There is a major effort underway in the US to frame the debate on appropriate climate policy - it is a really big deal by all appearances ( http://www.news.wisc.edu/14643 http://www.focusthenation.org/ )
One wonders if the focus may be too narrow. A list of 10 "solutions" is set out for a vote to pick the top 5 priorities for public action (meaning that lobbyists from the organization will meet with congresspersons http://www.focusthenation.org/chooseyourfuture.php). Sadly, nuclear is not among the options presented, and there is no write-in space on the ballot. If there were, I would be tempted to change the language on these two items... Tax Global Warming Pollution Place a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) embodied in fossil fuels. Set the tax high enough to initially stabilize nationwide emissions, and then have the tax rise over time, generating steady cuts in pollution. Use tax revenue to (1) compensate lower income Americans for higher energy prices, and (2) to assist impacted workers, especially in coal mining. Cap CO2 Emissions, Auction Permits, Share Revenue with All Americans Cap total carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution emitted in the US through a system of a fixed number of permits; auction the permits to emitters; use auction revenue to (1) compensate lower income Americans for higher energy prices, and (2) to assist impacted workers, especially in coal mining. ...to include "(3) lower construction costs for new nuclear power plants and other capital intensive emission reduction projects like carbon capture and storage, IGCC, coal-bed methane recovery, pumped hydroelectric & geothermal". The 10 options listed are worthy, if not already too limited, why further limit the list to five? Putting on blinders doesn't appeal to me as a means of achieving "focus". A more circumspect vision: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/ These fellows promote the option that is currently the top vote-getter: "Invest in the clean energy revolution". Again, if I could write-in my own candidate, I would change... "Examples include, but are not limited to, energy efficiency, wind, active and passive solar, biofuels from non-food crops, geothermal, tidal, small scale hydro, storage technologies including batteries, and fuel cells." ... to include "modular gas cooled reactors, integral fast reactors, proliferation-resistant fuel cycle architecture" If we're going to spend another $25 Billion per year on energy R&D, let's make it count. We need to double the number of nuclear power plants globally. If all these other things can reduce the need for a second or third doubling, so much the better. -dl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
