http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:32:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/#comment-8958 ronwagn Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:43:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/#comment-8958 It is a lot simpler to just add to the gasoline tax. That punishes the gas hogs, and not the green car drivers. Good luck with passing that though. It is a lot simpler to just add to the gasoline tax. That punishes the gas hogs, and not the green car drivers. Good luck with passing that though.

]]> http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/#comment-8970 Shannon Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:15:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/#comment-8970 Anyone who has been following the presidential election closely should know better than to write an article like Mallaby's, which simply echoes the untrue CW that Obama's plans have no specifics. As Joe says, Obama's plan is incredibly specific; furthermore, he mentions the issue of energy and climate change every chance he gets. I would say that Obama and Clinton both have excellent plans and support 80% reductions of 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2050, a platform not shared by McCain. They are both also very vocal supporters of cellulosic ethanol, though both have approved subsidies for corn-based fuel, which I think was a mistake. Obama does support public funding for carbon sequestration from coal, which is questionable, and is neutral on public funding for nuclear power, which might make some people upset. I have reviewed the candidates on these positions at http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-clinton-and-mccain-on-global.html. Anyone who has been following the presidential election closely should know better than to write an article like Mallaby’s, which simply echoes the untrue CW that Obama’s plans have no specifics. As Joe says, Obama’s plan is incredibly specific; furthermore, he mentions the issue of energy and climate change every chance he gets. I would say that Obama and Clinton both have excellent plans and support 80% reductions of 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2050, a platform not shared by McCain. They are both also very vocal supporters of cellulosic ethanol, though both have approved subsidies for corn-based fuel, which I think was a mistake. Obama does support public funding for carbon sequestration from coal, which is questionable, and is neutral on public funding for nuclear power, which might make some people upset. I have reviewed the candidates on these positions at http://local-warming.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 02/ obama-clinton-and-mccain-on-global.html.

]]> http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/#comment-9221 socialscientist Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:56:33 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/26/the-washington-post-lamely-attacks-obamas-climate-ideas/#comment-9221 Cellulosic ethanol is not a risk-free proposition. We could spend billions researching it and get nothing. That money would be better spent implementing free public transit which has immediate payback, stimulates the economy, requires no research, and puts us on the path to eliminate the private auto. Cellulosic ethanol is not a risk-free proposition. We could spend billions researching it and get nothing. That money would be better spent implementing free public transit which has immediate payback, stimulates the economy, requires no research, and puts us on the path to eliminate the private auto.

]]>