Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009, ignoring what happened in the six years since then.
Sent from my iPad On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote: See attachment On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: 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 <mmacc...@comcast.net> 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of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long).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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
