We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over
We oohed and aahed
We drove our racing cars
We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Groups 'round the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data in their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death..........

I checked the Boston Globe as well and could not find anything related to the plant.

I would much rather have seen this beast scrapped altogether. But I think what Bowles said may guide the Conservation Law Foundation on what to do next: keep up press and public pressure on the enforcement mechanisms. If they are as tight as he implies they will be, they could raise the business risk to the owners past the breaking point.

Robert Benjamin Writer and Consultant

I would be real interested in hearing the details of how he plans to make that legally enforceable. Tear the billion dollar plant down if it fails to meet expectations?

Signing off with:

"James Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies."

has to help in the credibility department.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

One common theme I have seen in the owners' proposals for these kinds of plants is that they be allowed to recover planning, siting, and construction costs through rate increases, bond issues, or other schemes that reduce their risk.

Without guaranteed cost recovery, the owners of clean coal plants have to take on all the financial risk, rather than pass it on automatically to ratepayers.

Why not make these cost recovery benefits to the owners contingent on demonstrating the results in operation?

Cost recovery contingent on performance would mean that the plant would have to first meet its emission targets for 18 months of continuous operation. An independent commission with a strong representation of public interest and environmental groups members would have to certify the results.  Any shutdowns would restart the clock.

Robert Benjamin Writer and Consultant

Focusing on emissions allows the coal and utility industry to avoid the other, even more serious argument against coal - its total environmental costs, from mountaintop removal, to loss of agricultural and recreational land, to pollution of waterways.

Clean coal proponents may convincingly argue to policymakers that their technology will reduce plant emissions to an acceptable level. But even if it does, it will do nothing to reduce the true cost of coal.

The only ways to effectively reduce these costs - preventing them in the first place, instead of cleaning them up afterward - would make coal economically unviable.

Do utility customers in Massachusetts have to share the costs that ordinary Kentuckians pay in the loss of their environment? Not so long as coal companies can pass them on to coal-state taxpayers. If the coal companies have to pay for prevention and cleanup, they will have to pass these costs on to the utilities, in Massachusetts and every other state.

Robert Benjamin Writer and Consultant

http://freepublictransit.org/index.php?pr=Take_Action

.

One day our children will look back in anger and utter disbelief at what my not-so-great generation of elders did in our time to precipitate the extirpation of biodiversity, the degradation of the environment and destruction of Earth as a fit place for human habitation.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/