We have to have enough enticement (and I think that the carbon tax will be one powerful argument) in order to actually develop these new sources of energy, so they are viable and affordable. Power generating plants are bigger polluters than cars, but cars also have to become cleaner and more efficient.

I think that Iran does “give a shit” about global warming as much as anybody else, but they do not want to be told by countries that already have nuclear plants and weapons what they can and cannot do. Would you?

Politicus – okay – you guys need to make up your mind. If you don’t want us to use our oil – even though we are the second largest producer – what are we supposed to use that is cheap, clean, and efficient? That would be nuclear. If we can’t have the nukes – then we need to increase our coal, oil, and natural gas production until the alternative energy sources are more efficient and affordable.

The point with Iran is that they don’t give a shit about “global warming.” They only want nukes to build the weapons – not for energy. You’re gullible if you believe otherwise.

The Mojave Desert is a beautiful and unique ecosystem. I bet you couldn’t say that about Manhattan, or Detroit.

Nuclear plants take up a lot of room and thus are not going to work in an urban area. There are few power plants that would work in an urban area as they require too much room and land is expensive but nice Straw Man there.

And BoBo if you look at what solar costs without taxpayer money it doesn’t make sense unless you want to make a statement.

Regarding oil – Dano – Not all energy plants are coal driven. Oil is also used to create energy and electricity – not just gasoline and other petroleum based products. The plants here in my area are hybrid oil/coal. As part of my Geology class we toured the local plants. Also, you are wrong with regards to Iran’s energy being created primarily from coal: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Background.html That is from the Iranian Energy Agency – only 1% of their consumption is from coal. 53% is natural gas and 45% is oil.

Their assertion they need nuclear plants for energy is a ruse.

No backyard?! You poor thing…I personally think that the Mojave desert is much more valuable and beautiful than many of our urban centers. How about building a nuke plant in Manhattan, for example?

And in California they can’t even build a solar power plant in the desert!

http://harrisonprice.com/2009/03/25/please-dont-spoil-our-views/

I think my maff was right!

Actually, this is an experimental, molten salt solar plant, so it is expensive. Just think how much the first nuclear, or for that matter the first coal, or oil-fired one cost way back in the past, as compared to later ones.

Would you be willing to lease you backyard for a nuke plant? I think that they are looking for locations, as nobody wants them anywhere near.

That solar power plant will cost $700 to build and will produce 100 megawatts, or 100,000 kilowatts.

There is a nuke plant that is not yet built but will produce power, once constructed, at $1,000 per kilowatt.

If I did my maff correctly (I was an English major) your solar plant will cost $7,000 per kilowatt.

Hence, solar is BS.

Let private industry develop solar, wind, or jogging power generation… I don’t care! Fact is, solar is the most expensive of all “alternative” forms of energy to generate and its returns are not so great. And what’s so green about it when you look at all the diesel, coal, and nuclear input energy you need to build it?

You guys must have bought into the buy the world a Coke ad with the green hills and people running all over being happy. The reality is solar power and wind power are like a Mercedes-Benz S550… it’s a great car, it’s a safe car, it’s an advanced car… but few people can afford it.

And another guy argues that solar is bullshit. Why is it bullshit? Because it’s expensive and doesn’t work all the time. Well, yes those are true, but these answers beg the questions, “Why is it expensive?” and “Why does it not work all the time?” Have you asked yourself these questions?

Second: there are new, improved solar solutions being implemented. Among them ways to store the energy in the form of heat, so electricity can continue to be produced even at night and on cloudy days. It is also getting cheaper by the hour. There’s also wind power, wave power, geothermal, methane produced by many sources, including farts, etc, etc.

There are many issues to be resolved, but that doesn’t mean that we should just give up.

I don’t think that Obama actually “wants” Iran to have nuclear power and we already have it. Just go visit Three Mile Island.

Obama wants Iran to have nuclear power not the US. I’ll take the Republican side!

I have had Tofurkey only.

In any case, I am not a great fan of nuclear power plants. They are too dangerous and I am confident that we can actually develop safer and more efficient energy sources than that.

Just wait, the price of oil will keep inching up and the other forms of energy will keep getting cheaper. What is this obsession with instant gratification? Think a little further ahead than tomorrow!

Let me see, the conservatives are promoting nuclear energy in the U.S., but are ready to do almost anything for Iran not to have it. Right?

I guess that I am among the lucky ones, as I have never in my life bought a tofu bar. Have you?

If Dems are serious they would build nuclear power plants.

http://animal-farm.us/change/more-on-crap-trade-491

Well, I guess it depends on how you define facts and who you think is credible. Christ, even Bush came around to understanding this issue.

That said, I have to agree with what is being said about cap and trade. My view is that the ship has sailed and our kids will have to deal with yet another mess we have left them. As Ken Kesey wrote in Catch-22, Oh well, what the hell.

It won’t pass the Senate and when Clinton tried the BTU tax the same thing happened and the Dems lost the House.

Let’s pray for a repeat!

What’s your “constructive” suggestion, then? To keep on driving the Ford Excursions, to keep polluting with carbon emissions and to poison everything with all kinds of chemicals?

As far as no credible evidence being out there, that’s as the British say – poppycock.
Climate change is not limited to temperature variations. Other factors come into play as well and people DO have an impact, bigger, or smaller, but certainly significant.

I will not go into minute details here, but the so-called “natural” cycle is progressing much faster than it probably ever had during the history of the Earth. That is significant in its own right.

A carbon tax for polluting would be not just a source of revenue, but a catalyst to modify our use and production of energy.

Even greenpeace says this is a bad bill. If the biggest environmentalists don’t support it – how can it be good for the environment?