Essential reading…

The Shadows of Consumption gives a hard-hitting diagnosis: many of the earth’s ecosystems and billions of its people are at risk from the consequences of rising consumption.
http://books.google.com/ books?id=5PEFBfoK9JIC&pg=PA67&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA67,M1

This is precisely why the free market is not the answer to society and the real solution is the free market within an envelope of sustainability ie the ultimate good of the ourselves and the planet.

Also if you haven’t seen the last Scian special ed its worth getting…
Earth 3.0
http://www.sciam.com/ special/ toc.cfm?issueid=57&sc=singletopic

Clean coal is coal that stays in the ground undisturbed.

Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every
element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where
you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur,
Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial
grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial
grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the
whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze
it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out
of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to
reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ ORNLReview/ rev26-34/ text/ coalmain.html
and
http://www.ornl.gov/ info/ ornlreview/ rev26-34/ text/ colside1.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ news/ 2008/ 11/ western_governors_to_obama_act.php

based on this letter from the western states governors to Obama asking for GHG reductions

http://www.westgov.org/ wga/ press/ obama-energy11-21-08.htm

It’s not perfect of course, but . . . wow.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2008/ 11/ 081124130948.htm

First, I assume there are legit transparency issues to be resolved before international agreements could work properly.

But the way the summary you link uses it, it sounds like they may be looking to strengthen the Data Quality Act. This is a cute little law slipped onto the books in 2001 without any discussion.

One way the law been misused -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A3733-2004Aug15.html

And here’s how US Chamber of Commerce tried to game to the decisions. In this case it was unsuccessful, even with their pals in charge -
http://www.ombwatch.org/ article/ articleview/ 3904/ 1/ 231?TopicID=1

Love your site.Kudos.

Have you have a chance to read the US Chamber of Commerce’s plan?

http://www.energyxxi.org/reports/Transition_Plan.pdf

I am browsing it and my initial reaction is heavy on business, lite on dealing with climate change.

Issues so far are:

“Revising the Clean Air Act for which it was orginally intended, rescend the DC Appeals Court decion”…my concern is that if the CAA is open for reform it will be open the door for likes of the proposed Palumbo changes (past decade). Further, just like the EPA obstructed changes under Bush, it can be used as a lever by Obama to force changes in the absence of Congressional action (one filibuster by Imhofe)…

While there is strong changes in the tax code to promote targeted investment, and faster depreciation of assets(which interesting enough may increase costs to consumers)…i am not sure that there is adequate focus on carbon tax/pollution tax/climate damage charge…(note: they did want to restrict any such activity that may be used by government to fund research…”Climate polices should not promote wind fall taxes to government”….I guess this opens the door to tax and dividend?

“Any climate change policy should be conditional on international agreement” Thus the chicken and egg dilemna remains open….”What about China?” Good grief, lack of leadership here.

There seems to be an unusual focus on data transparency…What’s the issue here? Is data not currently being shared?

Lastly, in not so many words, seems to promote “Drill, baby, drill”, on the shelf and Anwar.