Perry's letter asserts that we (and especially, Texas) can't afford to regulate greenhouse gasses, yet he goes on to make several expensive alternate recommendations. To his credit three of them would improve clean energy availability and reduce global warming:
- "The federal government must promote the modernization of the nation's electricity transmission grid." (This is necessary to make better use of existing generating capacity and to accommodate more wind power.)
- "The federal government must remove barriers that prevent substantial new investments in nuclear generation."
- "The federal government must provide for long-term regulatory and tax certainty for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies."

He also asks for development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. As these are all fundamentally expensive and very likely infeasible on the scale required to have significant effect, this amounts to asking for political cover to burn ever more fossil fuels. It would be much simpler and immediately effective to take the lowest cost of these and apply it as a tax of about $40 per ton on the fossil carbon content of all fuels, (about $35 per ton of coal, $0.24 per gallon of gasoline, etc.).

ObligatoryGCCRelevanceNote: improved electricity availability accommodates increased use of partial- and full-electric vehicles.

.

Could one have possibly imagined the federal government wanting to regulate breathing!?! We've taken the religion of Globalwarmism (now being renamed Climate Change, since the Earth is on a cooling trend - even with an increase in CO2) to incredible extremes. It makes militant Christians and Islamists look moderate! Question the god of Globalwarmisnm and one is simply shouted down - possibly fined by the government. Show peer-reviewed proof that AGW is false and one is banned from forums and labeled a heretic.

Lets all agree to be reasonable by leaving religion out of this and concentrate on cleaning up pollution. Stop wasting precious resources on non-pollutants such as water vapor and CO2.

.

drivin98

This would confirm USA's claimed exclusive divine right to pollute?

What a good way to make friends!!!

Unfortunately, many Americans (from Texas) and Canadians (from Alberta) would approve.

stomv said: "Thanks for playing. Go troll elsewhere, we adults are interested in reality based dialogue."

Wow! stomv was quick to prove Mr. Environment correct. Name calling, an attempt to belittle, and an admonishment to not post all wrapped up in two sentences. Congratulations on proving Mr. Environment's point so quickly.

Actually, plants all react to CO2 differently. For the plants that do enjoy increased CO2, all the other requirements must be in place for them to use it. Proper temperature, humidity, nutrients etc. Otherwise, they don't benefit.

My recent readings show that to develop so called clean coal plants, especially by transporting the CO2 and sequestration it underground in oil wells will result in very expensive electric power. Additionally, nuclear power plants are some of the most expensive buildings created and nuclear fuel is the most expensive of all the fuels to use, even if the fuel can be reformulated and recycled.

I believe that oil and coal should be used to form new materials and not burned in the atmosphere as a fuel. Oil is the basis of our plastic industry and coal could be reformed into coal oil and used for the same materials.

I would like to see a concerted effort to increase the renewables industry and solar industry so we can stop polluting our air and reduce the price of renewable energy power plants based on economies of scale. As many know solar panels and geothermal devices are growing in use and the price is trending downward as a result. Many ideas are taking shape to store energy in the form of giant flywheels, heat-retaining molten salts, up-hill storage ponds, and batteries.

It will take time, perhaps decades, for the U.S. to switch to cleaner forms of power and transportation if we continue the current rather cavalier approach to developing alternative energy.

It makes no difference if you believe in GHGs or not, coal, gas and oil are produce smog emissions that are expensive to clean up and expensive to the health cost of our country. In the case of automobile engines, often the smog emissions controls are more expensive than the basic engine. If you want clean air anytime soon, then you cannot allow the continued use of dirty coal. I would like to see all new power plants build from renewable energy; however, if you must continue to use fossil fuel plants as an interim measure, make them natural gas until the renewables and solar catch up. Quit burning coal...it's killing all of us!

But Henry,
They tell me polar bears have for he first time turning canibal.
They may not be complaining about GW on this site anytime soon, but you should not presume to talk for them.

John M obviously disagrees with sorm v when he congratulates for proving Mr E's criticism right in two lines.
Mr E's criticism is very schizoid when by by the second sentance he introduces religion "The religion of Globalwarmism" to the discussion.
He then prattles on for three more lines and concludes with.

"Lets all agree to be reasonable by leaving religion out of this and concentrate on cleaning up pollution. Stop wasting precious resources on non-pollutants such as water vapor and CO2."

One advantage of he net is that what is said is stone and you may meet people who are neither ignorant or silent when it comes to making a point.

ACAGal, when you mention UCLA studies of the unborn having hearts, oh my. That would imply that the unborn are "alive" you know! I don't think PM10 or less is what the "unborn" have to worry about...

Persons on this site favour limiting GHG but not limiting the extermination of "unborns." I think its a green-minded thing. Save the planet, animals and bugs, kill the babies.

Im still trying to get used to this style of thought.

Nate H.
Dover, Ohio