Dave, you might be sick of SOTU, but consider my current predicament. I am teaching "Intro to Climate Science," and one of the groups is writing about federal policies concerning GHG emissions. They claim that the Bush admin. is pursuing a "passive yet responsible" policy, then proceed to applaud all of Bush's policies. They neglect to expand on the "passive" part, and when mentioning Kyoto, fail to mention our shameful role.

I pointed out that the amount Bush wants to spend in one year on solar energy research is less than the amount that Exxon-Mobil spends in one day on "energy exploration," and less than the amount that we are spending on the Iraq war in three hours.

I can't take it any more.

On the fuzzy language: I wouldn't bother trying to read too much into it. First, these are people who use "coal" and "nucular" in the same sentence as "renewable." Second, I agree, it sounds like a shift in what kind of renewable energy is used. Which might benefit new technologies a bit, but would not actually increase the amount of renewable energy consumed.

It's now a done deal.  IGCC and CTL and pumping cO2 all over.  

So at least could they ramp it up enough to  prevent fuel farming?  Or run CTL on wind power to reduce cO2 somewhat? Nope.

Were fuel farming dropped in favor of sequestration by conservation land expansion, all that extra cO2 released by clean coal and liquid fuel from coal could be stored in the soil.

I think it's time for environmentalists to compromise with clean coal in the same way I proposed compromising with nuclear power interests. Groups like NRDC just give away any negotiating position our voters might give us.

My compromise with the nukers:  Let 'em build a few experimerntal waste eating reactors at yucca Mountain.  In return drop all subsidies for fossil, nuclear, and fuel farming.  And use half the corporate welfare savings to fund direct tax credits to home and small business owners who invest in renewable energy and PHEVs.

Compromise with the coal industry:  Let 'em build out IGCC and CTL.  But give up on fuel farming.  Sequester CO2 by expanding conservation land, and power both IGCC and CTL with wind power built on conservation land on the great plains.  That way the pumps that capture and filter the mess made in the air and water will be powered by wind.

As a side benefit, once wind is mass produced maybe it will start to replace IGCC?  It will be much cheaper.

We need someone other than Robert K jr to negotiate for US.  This current crew is not getting us any kind of a bargaining position.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog