The coal optimists assume more than CO2 sequestration, for a happy future we also have to build enough coal-to-oil plants at just the right pace to offset oil price increases, and leave our economies intact.

People are building a few coal-to-oil plants, but I find it astounding that they think a ramp-up to continue the current trend in oil consumption is possible.

It looks like RFK's opposition to Cape Wind was an indicator of the true nature of this organization.  Too bad.

Will they back nuclear power next?  It wouldn't be a surprise given this endorsement of coal.

My guess is they were coopted by DC lobbyists.  No environmental organization should hire DC insiders, the place is filthy with crooking.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Some predictions are easy.  Oil at $300/bbl., natural gas at  $60/MMBTU, electricity at $1.00/kWh, and there goes the consumer economy and jobs.  

You will all be on your own for survival sans money.  That means heat from burning anything at hand, most likely lumps of coal in the home for heat, hot water, and cooking.  

Add to this problem 20 feet sea rise from Greenland and 250 feet from Antarctica.  I do not think blogs and "what we should do" will make a wit of difference.

The situation is grim but not hopeless.  Solar energy, if developed in time, can create a billion jobs around the globe.  Solar energy is cheaper than coal.

Henry Ford made good paying jobs so his employees can buy his cars.  The same can be done with district heating plus seasonal-heat-storage powered by solar collectors.  

The first step is leadership.  

The idea that coal could replace oil in time to ease this crisis is a little odd. Dave Kimble has it right about the timing issue.

But more fundamental is the arithmetic issue. A great physicist at U. Colorado, Albert Bartlett, made a film that explains it clearly. The important thing is Exponential Growth. Our use of oil in the last 15 years has grown at about 3.5% per year. Using the Rule of 70, you can divide 70 by 3.5 and find that we will double our usage of oil in 15 years - using up in the next 15 years as much as we used since the discovery of oil in 1859. The same holds true for coal. Economists tell us that "at present rates of consumption" we have enough for hundreds of years. But we increase our use of coal by a certain percentage annually, and now we would add the requirements of replacing the oil we have been using, which has amounted to some 40% of our total energy use. So we add 40% to our present consumptions, even if we could build the infrastructure in time, and then increase that by a steady percentage of 3-4%, and we would run out of coal in a couple of decades. So that is not the answer I want. It seems to me that hoping for coal or gas or nucs or whatever is more of a way of avoiding the issue than a potential answer. I don't know the answer, I hasten to add, but at least I am not escaping into denial. Acknowledging the truth is the first step. Ask any drunk.

Oregon Jim

There are lots of possible futures, and we won't know for sure which one we get until we live it.

But it strikes me that one plausable future is that the US government understands that there is a looming oil shortfall, but is trapped in their policy response.  Or feels trapped.

So I think what they think is that they'll sit tight and let prices change American priorities.  Maybe they expect a return to the 70's, with a scramble for efficient cars, carpooling, mopeds, etc.

I'd like something more proactive than that, but I can understand (given the basic limits of modern representative democracy) why they can't do more without immediately killing GM through efficiency mandates, and sending economic shockwaves.

(And there isn't currently backing for a taxpayer funded remake of GM into a fuel efficiency company.)

GM may die anyway, but it won't be their "fault" at election time.  They can all pretend ethanol will work short-term, until short-term prices disprove it.