This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released the Climate 2030 Blueprint, a peer-reviewed study showing that the United States can dramatically cut global warming pollution while saving households and businesses in every region of the nation billions of dollars in energy costs.

The study shows that combining energy and transportation policies with a strong limit or “cap” on emissions—set at 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030—would save the average U.S. household $900 on electricity, heating, and transportation costs in 2030. In that same year, businesses would benefit from collective net energy savings of $130 billion.

Already, the Climate 2030 Blueprint is influencing the debate on climate and energy policy—two weeks ago UCS President Kevin Knobloch was invited to present the findings to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is currently crafting climate legislation.

As a UCS activist, you too can help build momentum for federal climate policy by urging President Obama and senior administration officials to play an active role in ensuring that Congress passes a strong, comprehensive climate and energy policy this year.
 more this way»

So I have been reading a lot about Hugo Chavez giving Obama a book as a gift. But it seems there was a much more valuable gift Chavez gave Obama: an island in New Jersey:

(map from the South Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance)

From BBC News:

Petty Island, an uninhabited island some 528 acres (214 ha) in size, is situated in the Delaware River in the state of New Jersey.

It was bought by Venezuela's state-run energy company, PDVS, in 1990...

At the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, President Chavez presented Barack Obama with a gift of a book: The Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano.

The book is widely considered the bible of the Latin American left.

But the BBC's Will Grant, in Caracas, says Mr Chavez also gave Mr Obama something much bigger: Petty Island.

The Venezuelan government has used it for fuel storage and refinement since 1990...

Mr Chavez announced that the island would return to the US for environmental conservation projects.
 more this way»

Last weekend was "Earth Hour," a one hour period where people were supposed to turn out their lights. I always feel that such efforts are largely a wasted effort. The impact is minimal. Doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose in raising awareness and the like, but so much more needs to be done than just one hour a year where people turn out the light.

We need to remake America's energy system. The impact of that would be enormous. It would reduce our national carbon footprint WHILE creating domestic jobs, helping farmers and clearing our air of pollutants. And you, as a consumer, can be part of this remaking of America by purchasing YOUR energy from green energy producers. For only pennies more a month per kilowatt-hour, you can be the change America needs in its energy policy.

Okay, it is slightly more complicated than that. When you buy Green Energy generally you are not necessarily actually getting electrons from green energy. What you are doing is PAYING for the building of green energy production plants and the purchase of green energy from those production plants into the grid. In essence, you are creating the market for green energy in preference to oil and coal plants.
 more this way»

I have often raised issues with nuclear energy in response to the resurgence of nuclear advocates that seem to be blogging these days. I have raised many objections, based on what I read from the Union of Concerned Scientists and other scientific sources. One source in particular I drew from was a book on global warming I discussed here and here.

Most recently I got caught up in yet another debate on Daily Kos with nuke advocates. They, quite typically, denigrated other energy sources, over sold nuke energy, and behaved rude and overbearing. And they kept claiming that nuclear waste wasn't a problem or was a soluble problem, that nuke energy was either the ONLY alternative to fossil fuels or the main alternative, and that the cost of nuke energy was cheaper than anything else.

Coincidentally I was listening the same day to an NPR interview with an expert from the Federation of American Scientist who was being asked about nuclear energy. He raised the following difficulties with nuke energy, all of which I have raised in the past:

1. Nuke energy is hugely expensive to build.

2. It takes 10 years to get a nuke plant running (which is too late given the time frames given by global warming scientists who tell us we have 1-5 years left to address global warming)

3. Reprocessing only addresses about 1% of the waste and even then it is so expensive to do that mining new uranium is more practical.

4. There is nothing currently planned for dealing with the waste. All is stored in "long-term, temporary" sites in hopes something will be worked out eventually.

5. Safety is hugely improved since the 1970's but the waste issues remain unresolved.

6. Nuke energy gets huge government subsidies on many levels including government taking responsibility for liability insurance, tax breaks for building the plants and taking over responsibility for storing waste
 more this way»

Change is in the air! Today, one of the worst eras in American history will come to a close (lasting legacy of economic depression aside), and a new, almost certainly MUCH better era will begin. It is time to celebrate.

How will you celebrate the end of the Bush regime and the beginning of the Obama Presidency? With the passing of one very depressing era, and the start of a new, very hopeful one, I am considering several ways to commemorate the event.

Perhaps it is time to show my pride as a liberal American. Be PROUD to be a liberal American. Our nation was founded on liberal principles and we should remind everyone around us that it is PATRIOTIC to be liberal.

 more this way»

Sometime back I wrote a piece on the reasons why nuclear energy is not a very good solution to our energy woes, though I do include the fact that keeping existing nuke plants going makes some sense.

Oil and coal industries are doing their best to deny global warming altogether. The nuke inudstry is taking another approach. They are embracing global warming completely...and claiming that ONLY nuclear power can save us. I was open to this, but skeptical, particularly since their claims tended to be way overblown. And, as I outlined in the article linked to above, nuke plants cannot even begin to be part of the solution, beyond what we already have, for another 5-10 or MORE years because that is how long it takes to build a new plant. We need faster solutions.

But now a new report has come out that shows that nuclear energy is just plain too expensive to be a vaible option. Again, existing plants are probably needed, but new plants just aren't worth it. I suggested that in the article above, and was slammed for it. But seems I was indeed right:
 more this way»