<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Enviro coalition delivers a whopping transition plan to Obamaland]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by greenTmom http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:50:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/1 Green is the world and the way we are feeling!

It is time to make serious changes to our environmental policies and make our world a green place for us and our future generations.  We need to focus on Renewable Energy, Sustainable Living and Environmental Awareness and change our earth to be a greener and more sustainable earth.  Let's hope pres-elect Obama steps up to the "Green Shovel" and helps our country go green!
For more information on "going green" check out http://www.greenearthfriend.com

Green Earth Friend


]]> Green is the world and the way we are feeling!

It is time to make serious changes to our environmental policies and make our world a green place for us and our future generations.  We need to focus on Renewable Energy, Sustainable Living and Environmental Awareness and change our earth to be a greener and more sustainable earth.  Let's hope pres-elect Obama steps up to the "Green Shovel" and helps our country go green!
For more information on "going green" check out http://www.greenearthfriend.com

Green Earth Friend


]]> Comment #2 by Jake Schmidt http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:56:41 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/2 some insider commentary on these recommendations..

Many of the NRDC team that contributed to this report provide some insights on its key recommendations.  Check out: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/greentransition.php

My comments on the key international climate provisions are here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/actions_to_res ...

Jake Schmidt International Climate Policy Director Natural Resources Defense Council

]]> some insider commentary on these recommendations..

Many of the NRDC team that contributed to this report provide some insights on its key recommendations.  Check out: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/greentransition.php

My comments on the key international climate provisions are here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/actions_to_res ...

Jake Schmidt International Climate Policy Director Natural Resources Defense Council

]]> Comment #3 by Erik Hoffner http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:14:33 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/3 population

Interesting to see 2 population-oriented groups in the list.

But wow, almost 400 pages of demands from Big Green? Couldn't they have narrowed it down a bit? I would hesitate to behave like all the other lobbyists out there right now. Strategy or not, seems like a bit of a turnoff to a new Administration official charged with green initiatives who's not even in DC yet.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

]]> population

Interesting to see 2 population-oriented groups in the list.

But wow, almost 400 pages of demands from Big Green? Couldn't they have narrowed it down a bit? I would hesitate to behave like all the other lobbyists out there right now. Strategy or not, seems like a bit of a turnoff to a new Administration official charged with green initiatives who's not even in DC yet.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

]]> Comment #4 by vakibs http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:27:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/4 Please don't sign unless you agree with everything

This 391 page document is a mix of good and bad things. Some of the recommendations are downright silly, and totally unrelated to any of the environmentalist problem in question.

Since my biggest priority is to have a foolproof solution of eliminating fossil-fuel-use, I am seriously concerned about the possibilities of 4th generation nuclear reactors.

All the government funding that comes to these reactors exists in the GNEP program (This is woefully insufficient, but that's another story).

The 391-page report explicitly calls that the GNEP should be dismantled. I would like to ask which specific environmental purpose would that serve ?

I will quote the exact statement from the report

Terminate the GNEP Program, including its associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process. The hugely costly long-term GNEP "vision" is not relevant to urgent GHG reduction efforts in the 2009-2030 time period, and confronts high technical and financial hurdles to the deployment of commercially viable fast reactors, which have proven after six decades of development and billions of dollars expended, to be very costly, unreliable, and unsuited to commercial deployment

Two words :  "total bull shit". Who are the guys who wrote this ? Do they have any background in nuclear physics or engineering ? Do they understand even the basics of what fast reactors are, and whether they are better or worse than LWRs ? What are the supposed high technical and financial hurdles ?

None of the claims that these people make stand to debate. All these are outrageous lies.

The IFR project has been a brilliant success, and it solved all the problems that we associate with nuclear power. Snatching defeat from the mouths of victory, the Clinton administration dismantled the project in 1994. At that moment, they were listening exactly to people like these. I would like to ask, "which specific environmentalist cause did it serve : the dismantlement of the IFR project ?" We would have been shutting down coal plants left and right, if not for the utter stupidity in 1994. Should we do the same in 2008 ?

Would it improve the rivers, if we close research on fast reactors ? Then why did the American Rivers Coalition sign on this ?

Would it ensure we have clean waters ? Then why did the Clean Water Action sign on this ?

Would it protect the wild life ? Then why did the
defenders of wild life sign on this ?

I would like to ask the same question to all the organizations who signed on this report.

In fact, these recommendations are exactly opposite to what Dr Hansen asks for. Increased R&D, prototyping of fast reactors and international collaboration in these areas is the NEED OF THE DAY. Even people who don't particularly have any love for nuclear power (Joe Romm, for example) acknowledge that R&D in 4th generation nuclear power should be increased.

This document (prepared in Nov 2008) says exactly the opposite thing. Stupidity is not a strong point for being an environmentalist. These people who prepared this document blindly should be taken to task.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.


]]> Please don't sign unless you agree with everything

This 391 page document is a mix of good and bad things. Some of the recommendations are downright silly, and totally unrelated to any of the environmentalist problem in question.

Since my biggest priority is to have a foolproof solution of eliminating fossil-fuel-use, I am seriously concerned about the possibilities of 4th generation nuclear reactors.

