Comments on: Bank of America to stop financing mountaintop removal

By: ER

ER — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:01:18 +0000

What a terrific way this would have been to protest Congress’ passage of SMCRA in 1977.

By: Romm for cabinet

Romm for cabinet — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:11:25 +0000

Joe, mountain-top removal is a horrible practice, but don’t forget that B of A still is funding MASSIVE coal expansion. They are spending 100 times more money on fossil fuels than green energy. All banks fund coal, but Bank of America and Citi are the biggest culprits. I would love to see you write an article about the relationship between banks and global warming, since I actually took part in RAN’s day of action against B of A and Citi here in Tempe.

By: Bill Sweet

Bill Sweet — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:52:25 +0000

Bank of America’s decision is especially welcome in light of the Bush Administration’s last minute decision to make it even easier for mountaintop loppers to dump their debris in nearby streams:
http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/

By: Brendan

Brendan — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:23:05 +0000

Definitely off topic, but an idea for policy that should be enacted.

The government shouldn’t mandate that all companies have to be carbon neutral (and that certainly wouldn’t fly with any republican). However, the US government as an actor in the free market is allowed to make the choices it wants. So, we have a phase-in program, where companies have to be x% carbon neutral or something, working up to companies who want to work for the government need to meet several standards of environmentally friendliness and energy efficiency. This would have to be relaxed some for small businesses probably. I’m sure that as I’ve posed it is not the best way, but an idea on the theme. This plan is directly free, though indirectly may incur some costs.

The other thought is while the government is putting out proposals to be met, oftentimes they just look at the initial cost, and take out of the lower-cost bidders. Instead the government should look at 5, 10, or lifecycle cost (whichever is appropriate if any of them are). Thus, in people trying to submit the low cost building proposal, over 1 year they use incandescents. For the 5 year proposal they switch to energy efficient lights.

I hope either of these are useful or at least thought-provoking

By: Dill Weed

Dill Weed — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:47:55 +0000

(a little off topic, but relevant)

This article bears in some intriguing ways to the problems being encountered in combatting climate change.

http://www.cracked.com/ article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

What is the Monkeysphere and how does it relate to climate change?

An interesting and thought provoking article from a unexpected source; I just stumbled upon this.

Dill Weed

By: Nick santos

Nick santos — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:18:11 +0000

Question for anyone reading this who knows more about mountaintop removal than I do:

Since they are only going to stop financing operations that get more than half of their coal from mountaintop removal, how likely is it that some of these operations change only enough to meet that criteria? What percentage companies using mountaintop removal meet that criteria?

Thanks.

By: richard pauli

richard pauli — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:17:42 +0000

That is really nice.

But I expect a serious investor would see the impending doom of the coal business – either because we wake up or because we choke and die.

Either way, the looming day of decision is soon enough that large loans should not be made to such industries. Coal is poisoning its own market.