It is useful to have this information being shared at this time.

Disappointingly, I didn't hear a single mention of conservation as a valuable affordable domestic alternative energy "source".   Like the Republicans and the current administration, this advisor seems to be focused totally on the "demand side increasing" forecasts and trends.  Such forecasts are likely based on  basically a business-as-usual scenario where the public is not enlightened nor motivated to make other changes to avert climate change and ensure sustainability.  If my own household is any indication, there is a huge room for conservation gains to reduce consumption on the order of 50% without any big reduction in the American quality of life.

As she says, we've come a long way in the public discourse in the past four years to the point where terms like cap-and-trade are beginning to have traction and understanding in the mainstream.  

In this context, I also would have liked to see some additional discussion of renewables.  I understand the nature of the questions keyed in on the coal burning and drilling.   The conditional answer about coal-to-liquid fuels also seemed to warrant some kind of followup since on the face of it, there seems to be no way such a fuel can be considered "low carbon".

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

See this is change.  Bush dumped Futuregen, Obama will fund 5 pilot plants, using research and development to prove the concept before it is mass produced in a flawed fashion.  Just as present nuclear power was rolled out with poorly understood problematic technology.

No matter how stupid we may consider CCS or nuclear power to be, some testing to prove exactly why it should never be built out is a good thing.

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

Quite frankly, when I analyze the words of Obama for all his well formed sentences he really does say almost nothing.

He's on both sides of every issue.  He says the same thing each time -- "We must go forward, gradually, and then yet preserve the past.  But trim some of the budget, but not what works."

One could easily program a c# Obamabot to spew his vacillating prose on any subject.

Good luck Greens if heaven help us, Obama should win.  I don't think you'll get what you want...

It's the flip side of bush energy policy.

Bush says wait on solar, wind, conservation, and biogas.  More research.

Obama says wait on nuclear, CCS, and biofuel.  More research.  But Obama will fund the research.

Bush worked to cut research support for renewables/conservation.  If it is the right solution, so goes the "free" marketeerian meditation,  the market will reward and expand renewable energy.  On it's own, overcoming huge fossil and nuclear subsidies?

The Bush/McCain plan does and would continue to encourage immediate corporate welfare for the same old fossil and nuclear mega multinationals.  Forget renewables/conservation.

Obama's plan includes the mega corporations with an even chance to win the research battle.  These CCS pilot plants proce that.

Obama would increase subsidies for already proven cost effective technologies and use government purchasing to get mass production going.  

Job infusion from big multiyear orders from government for plugin hybrids, ground source heating systems, and solar cogeneration panels, would restart industry.

Waste 700 billion bailing wall street and 700 billion per year buying foreign oil?   All that money should be redirected to local credit markets where people borrow money to buy these devices, that redirect that huge outflow of cash for oil (and oil war) back into the local economy.

Bottom up industrial stimulation, instead of top down trickled on mega corporate thievery.   Which one will really get the actual economy going?

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