All the government funding that comes to these reactors exists in the GNEP program (This is woefully insufficient, but that's another story).

The 391-page report explicitly calls that the GNEP should be dismantled. I would like to ask which specific environmental purpose would that serve ?

I will quote the exact statement from the report

Terminate the GNEP Program, including its associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process. The hugely costly long-term GNEP "vision" is not relevant to urgent GHG reduction efforts in the 2009-2030 time period, and confronts high technical and financial hurdles to the deployment of commercially viable fast reactors, which have proven after six decades of development and billions of dollars expended, to be very costly, unreliable, and unsuited to commercial deployment

Two words :  "total bull shit". Who are the guys who wrote this ? Do they have any background in nuclear physics or engineering ? Do they understand even the basics of what fast reactors are, and whether they are better or worse than LWRs ? What are the supposed high technical and financial hurdles ?

None of the claims that these people make stand to debate. All these are outrageous lies.

The IFR project has been a brilliant success, and it solved all the problems that we associate with nuclear power. Snatching defeat from the mouths of victory, the Clinton administration dismantled the project in 1994. At that moment, they were listening exactly to people like these. I would like to ask, "which specific environmentalist cause did it serve : the dismantlement of the IFR project ?" We would have been shutting down coal plants left and right, if not for the utter stupidity in 1994. Should we do the same in 2008 ?

Would it improve the rivers, if we close research on fast reactors ? Then why did the American Rivers Coalition sign on this ?

Would it ensure we have clean waters ? Then why did the Clean Water Action sign on this ?

Would it protect the wild life ? Then why did the
defenders of wild life sign on this ?

I would like to ask the same question to all the organizations who signed on this report.

In fact, these recommendations are exactly opposite to what Dr Hansen asks for. Increased R&D, prototyping of fast reactors and international collaboration in these areas is the NEED OF THE DAY. Even people who don't particularly have any love for nuclear power (Joe Romm, for example) acknowledge that R&D in 4th generation nuclear power should be increased.

This document (prepared in Nov 2008) says exactly the opposite thing. Stupidity is not a strong point for being an environmentalist. These people who prepared this document blindly should be taken to task.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.


]]> Comment #5 by guade00 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:27:09 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/5 At least they made it public

Yes, it's a naked effort to lobby the Obama administration on environmental issues. I can buy that. But can you imagine for a nano-second the outgoing monsters in the Bush-Cheney administration and their retinue of oil and gas industry lobbyists ever releasing such a clear manifest of policy recommendations for public consumption?

Transparency was a promise of the Obama campaign. Agree with the policies or not, the document and its authors are there for us to debate and discuss. This is the way it is supposed to be, and for many of us, what we voted for.

]]> At least they made it public

Yes, it's a naked effort to lobby the Obama administration on environmental issues. I can buy that. But can you imagine for a nano-second the outgoing monsters in the Bush-Cheney administration and their retinue of oil and gas industry lobbyists ever releasing such a clear manifest of policy recommendations for public consumption?

Transparency was a promise of the Obama campaign. Agree with the policies or not, the document and its authors are there for us to debate and discuss. This is the way it is supposed to be, and for many of us, what we voted for.

]]> Comment #6 by racc http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:39:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/6 A One Sentence Plan

Let the big 3 fail, save the environment, the economy and $25 billion.

]]> A One Sentence Plan

Let the big 3 fail, save the environment, the economy and $25 billion.

]]> Comment #7 by Terry Mock http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:20:56 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/7 Call for sustainable development

To: http://www.saveourenvironment.org/

In answer to the worldwide call for sustainable development to combat the current financial crisis, Sustainable Land Development International (SLDI) respectfully offers a solution that balances the needs of people, planet and profit - for today and future generations.

SLDI, a developer-led and cooperatively-owned technology and information resource company, is now fully positioned to transform the industry that creates the very infrastructure of our civilization. Sustainable development starts with our global infrastructure. If it is unsustainable, ultimately nothing else can be. Featured products and services include clean energy technology, carbon sequestration technology, soil enhancement technology, water purification and retention technology, sustainable land development best practices systems and certification programs.

Your participation and comments are welcome.

Terry Mock
Executive Director
Sustainable Land Development International

http://www.SLDI.org
http://www.SLDTonline.com
http://www.SURmag.com
http://www.LDBreakthroughs.com
SLDI Newsletter - http://www.sldi.org/newService/SLDINov2008.html







]]> Call for sustainable development

To: http://www.saveourenvironment.org/

In answer to the worldwide call for sustainable development to combat the current financial crisis, Sustainable Land Development International (SLDI) respectfully offers a solution that balances the needs of people, planet and profit - for today and future generations.

SLDI, a developer-led and cooperatively-owned technology and information resource company, is now fully positioned to transform the industry that creates the very infrastructure of our civilization. Sustainable development starts with our global infrastructure. If it is unsustainable, ultimately nothing else can be. Featured products and services include clean energy technology, carbon sequestration technology, soil enhancement technology, water purification and retention technology, sustainable land development best practices systems and certification programs.

Your participation and comments are welcome.

