to the consumers and taxpayers.
How could we not expect the consumers and taxpayers to pay for it?