Mike cc List
I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a
travesty is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA’s
Clean Power Plan activities. I have found some very lengthy documents just
released late last week on this - but can’t find anything resembling the
reference you make to “page 4-130”. Can you give a more specific citation?
The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at:
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-FEIS.pdf
Ron
On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote:
> For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the
> only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as
> described in:
>
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras
> e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
>
> that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits
> trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could
> have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the
> consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they
> have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis
> starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have
> imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use
> the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no,
> leases would be at very low prices.
>
> So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are
> just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this
> keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether
> geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and
> deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating
> consequences of warming lying ahead.
>
> Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world
> is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a
> difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the
> clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development
> ring very hollow.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> <Powder River Basin-08chap4-1.pdf>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