Terry Mock
Executive Director
Sustainable Land Development International

http://www.SLDI.org
http://www.SLDTonline.com
http://www.SURmag.com
http://www.LDBreakthroughs.com
SLDI Newsletter - http://www.sldi.org/newService/SLDINov2008.html







]]> Comment #8 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:21:02 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/8 Slurp...


Yup, every loon group with a mouth to feed is standing in line waiting to eat up at the Federal trough.

Texeme.Construct.Questioner


]]> Slurp...


Yup, every loon group with a mouth to feed is standing in line waiting to eat up at the Federal trough.

Texeme.Construct.Questioner


]]> Comment #9 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:15:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/9 GNEP reactors...

...notice how they don't say 4th generation reactors aren't useful, they just say that "The hugely costly long-term GNEP "vision" is not relevant to urgent GHG reduction efforts in the 2009-2030 time period"

This is true.  There's almost no chance that we could construct enough 4th generation reactors in that time period (2009-2030) to make a serious dent in GHG emissions.  

Even without the technical problems, it's just a matter of construction time and geopolitics.  It usually takes at least several years to approve the construction of a new nuclear plant.  Then, it usually takes close to a decade for actual construction to finish and the plant to come fully online (so by the time even the first plant comes online, it'll probably be 2023-2025 at the earliest).  Then allow typically 2-3 (at the least) years for power from the plant to offset the GHG emissions released from the plant's own construction.

In other words, even if it first plant were to begin serious planning in 2009, it'd probably be close to (if not beyond) 2030 before it was up and running and had offset it's own construction in energy.

We need large scale emission reductions long before 2030.

So, no offense, but in terms of global climate change, it won't make any large-scale difference/reductions in emissions on any reasonable timescale to help us.

]]> GNEP reactors...

...notice how they don't say 4th generation reactors aren't useful, they just say that "The hugely costly long-term GNEP "vision" is not relevant to urgent GHG reduction efforts in the 2009-2030 time period"

This is true.  There's almost no chance that we could construct enough 4th generation reactors in that time period (2009-2030) to make a serious dent in GHG emissions.  

Even without the technical problems, it's just a matter of construction time and geopolitics.  It usually takes at least several years to approve the construction of a new nuclear plant.  Then, it usually takes close to a decade for actual construction to finish and the plant to come fully online (so by the time even the first plant comes online, it'll probably be 2023-2025 at the earliest).  Then allow typically 2-3 (at the least) years for power from the plant to offset the GHG emissions released from the plant's own construction.

In other words, even if it first plant were to begin serious planning in 2009, it'd probably be close to (if not beyond) 2030 before it was up and running and had offset it's own construction in energy.

We need large scale emission reductions long before 2030.

So, no offense, but in terms of global climate change, it won't make any large-scale difference/reductions in emissions on any reasonable timescale to help us.

]]> Comment #10 by wolfger http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:06:39 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/10 What about human population?

There may be two so-called population groups on the list of endorsers but when you do a search of the word population in this document you won't find one word about human population numbers and how they might just be unsustainable or how they might just be the problem with all of the threatened species losing habitat. Disappointing but not unexpected. as the mainstream enviro groups are still avoiding the real problem witht he environment

One would think that they might at least request that President-Elect Obama create a Population Comission and give them the task of recommending a Population Policy for the US, the largest historical carbon dioxide emitter.

The again, we already had two population commissions which have basically said that there is nothing to be gained by having more people in the US.  Unfortunately, Obama's handlers will see to it that the population problem is not brought forth as an urgent issue needing attention.   Like the financial meltdown and the energy crisis we'll just have to wait until it's too late to do much about overpopulation.  3 million more this year, 3 million more next year, possibly 150 million more by 2050.

]]> What about human population?

There may be two so-called population groups on the list of endorsers but when you do a search of the word population in this document you won't find one word about human population numbers and how they might just be unsustainable or how they might just be the problem with all of the threatened species losing habitat. Disappointing but not unexpected. as the mainstream enviro groups are still avoiding the real problem witht he environment

One would think that they might at least request that President-Elect Obama create a Population Comission and give them the task of recommending a Population Policy for the US, the largest historical carbon dioxide emitter.

The again, we already had two population commissions which have basically said that there is nothing to be gained by having more people in the US.  Unfortunately, Obama's handlers will see to it that the population problem is not brought forth as an urgent issue needing attention.   Like the financial meltdown and the energy crisis we'll just have to wait until it's too late to do much about overpopulation.  3 million more this year, 3 million more next year, possibly 150 million more by 2050.

]]> Comment #11 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:08:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/transition-talk-a-391-page-green-gorilla-in-the-room/11 Human population growth is due to sex...

...and hopefully, the new administration will see that abstinence-only sex education is largely uneffective.

It'd also help if they restored federal funding to AIDS groups in Africa who also support abortions (a practice which was suspended under bushy).

]]> Human population growth is due to sex...

...and hopefully, the new administration will see that abstinence-only sex education is largely uneffective.

It'd also help if they restored federal funding to AIDS groups in Africa who also support abortions (a practice which was suspended under bushy).

]]>